AMD Radeon Software Crimson Edition Is A Letdown On Linux

So looking it up there do seem to be more amd emails than other here
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-ati/log/
Still there are a fair number of @gmail, @redhat, and @canonical emails in there.


Just the other day someone at redhat submitted a patch enabling tesselation on pre-gcn gpus
https://plus.google.com/104877287288155269055/posts/5VykWM6F5WQ

Here's a patch from april developed by an intel person for the radeon driver
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/amd/drm-amd/commit/?id=16bb079e45f2c3a795b6b0546535cd6466275ec5

Also to your point about there not being many open drivers; pretty much every component on the market aside from nvidia cards and broadcomm wireless chips are available with good open drivers.
These things should have been in the open source driver for years, not added years later. Its been what 6 years since tessellation has been there, and now its coming out for Linux users?

I'm talking about current gen hardware, open source drivers usually aren't released with the release of new hardware, its usually around the time next generation products come out open source drivers are released for previous generation products.

And by then only a few really care about future support.

If a company is going to have open source drivers they still need to pretty much do the same due diligence as their closed source, the only thing beneficial to them in an open source environment is they will get more support, but they have to support the people that are doing code for them, nothing will get done or take years like you have shown, if they don't support properly.
 
These things should have been in the open source driver for years, not added years later. Its been what 6 years since tessellation has been there, and now its coming out for Linux users?

I'm talking about current gen hardware, open source drivers usually aren't released with the release of new hardware, its usually around the time next generation products come out open source drivers are released for previous generation products.

And by then only a few really care about future support.

If a company is going to have open source drivers they still need to pretty much do the same due diligence as their closed source, the only thing beneficial to them in an open source environment is they will get more support, but they have to support the people that are doing code for them, nothing will get done or take years like you have shown, if they don't support properly.
Mesa didn't even have support for tesselation until July. So drivers couldn't implement it until that was finished. Firmware for modern Nvidia cards is encrypted and not provided so no progress to be made there. Open source linux drivers are largely AMD and Intel pushing things forward.
 
Mesa didn't even have support for tesselation until July. So drivers couldn't implement it until that was finished. Firmware for modern Nvidia cards is encrypted and not provided so no progress to be made there. Open source linux drivers are largely AMD and Intel pushing things forward.


nV had tessellation working in beta drivers for Linux out pretty quickly after mesa implemented it. Faster than either Intel or AMD not by much but 2 months or so....

This is the problem, it takes too long for these things to get done in Linux, support is not there for open source community.
 
You're never going to use open source drivers for gaming or anything GPU demanding, it's that simple.

At this stage, hardware support under Linux using open source drivers is amazing, in my opinion better than Windows driver support (when you plug in new hardware, it just works under Linux, no mucking around with drivers). But when it comes to graphics cards and gaming, it's Nvidia or nothing.
 
I'm talking about current gen hardware, open source drivers usually aren't released with the release of new hardware, its usually around the time next generation products come out open source drivers are released for previous generation products.
Intel releases open drivers somewhere around a year before launching their products. As fluid mentions driver support has gotten to a fantastic level in linux. You simply don't need to be aware of them aside from graphics drivers (and only if you game).

If a company is going to have open source drivers they still need to pretty much do the same due diligence as their closed source, the only thing beneficial to them in an open source environment is they will get more support, but they have to support the people that are doing code for them, nothing will get done or take years like you have shown, if they don't support properly.
I feel like you're arguing for closed drivers here which I disagree with a good amount. Open development is a) better for users and b) has proven to lead to better software (see the linux kernel).
 
Intel releases open drivers somewhere around a year before launching their products. As fluid mentions driver support has gotten to a fantastic level in linux. You simply don't need to be aware of them aside from graphics drivers (and only if you game).

One year prior, you know why they do that? That's how long it takes for driver development, how many other companies you know do that? How much support does Intel give its Linux community? From what I remember a lot more than AMD or ATi has ever done, again, they support their community well and the results are good.

