Nvidia GPUs require a custom kernel module. If you expect the average user to care that much about their computer, you are silly.

You are doing modifications that are meant for experienced users when youbson’t know what you are getting into

I know exactly what modification I’ve done and why. In fact, lots of distros ship with these modules then don’t update them properly. Despite that I’ve solved this issue many times. It’s just a time-consuming task that I don’t want to do. I have other hobbies.

Kindly I propose stopping this stupid discussion because you only half know what you are talking about.

You know nothing of what you talk about. You are extremely biased as you’ve pointed out in your other comments and proud of it. No one is saying people shouldn’t use Linux, people here are saying they don’t want a chore for an OS.

Also, your attitude is the biggest reason Linux isn’t a popular desktop OS. The Linux community keeps mass adoption away with this sort of attitude. I recommend stopping this conversation at the risk of truly exposing yourself as the angry troglodyte you are.

Sure, it was a bit hyperbole but I’ve certainly seen that exact thing on Arch/Manjaro, one of the more popular distros. I’ve also seen a handful of updates on Fedora and Ubuntu just fully brick the system. My whole point with that was that Windows checks its updates against far more configurations than a single Linux distro ever could. One of the most common things I’ve seen Linux do on multiple distros is update the Linux kernel without waiting for all my installed kernel modules to be updated to work with that version. In a lot of cases, this has left my computer unbootable until I rescued it either changing grub or using another live CD.

It is so obivious that you have never used linux… or you have only tried vanilla arch or something

I’ve used it since about 2007. I’ve used Ubuntu, Fedora, Linux Mint, Manjaro, and Arch, Was a FreeBSD porter for a few years, and have a lot of experience releasing games for Linux, Mac, and consoles. It’s clear you have no clue about me and are mindlessly defending an OS you are overly obsessed with. Don’t worry, I was there a few years ago. There is help out there.

Good! States need to follow suit.

Yeah, basically. Which raises a question: how companies with much smaller market share can justify providing support, but Nvidia, a company that dominates the GPU market, can’t?

I feel like it’s the opposite as Nvidia provides a lot of Linux support by providing an open source kernel module (https://github.com/NVIDIA/open-gpu-kernel-modules) while AMD gets proprietary blobs into the Linux kernel ( https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/configure-2d-and-3d-graphics-acceleration). How come Linux is supporting AMD more than Nvidia currently?

Elon Musk should get directly sued from the State of California for active sabotage of it’s public infrastructure.

I used Linux as a daily driver for 5 years and was a FreeBSD porter for 2 years after that. I’ve been using Linux every year to pop in and see the issues and their current state. In this year alone, I’ve seen issues with Fedora, Linux Mint, and Manjaro. Hell, even right now the Fedora Live installer won’t launch on my desktop. It hard freezes before it can even get the installer up.

On windows it’s trivial.

Both Intel and AMD GPUs work fine on Linux. Both work fine with Wayland.

k, so for the least used hardware, linux works fine. Good to know.

Wayland has been around for over a decade and has been in a usable state for the last 3 or so years.

Eh, no, KDE last year just barely started working with Wayland.

Attributing the fact that Nvidia stuff still barely works to the fact that some distros have made Wayland the default is just stupid wrong.

The popular distros are what counts. Debian, Ubuntu, and Fedora. Just because you have some minor 0.00001% usage distro that still defaults to X11 doesn’t really matter.

Besides, Nvidia experience isn’t/wasn’t the smoothest even on Xorg. Linux desktop is simply not a priority for Nvidia.

Worked well enough for me to run into the dozen of other issues that Linux has. While I am sure you will just blow it off as not the true fault of Linux, the result is the same. I like most people want a usable environment. Linux doesn’t provide that out of the box. You can argue excuses for it all day but the end of it is, it’s not going to be a useful OS until it works out of the box with things like wacom tablets (which are broken with nvidia drivers), xbox controllers (which are just broken unless you do research and install the correct driver), and tons of incompatible software (which I am sure you can blame the developers for.) The end result is the same though, you don’t have a working environment.

Linux is only a problem for folks used to someone else.

I assume you mean for folks used to something else and if that’s what you mean, no, it’s not. People want to play minecraft, fortnite, and use office without problems. Hell, right now with how the Nvidia/Wayland situation is, I can’t even launch the fedora 36 live cd to install it without it crashing on my 3080, amd ryzen 9.

Also, the article is about ewaste. Meaning, these machines are going to be trashed unless someone puts linux on them. So I’d say your diatribe of misinformation was misplaced.

No, it doesn’t, It means they’ll be using Windows 10 without patching. At the EoL, Windows 10 doesn’t uninstall itself.

At least one computer in every US household (these stats show 2 but let’s just keep it one https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107206/average-number-of-connected-devices-us-house/ since it is an average). It’s hard to say that desktops are mostly used in business since there are only 754,633 office workers in the US (https://www.zippia.com/office-worker-jobs/demographics/) and 131.43 million households. ( https://www.statista.com/statistics/183635/number-of-households-in-the-us/ )

Also, many people used Windows XP after its EoL, so much so that they increased it. It’s likely going to be the case here. Windows 10 EoL doesn’t mean the end of use. People seriously, care little about security. They don’t care about having the latest updates. They care about using a functioning computer.

Nvidia works fine on X11. You might say it’s Nvidia’s fault for not supporting Wayland more or not having open drivers but the truth is, it doesn’t truly matter. What matters is the end result.

