technology So I'm considering switching to Linux?

[StephenP 106]

I have no idea whether this would go here or in the Media section, so if this needs to be moved, then by all means, move it. c:

With that out of the way, I've used some Linux operating systems (Specifically Ubuntu, Mint, and Zorin), and I actually liked them better than Windows. The problem that's keeping me from switching is old Game Maker games.

Linux requires Wine to use Windows .exe files. The problem I come across is the sound. At first, I got zero sound. Tinkering with it a bit I managed to get sound on everyyhing except single .exe games, or anything else that doesn't require an installer. So if anyone has a fix for that I would love to know. 'Cause I find it rather irritating.

Other than that I would like some opinions, is it worth it? And which OS would be the best?

[PROJECT: Simon 3,955]

If it's the game you're trying to get, you should definitely go for windows. So far I've never heard anything good about Linux     

[Lunar Echo 10,335]

Apart from making things more "custom" I'd stick to Windows.

[Untitled Goose Q 5,138]

If it's the game you're trying to get, you should definitely go for windows. So far I've never heard anything good about Linux

You've obviously not talked to me about Linux.

 

 

Linux gamer here, you need to use WINE to run most .exe files.

 

If you are not technically minded, Windows is probably a better option for games., but Linux is free, so it cots nothing to try it.

 

EDIT: Didnt read OP properly, PM me, I'll see if I can do anything to help.

[Nightfall Gloam 18,293]

Personally, Linux has worked out really well for me (I actually use my Linux partition more than my Windows one). It is worth it, but, due to a lack of support from hardware manufacturers, you are going to have to get used to going into the terminal and looking stuff up on the internet to fix some issues (I still have trouble getting GRUB to properly shutdown my laptop, and I think I might PM one of the Linux users on these forums to try to get it fixed, I'd also like to find out how to remove Java, but that has nothing to do with GRUB). 

[Lisa 5,553]

I wouldn't bother with Linux unless you're a bit tech savvy. Linux doesn't have a lot of compatibility and as such, you have to use Wine / other wrappers pretty much constantly.

[honk friend 1,987]

I feel like switching to Linux would be impractical if gaming is what you're going for. 

[deadprofile 1,123]

I really don't like WINE. I actually have dual booting capabilities for my computer. I prefer light OS sytems (I like Xubuntu personally) because they take up less room and run overall better on older computers (which I have). This makes games easier to deal with (less lag).  I do everything online and anything not gaming or Solidworks on my linux system, and everything that absolutely needs Windows on my Windows system. I don't particuarily like using 2 OS's...but I also don't want to fiddle with windows emulators, especially with my CAD software. I only play Minecraft on my computer right now, so I am able to boot that in Linux without WINE, but some of my other games do not have the support for linux systems. 

[SkullcandyPegasus 604]

DON'T LET YOUR DREMS B DREMS

[Untitled Goose Q 5,138]

I really don't like WINE. I actually have dual booting capabilities for my computer. I prefer light OS sytems (I like Xubuntu personally) because they take up less room and run overall better on older computers (which I have). This makes games easier to deal with (less lag). I do everything online and anything not gaming or Solidworks on my linux system, and everything that absolutely needs Windows on my Windows system. I don't particuarily like using 2 OS's...but I also don't want to fiddle with windows emulators, especially with my CAD software. I only play Minecraft on my computer right now, so I am able to boot that in Linux without WINE, but some of my other games do not have the support for linux systems.

Have you considered a virtual machine? Might be better for you than dual booting.

[deadprofile 1,123]

Have you considered a virtual machine? Might be better for you than dual booting.

 

My computer is too old for virtual boxes. really bogs down my system for some reason. :/  but that's what you get when your compy is 8 years old. I have upgraded anything except the HDD

[Untitled Goose Q 5,138]

My computer is too old for virtual boxes. really bogs down my system for some reason. :/  but that's what you get when your compy is 8 years old. I have upgraded anything except the HDD

Might be worth it when you replace your computer then.

[Guest]

I have used Linux fairly extensively, as well as OSX and Windows. While newer distros of Linux have gotten far more user friendly (especially since ubuntu) they are far from systems you would want to use beyond general use and stability purposes. Linux has come a long way and if you are looking for a system that is stable, doesn't crash often and secure, Linux is a great pick for general operations such as word processing, using the internet or watching video.

 

However once you get into things like game, art software, etc... Linux stops being as useful. While WINE can help a lot, you are not going to get 100% success, more like 50%. Half the time WINE will make it work, the other half, not so much. If you are someone who plays a lot of intensive games, Linux just isn't a good choice for you. If you are someone who does a lot of word processing and is just a general use user, Linux may be perfect for your needs.