I feel like you're arguing for closed drivers here which I disagree with a good amount. Open development is a) better for users and b) has proven to lead to better software (see the linux kernel).
There are positives and negatives to both and that wasn't where I was coming from, this is specific to AMD's support of Linux drivers for their products.

Without a company pushing and helping the community it doesn't matter if its open source, you will end up with sub par drivers.

We have seen this from any software that is open sourced actually, there needs to be guidance and management of how the software is built as well.
 
One year prior, you know why they do that? That's how long it takes for driver development, how many other companies you know do that? How much support does Intel give its Linux community? From what I remember a lot more than AMD or ATi has ever done, again, they support their community well and the results are good.
It takes that long for it to get into the kernel and yes it is more than AMD has ever done... until now.


There are positives and negatives to both and that wasn't where I was coming from, this is specific to AMD's support of Linux drivers for their products.

Without a company pushing and helping the community it doesn't matter if its open source, you will end up with sub par drivers.

We have seen this from any software that is open sourced actually, there needs to be guidance and management of how the software is built as well.
I disagree, I think there are no downsides to open development. Yes software needs guidance much like any project software or otherwise. Anarchy is does not get shit done.
 
I disagree, I think there are no downsides to open development. Yes software needs guidance much like any project software or otherwise. Anarchy is does not get shit done.


There are many down sides to open development, one is source control, another is security, another is timely deployment. Of course there are down sides to closed source as well.

It mainly comes down to management of the building of the software, unfortunately with open source there is no control of people working on it since the community is working for "free", they can't be expected to finish something on a time table. Project size is also a determining factor on the quality of open source vs. closed source, drivers are large complex projects you can't have people going on and off the team, it will cause issues with the code. Another thing management has to look into mitigating such fall out.
 
It takes that long for it to get into the kernel and yes it is more than AMD has ever done... until now.



I disagree, I think there are no downsides to open development. Yes software needs guidance much like any project software or otherwise. Anarchy is does not get shit done.

So if open source has no downsides, where are the killer apps on Linux that put to shame Window/Apple programs? How about original programs that got started on Linux which then was copied by others on Windows/Apple because they are so good? Or is it more like Linux programs and U/I copying what is already been done on Windows/Apple?

I do agree with razor1 there are positives and negatives to Open/Closed source programming or code. I also think it is a little naive to think if something like Nvidia drivers was suddenly open source that the Linux community would be able to really improve the graphic drivers - Nvidia keeping them closed can also protect the community from bad code in the end which could give Nvidia a bad image. Something like Nvidia drivers has to be the most complex type of drivers to make due to the different API's, advance hardware as well as different GPU's they have to work on. Much could go wrong if badly handled.

AMD open source drivers with the vast Linux community knowledge and know how - have they really made steller AMD drivers or does the small team working on Radeon drivers at AMD still make better drivers which does not even compare to what Nvidia is doing. So for AMD you have both the vast experience Linux programming masters and AMD guru's vs. Nvidia closed door development yet contrary to Linux general mentality, Nvidia sets the standards for graphics drivers :D.

Basically if the big corporations invest, promote, develop on a big scale, Linux could really take off. With the right investments (Money, not free, closed programming to get an edge) and products - like Android. So I see a commercial shift with Linux which will make it viable but with a number of closed proprietary systems like maybe Nintendo's next generation game machine using Vulcan that will promote Linux in the end. Valve bringing more gaming to Linux, hardware using Linux also helps.

As for the free end of Linux software, virtually 99% of it I would throw away because better software I find and use on Windows.
 
There are many down sides to open development, one is source control, another is security, another is timely deployment.
None of those are an issue for the linux kernel so, I'm not sure what you're getting at. All projects have maintainers that have the choice to not accept code if it's of poor quality.
 
What games run better on Linux? Even Valve's games are slower on their own OS

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/...gnificant-performance-hit-for-steamos-gaming/

What hardware is this running on?

I don't know if it's just me, but nowhere in that article or the linked article to "Stick Windows on your Steambox" can I find any mention of just what hardware they’re running?