People are mad at MS for being MS. MS isn’t great, Windows is flawed, and there should be better alternatives. People would be quick to move to Linux if it worked for them. Most desktops now are for gaming. Most gamers have Nvidia. Linux famously has issues with Nvidia because 90% of the distros out there decided to jump on to Wayland before it was even half done. If that’s the state of Linux where my 8-year-old Windows 10 machine still gets updates regularly and runs fine. Windows 10 will actively prevent you from trying to upgrade and bricking your system whereas Linux is absolutely like “Go ahead, hope you read all the patch notes for the 1000s different updates you are about to get!” Most people will go with Windows because Linux doesn’t work for them.

Overall Linux has the power to be good, it just doesn’t have the community will power to do so.

I feel like you are then gate-keeping the term privacy-focused to mean “You must use Linux otherwise you aren’t privacy-focused!” Either way, this points back to my original point. You need data to make this claim that more privacy-focused people use Linux. Otherwise, the opposite claim holds just as much water.

Privacy focused people use more often Linux

I question the validity of that. We don’t really have any stats on that and while at face value, logically it makes sense but a quick search of that exact phrase gives me recommendations for all 3 major desktop operating systems. Cyber Security Experts I would say are a great representative of privacy-focused people and here is a bunch of them saying they wouldn’t use Linux as the host OS: https://www.quora.com/Do-cyber-security-professionals-prefer-to-use-Mac-or-Linux-as-a-main-operating-system

While anecdotal and thus can’t be confirmed one way or another that privacy-focused people use Linux, it creates enough of a question to outright dismiss taking the statement as pure fact just from the common sense argument.

Lastly, one thing we can do is extrapolate data. ProtonMail is a privacy-focused company with 70 million users. https://www.wired.com/story/proton-mail-calendar-drive-vpn/ So then if ProtonMail is privacy-focused and has 70 million users (far more than the amount of Linux users on Steam as a benchmark.) then why aren’t they putting out Linux desktop support or releasing their app on F-Droid. One could extrapolate that this company which is privacy-focused and has 70 million users still doesn’t see these things as important because they feel like they couldn’t get enough users from supporting these things.

Potentially though, it might be bad to assume Proton is acting towards its own userbase and maybe for some reason it’s actively acting against it. I feel like in that case, if I was a daily Linux user, I wouldn’t want to use proton.

Linux and F-Droid are neat and all but are almost zero users.

Linux makes up 3% of the desktop market share. You could count ChromeOS as another 3% but that’s pointless when using proton. You might as well use Gmail then.

F-Droid doesn’t provide any stats at all but almost no one even knows about F-Droid unless you are a massive privacy nerd. Even then at least those I talk to still use Google Play while understanding where their information is going rather than abandoning it entirely.

Proton is trying to be a mainstream solution to encrypted and privacy-focused email. Getting it on Windows, Mac, Android (Google Play), and iOS is far more important to them than getting it on F-Droid, the popular Linux repos, or anything else. For good reason, in my opinion, they are making a business.

Valve pays 0 dollars for publishers to be exclusive to Steam.

Being on Steam has always been a benefit to publishers. Even in 2004, people wanted on the platform because it’s the platform that Half-Life 2 launched. That is a built-in install base that will have advertising right in their face about your game. Valve pays 0 dollars because Valve doesn’t have to pay money, they already have other ways of paying.

I never said any of them are any better, just because it’s industry standard doesn’t make it good. If you pay publishers to release games exclusively on your platform and you are not actively funding development you are anti-competitive in my eyes. (Also Stadia doesn’t exist anymore)

EA partnered with Valve to bring EA games to Steam. (https://www.techspot.com/news/82538-ea-confirms-rumors-partnership-valve-bring-games-back.html) This was a direct agreement made with Steam. Not only has money changed hands but Valve has adjusted their revenue rates to get people to release on their platform because of this. Steam has built-in exclusivity clauses. You can release on other platforms but you can’t price your game differently on other platforms. Additionally, if you have a store page on Steam, you must release it on Steam at the same time or sooner than everyone else. Valve does anti-competitive stuff like this all of the time. People just make excuses or accept it but this is Valve driving away competition.

Most of the time they try to snatch up games that are already finished or were already planning to release on Steam/GOG. Sometimes they even pull games from other stores (Rocket League and Fall Guys) after they released or just before they release (Metro). That’s not the practices of someone who wants to compete but someone who wants to get into the market by force without actively doing anything good for the industry.

You should look up where most of the Valve games come from. Counter-Strike, Dota 2, L4D, Portal, Team Fortress, etc were all game studios bought up and told they’d only get to make games for Valve. Remember In the Valley of Gods? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campo_Santo_(company) Valve bought the team under the promise they’d continue making a game and just put the dev team on Half-Life: Alyx. I’d say Valve is almost worse because they don’t make publishing deals, they’ll buy and adsorb you into their collective.

It’s more relevant data than you are providing.

Yes, because there is a basic assumption. Those projects aren’t consumer-facing games. Those are hobbies. You know it and you are simply arguing in bad faith. I know actual game developers who released their games for free or under a pay-what-you-want model. They refuse to do so again because they can’t support themselves by doing it. I am a game developer and I won’t release my games for free because I need to support myself. There is all the data you need. Find me other data saying otherwise.

Not at all. I just assumed you understood the basics of quality.