[PROJECT: Simon 3,955]

 

 

Linux gamer here, you need to use WINE to run most .exe files.

Does wine always work? '~' Because I don't think it does ._. 

[Untitled Goose Q 5,138]

Does wine always work? '~' Because I don't think it does ._. 

Not always... but a WINE bottle set up to work for Skyrim will work for the majority of games, in my experience. 

[Raini Skies 78]

If you want to see if what you're trying to run is compatible with WINE, search for it here

[Guest]

Does wine always work? '~' Because I don't think it does ._. 

No, but if you send in reports to the people making it, you can improve compatibility with it.

[deadprofile 1,123]

Might be worth it when you replace your computer then.

 

Yup. Bought a new computer recently specifically to use Solidworks. For an official CAD program, I would not trust a virtual machine because CAD will be heavily degraded by a virtual machine. Solidworks is already a powerhouse of a program if I want to use it to its full potential. Plus, VM's haven't been proven to support Solidworks.

 

But that reminds me of something for the OP on their question...If you do decide to use a virtual machine on linux, make sure your linux is a lighter version like an LDXE, XFCE or straight Debian so that the system doesn't get bogged down. Unlike Solidworks or other CAD programs, games should work fine on VM (as far as I know)

[Codelyy 1,290]

@StephenP. Hey there . Since the subject of this post relates to Operating systems, i'm moving it to media.

[Biggybrony 244]

What does Linux offer that other OSs don't? Not a snarky comment, I just don't know.

[Celtore 2,770]

What does Linux offer that other OSs don't? Not a snarky comment, I just don't know.

 

Ok, I'm game. It's a Sunday, I've got nothing better to do, I'll post a few examples

 

One big thing is safe and easy software installation and updating. Most Linux distributions have software installed which allow you to download and update software from their servers. This is much better than Windows in my opinion where is no unifying updating utility and all free software needs to be downloaded from the web.

 

Linux also has no dedicated GUI, unlike Windows machines and Macs. You can use any GUI you darn well please, or even none at all and just live in the command line. For dedicated server machines, being able to run no graphical interface is a fantastic option for maximizing performance. For desktops, you get a choice of what desktop you want. Weaker machines can opt for something like LXDE or XFCE while the more powerful machines can handle the more feature-filled desktops like Gnome, KDE or Cinnamon.

 

Just as maybe one more thing, the ease of troubleshooting. If someone has a problem, you could tell them "Type this in the terminal and reboot." It might not seem as user friendly as graphical menus, but it's a heck of a lot easier than trying to describe to someone how to go through the control panel to set some obscure setting. I've been there, it sucks and it's unbelievably frustrating.

 

It's not a perfect operating system by any means, but it's pretty darn good for what it is. For gaming though, not yet. Steam is helping with the problem and there are some decent titles, but don't expect every AAA game company to offer support or .exe files to run flawlessly. If you want to know if an .exe file can be run on linux, check winehq first to see what other people have reported. Sometimes they also offer suggestions on how to get the program to run better too, or ways to solve glitches with the emulator.

[deadprofile 1,123]

What does Linux offer that other OSs don't? Not a snarky comment, I just don't know.

for one thing....

That and its very customizable, and depending on the linux, very dedicated support.

I have never needed a anti-virus/malware software on linux either. People just don't go after linux systems. It's not immune by any means, but because so few people use linux compared to Windows and Mac, it's not likely. That and the fact you download programs through a package manager, not a website or outside, third party source.

There are many perks to linux, but it's quite a learning curve if you aren't tech savy (as I once was...I struggled for a long time), but for every linux OS, there are dedicated forums and other users that will help you get used to linux as well as answer problems you may encounter. The customer support is very much made by the customer for the customer (in a nutshell).

[Untitled Goose Q 5,138]

What does Linux offer that other OSs don't? Not a snarky comment, I just don't know.

In addition to what the other users have said, it also tends to be more lightweight and stable (at least compared to Windows, I have not used OSX for ages).

 

I have seen computers that struggle to run Windows due to being really old run Linux as if the machine was brand new.

 

Oh, and no chance for Blue Screen of Death.

[Pulse Wave 44]

What does Linux offer that other OSs don't? Not a snarky comment, I just don't know.

Ok, I'm game. It's a Sunday, I've got nothing better to do, I'll post a few examples

 

One big thing is safe and easy software installation and updating. Most Linux distributions have software installed which allow you to download and update software from their servers. This is much better than Windows in my opinion where is no unifying updating utility and all free software needs to be downloaded from the web.