Because my own findings show Valves own titles to run noticeably faster under Linux than they do under Windows, HL2 even runs really well on my Nvidia powered Nexus 9! DOTA 2 runs far better under Linux than it does under Windows. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM8qXbJqMvs

However, this is the point. I'm running Nvidia hardware using the best closed source drivers available for gaming under Linux. I suspect the difference in my findings vs the findings outlined in the links you supplied are due to the fact that Ars Technica are running either Intel or AMD GPU's using open source drivers, and as a result I don't find the results at all surprising. In fact the point of the whole review seems to be a thinly disguised attempt at discrediting gaming under Linux.

I'm fairly certain the platform used was running an Intel iGPU with open source drivers, about as far as you can get from an effective Linux based gaming platform!

And Shadow Of Mordor is one of the worst DX to OpenGL ports available for Linux (basically just a DX wrapper), making one suspect what the reasoning was behind using this game as the predominant title in the review in the first place? The hope is that a more open API such as Vulkan will rectify this laziness in development.

This is why I despise review sites, at times I can't help but suspect obvious bias and flawed testing methods. I mean, if they had so much trouble dual booting SteamOS, why not just run Ubuntu? The two OS's are identical with the exception of the desktop manager! And why go to so much trouble to avoid any mention of what hardware they were running? The review is also from November 2014, a lot has changed since then, even though useless review sites still copy/paste the results from this review in 2015!

So if open source has no downsides, where are the killer apps on Linux that put to shame Window/Apple programs? How about original programs that got started on Linux which then was copied by others on Windows/Apple because they are so good? Or is it more like Linux programs and U/I copying what is already been done on Windows/Apple?

There's a number of 'software packages' (this is a PC, not a tablet, it doesn't run apps) that are cross platform, I use them daily and they run just as well under Linux as they do under Windows. Alternatively, there are also a number of packages that are alternatives for popular software packages under Windows that I use daily that also work fine under Linux and I don't have an issue with them, I even find Libre Office to be remarkably compatible with .docx files once you use font substitution to use a binary compatible font supplied by Google to replace the ones patented by Microsoft.

Why, exactly, is there a group of Windows only users that are so heavily opposed to freedom of choice? If you prefer Windows, run Windows. Of course, what you should be doing is supporting the PC as an open platform capable of running any OS you like free from the monopolizing constraints of any one corporation.
 
Last edited:
None of those are an issue for the linux kernel so, I'm not sure what you're getting at. All projects have maintainers that have the choice to not accept code if it's of poor quality.


We are talking about 3rd party apps and drivers, I'm not talking about the kernel......
 
We are talking about 3rd party apps and drivers, I'm not talking about the kernel......

I thought we were talking about open source development. So, projects that don't suffer from code quality, security, or delivery time issues.
Gnome, KDE, firefox, darktable, dolphin-emu, VLC, wireshark, postgresql, apache web server, ffmpeg, libreoffice, really anything in any major distro's repository.
 
I thought we were talking about open source development. So, projects that don't suffer from code quality, security, or delivery time issues.
Gnome, KDE, firefox, darktable, dolphin-emu, VLC, wireshark, postgresql, apache web server, ffmpeg, libreoffice, really anything in any major distro's repository.


err no firefox was a mess at times, same with dolphin, apache has its fair share of security issues from time to time. I've had issues with VLC, and all these programs are fairly small. Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they didn't have problems.

Its kinda like Mac people saying there are no issues with Apple OS and their programs, its a program they will have issues pretty simple, just because it doesn't have a blue screen doesn't mean there aren't bugs or other problems.

Again doesn't matter if its open source or closed, there are negatives and positives to both methods. You can't say open source has no negatives, just as someones can't say closed source has no problems.

http://www.astera.com/media/66282/open source wp2.pdf

here is a good white paper on the different models.
 
Last edited:
So if open source has no downsides, where are the killer apps on Linux that put to shame Window/Apple programs? How about original programs that got started on Linux which then was copied by others on Windows/Apple because they are so good?

basically all of your server-side stuff
 
err no firefox was a mess at times, same with dolphin, apache has its fair share of security issues from time to time. I've had issues with VLC, and all these programs are fairly small. Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they didn't have problems.

Its kinda like Mac people saying there are no issues with Apple OS and their programs, its a program they will have issues pretty simple, just because it doesn't have a blue screen doesn't mean there aren't bugs or other problems.

Again doesn't matter if its open source or closed, there are negatives and positives to both methods. You can't say open source has no negatives, just as someones can't say closed source has no problems.

http://www.astera.com/media/66282/open source wp2.pdf

here is a good white paper on the different models.

I tend to agree here, no one OS is perfect when it comes to application software bugs.

Still doesn't indicate that Windows is the better OS though...
 
I tend to agree here, no one OS is perfect when it comes to application software bugs.

Still doesn't indicate that Windows is the better OS though...


I agree with that, Windows has issues too. Linux is great for certain things, Windows is great for certain things.

Linux's stability for servers is excellent, Windows has gotten quite a bit better I would say not as good as Linux but its getting there.

Application variety for Windows is leaps and bounds above Linux, but most of the apps for Linux as you stated just work.

Usability for end users, Windows is better, Linux takes some time to get used to for new comers specially since most of the commands are command line operations, not much of an issue for people using command prompt in windows, just have to figure out what commands do what and syntax.

There are pro's and cons to be OS's, there is no "perfect" or no problems with either OS and this goes for development too.
 
basically all of your server-side stuff

Linux (custom) do indeed rule on Super Computers 98%!,Android 54%.Server 36%. Desktop - 1.5% :D. If highly invested in, paid developers etc. . Linux does well. For a desktop computer with freebie software and across the net (loosely here) developers 1.5%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems

The open source aspect of Linux does allow dedicated developers/engineers to make something for Super Computers while Windows closed doors is obviously preventive in usability. If Linux for the desktop becomes more standardized, with an environment one can develope for and get paid for your work and also protected in that you don't have to give away what you developed if you don't want to - I see Linux growing on the desktop - Which will take big financing and good coordination between all the players.
 
Linux (custom) do indeed rule on Super Computers 98%!,Android 54%.Server 36%. Desktop - 1.5% :D. If highly invested in, paid developers etc. . Linux does well. For a desktop computer with freebie software and across the net (loosely here) developers 1.5%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems

The open source aspect of Linux does allow dedicated developers/engineers to make something for Super Computers while Windows closed doors is obviously preventive in usability. If Linux for the desktop becomes more standardized, with an environment one can develope for and get paid for your work and also protected in that you don't have to give away what you developed if you don't want to - I see Linux growing on the desktop - Which will take big financing and good coordination between all the players.

Wow, such arrogance! You must be really offended that Linux even exists?

As stated numerous times in the past, due to Linux's methods of distribution in comparison to the retail method of distribution employed by Windows, and the fact that copy's of Linux can legally be passed on from person to person, there is no accurate way to determine the usage of Linux in relation to the desktop environment - With the exception of web counters. Do a quick Google search on web counters and you will find that they are notoriously unreliable! I know the web counters on my own website state 36% OS usage as unknown! There's Steam, but this only highlights the percentage of users actively running Steam under Linux, if that usage is around 1 - 1.5% (I haven't checked) than actual Linux usage is bound to be vastly higher than that as there are a great many Linux users that don't care for gaming (just like a great many Windows users).

There is no issue with the quality of Linux software, there are few issues with the capability of some Linux software packages that are only really noticeable if you are a professional working in a niche industry such as photography or music production or someone that is unable to learn something new (which is common, people are lazy). If, for example, you are an amateur and you are paying full retail for software such as Photoshop when chances are you can get by just fine on GIMP (which updated in the last few days to include some cool features and apparently is getting updated again in the not too distant future), than what can I say?!

Numerous other software packages are, as hammered home numerous times previously in this thread, available cross platform and run just fine under Linux.

I am an above average PC user, I am into amateur photography/manipulating images as well as amateur video editing for small family movies, etc and I do not miss Windows in the slightest. The only thing I miss is BF4 - That's literally it! All that expensive hardware, 980Ti, etc, just to play BF4 as I hate console controllers.