Package management. Sure, it does annoy Windows converts that they cannot download some *.exe installer with their browser, double-click it in their file manager, and the new application is installed. But you don't even need your browser to install stuff under Linux. You have the package management which is like an app store on steroids without the actual "store" because you can't buy anything for money because nothing costs money. If you want to install something, you install it with the package management.

 

It also keeps everything on your machine up-to-date. Imagine that your Windows Update (or whatever it's called under Windows 10) also downloads and installs updates for Steam, every last one of your games, Firefox, Thunderbird, VLC, iTunes, Photoshop, FL Studio, no matter what it is and who made it. All done by one tool.

 

Besides, there is no "patch day". You don't get one batch of updates once a month and have to sit and wait for three and a half weeks with an insecure machine because next patch day is in three and a half weeks. If you run Linux, it's always patch day. If there's an update, it's rolled out here and now and not when the next big batch is scheduled.

 

Linux also has no dedicated GUI, unlike Windows machines and Macs. You can use any GUI you darn well please, or even none at all and just live in the command line. For dedicated server machines, being able to run no graphical interface is a fantastic option for maximizing performance. For desktops, you get a choice of what desktop you want. Weaker machines can opt for something like LXDE or XFCE while the more powerful machines can handle the more feature-filled desktops like Gnome, KDE or Cinnamon.

Even GNOME 3 is more tweakable than the Windows UI, and that's saying something because GNOME 3 isn't really very tweakable out of the box. KDE Plasma and Xfce can be configured and tweaked way beyond a Windows user's imagination.

 

There's even more to it — other than Linux being free as in freedom and free speach and open-source, stuff that Windows converts don't care a bit about.

 

Your system will never demand you register an account at the distributor. Even if it should which is unlikely, switch to another distro — while keeping your user's home directory and therefore your personal files and settings intact.

 

As you said, Linux users have the choice. They can choose between distros, they can choose between window managers/desktop environments. Windows users are stuck with 1 system from 1 supplier and 1 desktop environment.

 

Now how about having more characters on your keyboard and being able to type words and especially names in languages that aren't English? Windows offers you one extra level with an additional character on three keys. Linux offers you two extra levels (third level is usually with Alt Gr, fourth level is with Shift + Alt Gr, you can configure that) with up to two additional characters on most keys. You even have 13 dead keys altogether for even more characters. This is how the US-International layout looks like under Linux. The regular German layouts, by the way, put at least one extra character on every alphanumeric key except for the space bar. I could type just about every European language on my keyboard. And if that isn't sufficient, you can set up a Compose key and have something like ASCII codes, but self-explanatory.

 

Just as maybe one more thing, the ease of troubleshooting. If someone has a problem, you could tell them "Type this in the terminal and reboot." It might not seem as user friendly as graphical menus, but it's a heck of a lot easier than trying to describe to someone how to go through the control panel to set some obscure setting. I've been there, it sucks and it's unbelievably frustrating.

You don't even have to reboot that often.

 

Also, yes, the shell is a feature. As archaic it might seem, it's actually quite powerful because unlike applications that can only be controlled via a GUI, shell applications can be scripted. And certain things are faster via the shell once you get used to them.

 

Some people also complain about the many seemingly cryptic config files. Well, the Windows parallel to them isn't shiny nicely matte and flat point-and-click dialogues, it's the registry. A humongous proprietary binary blob that requires special software to modify, and if something goes wrong while tweaking an application, you can render your entire system unbootable. You can't do that under Linux because no config file controls both some app and the system itself.

 

I have never needed a anti-virus/malware software on linux either.

ClamAV. Also, a couple of commercial anti-virus solutions have been ported to Linux.

 

People just don't go after linux systems. It's not immune by any means, but because so few people use linux compared to Windows and Mac, it's not likely.

Well, it is more secure than Windows — every *nix is — for one reason: Users have limited rights and cannot change anything on the system (anything outside their home directory) itself. Changes to the system require root or super-user rights which have to be acquired with a password.

 

On the other hoof, there has been a survey that revealed that some 95% of all private Windows users use their machines with full admin rights. This means that any program started on the system in the userspace can do with the system whatever it wants, e.g. install or uninstall stuff. People don't even heed the advice to switch to a limited user because setting it up is an extra effort, and gaining admin rights whenever you want to install something is an extra effort. It's more comfortable to be admin all the time. That's why Microsoft introduced the UAC — because they couldn't get folks to use limited user accounts. Some are even so lazy that they switch off the UAC because it bugs them to always do some confirmation click whenever they install something.