And Windows servers suck, the OS is vastly over rated regarding server application - Just like Excel it's being overused for something it's not really suited for. I deal with Issues small businesses face regarding Windows servers and the growing push by MS for a domain controller for a total of about five PC's every day!
 
Last edited:
lol, not offended at all that Linux exist, glad it is around. Also do not have delusional glasses on either. Linux kicks ass when money is applied, specific purpose like super computers where the team can do everything in house. Still Super computers is such a small number of machines compared to desktops the 98% does not mean much other then in that environment, an open type OS can be very beneficial and quicker to get things going and use over something from scratch.

From my prospective, that is all, Windows has more to offer me by a large degree. Not only software but for reviews of software and hardware, more variety and a much higher degree of quality as well. Of course with a price which I am willing to pay. You can believe what ever you want about Linux, if it works for you I am very happy you are happy with it.

Also the 1.5% being accurate or not can be argued, then again once loaded how many folks actually use it in the long run? You can't say every SteamOS download is a system being used either. I've been to many Linux sites, the ridiculous rants sometimes about Microsoft or Windows are rather funny and just sometimes sad. One could actually use both for the strengths of both, except in my case I usually come to a conclusion that I am wasting too much time with the Linux OS vice getting something done.
 
I'm sorry, I get the funny feeling like you haven't really used Linux at all? And I'm not saying that to be personally offensive, I'm saying that because like another member that was participating in this thread a number of your observations/comments about Linux are really wrong.

You make out like Linux is a mainly terminal based OS that is mostly suitable for supercomputer use? Or only really used on supercomputers? And this observation is, honestly, flatly wrong!

Linux is used almost exclusively where it matters in the corporate/enterprise server industry, not Windows. Windows is used in small business servers, and it's a horrible, unreliable, centrally located weakness in the Network structure of most small businesses - Based on experience.

Linux is also an outstanding desktop OS that, contrary to popular Windows user belief (and probably in part due to the attitude of the Linux elite) does not require the user to enter lines upon lines of commands in the terminal in order to keep the OS running - Just like any other OS out there almost every need can be performed solely via the desktop manager (GUI, on Linux there are a number of GUI's called desktop managers and you can switch between any one of them, so you aren't limited to the one desktop layout the way you are under Windows).

As stated prior in this thread, I actually work with carefully chosen customers that are constantly getting into trouble with malware/spyware and virus infection issues and convert them to Linux Mint and they love it! They can do everything they used to do under Windows, some of their specialized Windows software packages I can install via Wine, and they no longer have any problem with infections and the resulting slow running/constant hammering of the hard drive that they experienced under Windows due to the fact that the OS is so easily infected. And best of all, when they see the system request the user password to perform an action they ring me and don't go any further until I advise them it's safe to do so so they can't stuff the base operating system.

My Linux PC is my main PC, with this PC I can do anything I need to do just like I would, or better than I would, under Windows (with the exception of BF4) including playing certain gaming titles via steam with better performance than I experience under Windows, and I can achieve this just as easily as I can achieve it under Windows - In fact in many situations there are procedures under Windows that are actually easier under Linux - Like updating graphics drivers (once the PPA is added, not rocket science). You really need to get your head around this concept as you seem to think that Linux is specialized and only for the hardcore geek?!

Once you're used to the Linux desktop you realize there are a number of features that aren't present in Windows, once your used to them you wonder how you ever did without them as they increase productivity immensely! And paying for software doesn't, in any way, necessarily indicate higher quality or better support.

Hell, my work laptop runs Linux with Windows in a VM should the situation arise that I actually need it (which is literally never)!
 
Last edited:
oh im still here...

and as i said beofre i am VERY familiar with linux, i am under no false impressions whatsoever.

It doesn't do what i want so i dont use it.
 
Linux isn't a viable desktop OS for the common man, it being free is a major part of the problem, the company making it needs to get paid heavily, and developers making apps need to make big bucks for a platform to grow. So in short, it can never grow above that 1.5% market share, why would you be angry if a dying company ignores a useless market segment to save some $?
Use common sense, not emotion. Linux doesn't deserve to get love from a company like AMD, Nvidia might be able to afford to do it.

Look at how Android started out, open source free etc etc, but what made it big is not it being open source or being a good OS, it was the rich company backing it up (google) + Developers cashing in giant checks @ the app store.

You might be having a PHD in Software Engineering and argue on points that linux is better than windows, but you don't know jack shit about how the world works and the simple concept of supply and demand. ( lot of people in this thread )
 
oh im still here...

and as i said beofre i am VERY familiar with linux, i am under no false impressions whatsoever.

It doesn't do what i want so i dont use it.

I'm not convinced, sorry.

Your claims and comments regarding practical use of the operating system make no sense whatsoever, if you were so heavily into the development of a secret version of slackware (as you claim in another thread) there is no way you would be running Windows on your daily machine. And your argument regarding economics is blatantly incorrect.

Linux isn't a viable desktop OS for the common man, it being free is a major part of the problem, the company making it needs to get paid heavily, and developers making apps need to make big bucks for a platform to grow. So in short, it can never grow above that 1.5% market share, why would you be angry if a dying company ignores a useless market segment to save some $?
Use common sense, not emotion. Linux doesn't deserve to get love from a company like AMD, Nvidia might be able to afford to do it.

How can the OS being free have any impact on how developers make apps (is it a phone now?) for it?

If you can't get your head around mobile devices and apps, lets use Windows Mobile as an example of how the company involved being paid heavily has absolutely no bearing on whether or not developers make apps for it. Windows Mobile has probably been around for longer than iOS and Android combined and yet it's app market share is far smaller than than either iOS or Android, not only that but it's overall market share is negligible.

There are plenty of software packages available for Linux, as stated, many are even cross platform, a situation that is becoming more common, so I'm not too sure how you even dreamed this concept up anyway?!

As stated, I've given the common man Linux and they run it just fine, you vastly overstate the computing needs of the common man.

I'm not using common sense or emotion, I'm using experience, and I'm by no means angry, in fact this thread makes me laugh. And I really don't care if AMD cant make a decent driver under either Windows or Linux - I just prefer more choice. Many Windows users in this thread however, are showing signs of complete, ill-informed, bias.

Will the next ill informed Windows only user please stand up?!
 
Last edited:
I'm not convinced, sorry.

Your claims and comments regarding practical use of the operating system make no sense whatsoever, if you were so heavily into the development of a secret version of slackware (as you claim in another thread) there is no way you would be running Windows on your daily machine. And your argument regarding economics is blatantly incorrect.

I was never involved in a secret version of slackware.

I was involved in a slackware based distro.

Get your facts straight.

It did not require my daily box to be linux, as it had its own box.

Again, you saying im blatantly wrong "because reasons" doesn't change the market, the economics, or reality.
 
Use common sense, not emotion. Linux doesn't deserve to get love from a company like AMD, Nvidia might be able to afford to do it.

Well it's not like nvidia supports Linux because they're bored. They do it because it brings in the cash.

Something AMD isn't very fond of doing.
 
The other thing is most professional based software for things like deep learning, server based products like scientific compute, I'm pretty sure they are running on Linux..... so yeah it does bring in cash and quite a bit of it.

forgot to add, but this stuff costs a lot of money, developing the software, getting people to use it, etc. etc. nV has put in a ton of resources for this too.
 
Last edited:
I was never involved in a secret version of slackware.

I was involved in a slackware based distro.

Get your facts straight.

It did not require my daily box to be linux, as it had its own box.

Again, you saying im blatantly wrong "because reasons" doesn't change the market, the economics, or reality.

Righto..I'm glad we cleared up that confusion.

I'm still not convinced, and your concepts regarding economics in relation to an open source OS - Are quite simply retarded.

Sorry, but I say it as I see it my friend - It really is that simple.
 
The other thing is most professional based software for things like deep learning, server based products like scientific compute, I'm pretty sure they are running on Linux..... so yeah it does bring in cash and quite a bit of it.

forgot to add, but this stuff costs a lot of money, developing the software, getting people to use it, etc. etc. nV has put in a ton of resources for this too.

The entire animation industry runs almost solely on Linux.:)

Globally, considering all potential applications, Linux is by far the most widely used operating system in the world - There are big $$ and big players involved in Linux.
 
Last edited:
There are big $$ and big players involved in Linux
I don't doubt there aren't, but Linux will not make much inroad on the desktop unless they come up with some killer applications that would make ordinary users and companies to want to use Linux as their desktop OS.

Take something as mundane as MS Office for example, most people who use MS Office in the work environment will not want to switch to LibreOffice and Linux, even when they're free. There's too many existing office documents out there that might go wonky when they are opened in LibreOffice and people will not want to risk it until they are certain there's 100% compatibility, and since MS Office does not exist on Linux, they won't switch to it. You can scoff at how inferior Windows is, but the reality is that it is lacking in applications that ordinary people actually use at work, and no company is going to switch to desktop Linux just for some altruistic reason to stick it up to Windows.

By the way, if being slave to Windows is main reason to go to Linux, why not switch to Mac OS instead? It's bigger on the desktop than Linux.
 
Now Apple OS is Linux based but not so open sourced :D, hence a single company, major bucks, development can make Linux work without re-inventing all the different wheels in an OS.

Android app market, hence programs are not as advance in general, lenghy etc. compared to the more mature Windows programs so yes they are easier to make not costing millions of dollars to go the next step etc. For example most apps are specific in nature and for most part to the point and simple - for example level app, flash light app. Yes Linux should be able to excel there. Those types of programs on windows would probably not sell and most of them (except the requiring the sensors) have been written years ago and long forgotten and not in demand.

Once Vulcan hits Linux and some good game development like from Valve, Linux could become a good gaming OS as well which would indeed drive sales of Linux Machines and usage of Linux on the desktop.

As for me I don't have a server or Super-computer so Linux does not help me there. For the desktop I would be wasting my time except for having some fun learning the OS better. I use Office 365, the cloud use any windows machine to access data and even run Office on machines not having 365 on it. Understand the programs well etc. - Can I do that with Linux? Not to mention Windows superior gaming ability at this time.
 
I don't doubt there aren't, but Linux will not make much inroad on the desktop unless they come up with some killer applications that would make ordinary users and companies to want to use Linux as their desktop OS.

Take something as mundane as MS Office for example, most people who use MS Office in the work environment will not want to switch to LibreOffice and Linux, even when they're free. There's too many existing office documents out there that might go wonky when they are opened in LibreOffice and people will not want to risk it until they are certain there's 100% compatibility, and since MS Office does not exist on Linux, they won't switch to it. You can scoff at how inferior Windows is, but the reality is that it is lacking in applications that ordinary people actually use at work, and no company is going to switch to desktop Linux just for some altruistic reason to stick it up to Windows.

By the way, if being slave to Windows is main reason to go to Linux, why not switch to Mac OS instead? It's bigger on the desktop than Linux.

While it is true that Microsoft, and in the past Apple promote their desktop operating systems by creating niche markets based around either software packages made by themselves or via tightly bound licensing deals. I believe Microsoft are beginning to shoot themselves in the foot with their latest mishmash of tablet/desktop OS that is Windows 10, especially considering the inbuilt spyware issues and the massive problem of virus/malware infections.

At the same time the Linux desktop is improving just as fast, if not faster, than the Windows desktop regarding most desktop managers. People are also becoming more aware of the OS due to the massive push by Valve in regards to gaming and the implementation of easy to install/use packaged distro's like Ubuntu and Linux Mint.

As a purely Windows user, it may be difficult to comprehend. But I have never, ever seen such a range of games, some AAA titles, available for Linux - And the catalogue is increasing all the time.

In regards to Apple. Firstly, OSX runs on FreeBSD, Steve Jobs choose FreeBSD as the licensing terms suited his greed. FreeBSD is a fork of Unix, not Linux. Linux is Unix like, but is not based on Unix.

Secondly, Steve Jobs was a flog, and I don't like the walled garden approach regarding Apple and their products. OSX is OSX and you are offered very little freedom in terms of personalization and modification (a bit like Windows now, something which, sadly, wasn't always the case - Windows used to be very themeable).

A PC is a tool and I want to use that tool any way I please - If I want to use that screwdriver as a leaver bar, well it's my screwdriver. I don't agree to the approach that the OS/Firmware of a device is property of the company of manufacture and you just own the hardware - If you find a way around that, well we'll just change that OS/firmware and make it a forced update by stopping certain software applications from functioning correctly until the update is applied. That's not effective use of my tools.

Thirdly, Apple prefers form over function, when gaming you'd be surprised at how effectively their hardware begins to throttle - Hardware that, GPU wise at least, is vastly underpowered especially when considering Apple and their retina displays, and the hardware that matters is completely un-upgradeable. And the un-upgradeability is no mistake. Steve Jobs was always adamant that an Apple product was to be replaced if you wanted something faster, not upgraded, to the disgust of his engineers - Pure marketing.

Apple products have their niche, and it isn't gaming I'm afraid.

But it is good that you mention Apple, it's also interesting. Because from a gaming perspective, as a potential gaming platform, Linux and it's more open, vastly larger supported hardware base is a vastly better gaming platform than any Apple product equipped with OSX will ever be....

....Unless you buy a $4000.00 Mac Pro, in which case you may as well burn money.

It all comes back to API, not OS. What gaming needs, what gaming in general would really benefit from across all platforms, is an open API such as Vulkan.

And if you actually gave Libre Office a go, and implemented effective font substitution for the patented Microsoft fonts, you may very well be quite surprised at how capable/compatible it is - At least it doesn't use that horrible ribbon menu bar.
 
Last edited:
And if you actually gave Libre Office a go, and implemented effective font substitution for the patented Microsoft fonts, you may very well be quite surprised at how capable/compatible it is
I'm sure it is capable, but that's not the only criteria for an office suite nowadays when it comes to work. When I send and receive documents from suppliers, clients, subcontractors, I don't want to spend time fretting if something is wonky or not and then going through them to make sure there's nothing wrong either in the document I received or in the document I sent. So, the only compatibility number I am interested in is 100% compatibility. Until there's no risk of formatting or compatibility errors between the two suites I am not going to switch to another office suite from MS Office.
 
I'm sure it is capable, but that's not the only criteria for an office suite nowadays when it comes to work. When I send and receive documents from suppliers, clients, subcontractors, I don't want to spend time fretting if something is wonky or not and then going through them to make sure there's nothing wrong either in the document I received or in the document I sent. So, the only compatibility number I am interested in is 100% compatibility. Until there's no risk of formatting or compatibility errors between the two suites I am not going to switch to another office suite from MS Office.

It's not an issue if you send forms as .pdf's instead of raw files.

Unless absolutely necessary this is the way all document transfers should be handled, especially considering .pdf files are vastly smaller in size and unable to be easily manipulated. And converting to .PDF is as easy as printing the file from word or exporting to .PDF in Libre!

And remember, there are formatting issues between various versions of Office also.

I do all my business on Libre and I've yet to come across an issue once font substitution is used correctly.

MS Office is a product, it should not be benchmarked as a standard.
 
Last edited:
Well said jwcalla.

CAn you show me how much Nvidia is making on Linux?

And your whole existence in this thread isn't about the viability of AMD writing drivers for Linux, it's about Microsoft bad, Linux good and your arguments come across as such.

And I have been hearing those same arguments from Linux lovers for years and nothing much has changed. You keep saying you gotta try Linux, it's amazing now. People don't want to try Linux. Most people don't give a rats ass about Linux. For those techie people that know the features and benefits of Linux, some don't like it, others love it.

And despite lots of people on this thread telling you they have tried it, you keep telling them that they should hate what they have and move to Linux.

To use your phrase, it's their PC, they want to use it like they want to use it.
 
Back
Top