Windows 10 Creators Update

One of my linux boxes has a 1070; it runs games quite well - those that have native ports such as borderlands 2, shadow of mordor, divinity original sin; unfortunately some games have not been ported. AMD is more of a mix bag on linux as amd dropped driver support and open source drivers are still quite new. I recommend the 1070. But be prepare that many major games do not run on linux natively or with wine such as witcher 3.

There is one major issue that has held back desktop Linux, but it's not day to day usability. In fact, some of the desktop environments available for Linux arguably offer a better user experience than Windows. Here, for example, is a video that gives an idea of the KDE desktop, which is very Windows-like, but far more customisable. The quality is pretty high.

The big problem stems from the fact that even discussing Linux as a single platform is misleading. Linux is really just the kernel, and the layer of software that sits on top of that can be as different from one distribution to another as you can imagine - to the point that different flavours of Linux can be effectively different operating systems.

This has created a situation where proprietary software, like commercial games, has a problem. When you want to release a compiled executable program, you rely upon the fact that that your customer is running a system with essentially the same software stack as you. In Linux land, this is not an assumption you can make. With open source software this isn't a problem, as each distro can compile their own versions against their own setup, and distribute them easily, using the freely available source code.

This is now being seriously addressed by both Redhat and Ubuntu. The Redhat solution, which I suspect will become the standard, is called Flatpak. Essentially, this allows software makers to build a single executable, and also define the packages and environment it is intended to run on. Then, when a user installs a piece of software, it effectively creates its own sandbox, into which it can download any pieces it needs to run properly, and create its perfect setup in a way that won't interfere with anything else on the system. It's also intelligent, so that if another piece of software has already downloaded some of those pieces, it shares them and brings them into its sandbox.

This is potentially a game changer, and is in some ways superior to the way Windows handles dependencies. In Windows, for example, it's quite possible to get errors because you have the wrong version of Dotnet or DirectX installed. Flatpak would spot that and correct it during installation, and also allow for different versions to coexist without conflicting with each other.

We're now at the stage where distros can start to use Flatpak by default, and it could make a major difference going forwards.

I don't think the problem is the linux stack per sey but that most developer produce (from a technical perspective) crap software full of bugs. They test and perform hacks (they call them fixes) but frequently fail to actually understand the nature of flaw and provide a complete (correct) fix. This means the game is more likely to encounter bugs in different stacks - however they can mitigate a lot of this by providing the runtime environment and using that runtime environment when they run their programs (that is effectively what steam packaging does).

Originally Posted by Ripper
There is one major issue that has held back desktop Linux, but it's not day to day usability. In fact, some of the desktop environments available for Linux arguably offer a better user experience than Windows. Here, for example, is a video that gives an idea of the KDE desktop, which is very Windows-like, but far more customisable. The quality is pretty high.

The big problem stems from the fact that even discussing Linux as a single platform is misleading. Linux is really just the kernel, and the layer of software that sits on top of that can be as different from one distribution to another as you can imagine - to the point that different flavours of Linux can be effectively different operating systems.

This has created a situation where proprietary software, like commercial games, has a problem. When you want to release a compiled executable program, you rely upon the fact that that your customer is running a system with essentially the same software stack as you. In Linux land, this is not an assumption you can make. With open source software this isn't a problem, as each distro can compile their own versions against their own setup, and distribute them easily, using the freely available source code.

This is now being seriously addressed by both Redhat and Ubuntu. The Redhat solution, which I suspect will become the standard, is called Flatpak. Essentially, this allows software makers to build a single executable, and also define the packages and environment it is intended to run on. Then, when a user installs a piece of software, it effectively creates its own sandbox, into which it can download any pieces it needs to run properly, and create its perfect setup in a way that won't interfere with anything else on the system. It's also intelligent, so that if another piece of software has already downloaded some of those pieces, it shares them and brings them into its sandbox.

This is potentially a game changer, and is in some ways superior to the way Windows handles dependencies. In Windows, for example, it's quite possible to get errors because you have the wrong version of Dotnet or DirectX installed. Flatpak would spot that and correct it during installation, and also allow for different versions to coexist without conflicting with each other.

We're now at the stage where distros can start to use Flatpak by default, and it could make a major difference going forwards.

That's somewhat true, with regard to Steam. But if you look into the effort that Valve had to go to, it was far more than simply porting their client. They essentially defined and built a whole software layer to make distributing Linux games easier, and it was a very demanding (and still somewhat troublesome) process. Quite likely, they would never have invested in it without the strategic threat of Windows Store. The Flatpak system addresses the problem far more efficiently and universally.

I’m using Linux at home and only need Windows for gaming and syncing my iPad using iTunes. Everything I do, including my photography workflow can be done using Linux.
I’ve moved from Ubuntu to Mint last year and am quite happy with what the Mint team has done with Ubuntu.
I also have a file and mediaserver that runs Linux, but is on Debian, which is less user friendly, but OpenMediaVault that runs on it requires it.

In the process of getting my Linux box to do what I want it to do, I find myself using the terminal on a regular basis, executing command line calls as I can’t accomplish it from the UI. For me it is not much of an issue, but I can understand why this would be a drawback for some.

Originally Posted by Myrthos
In the process of getting my Linux box to do what I want it to do, I find myself using the terminal on a regular basis, executing command line calls as I can’t accomplish it from the UI. For me it is not much of an issue, but I can understand why this would be a drawback for some.

I imagine you are somewhat of a "power user". Would you say that you have to resort to using the command line in Linux to accomplish things that would be trivial in Windows, or because the things you're doing would always be a bit more technical?

Myself, I often have to use the command line in Windows, too.

That's the reason I hate windows. Many tasks can't be done easily via a graphical interface and windows suck once things break down. Btw i recently switched to windows 10 and mounted volumes don't show correct disk usag - but that is a side topic.

(I run linux for everything but games - my windows box is game only - sort of like an expensive console with kb/m - i think if consoles started supporting kb/m as primary input devices i would drop the 'game box'). I much prefer unix over windows for just about everything - even games for those games that support linux).

Originally Posted by Ripper
I imagine you are somewhat of a "power user". Would you say that you have to resort to using the command line in Linux to accomplish things that would be trivial in Windows, or because the things you're doing would always be a bit more technical?

Myself, I often have to use the command line in Windows, too.

Lots of interesting info in this thread. I'm going to follow the example to some degree -using windows for games and (to have an excuse) some programming, but transfer other stuff to Linux.

pibbur who hates very few things, operating systems included.

PS. As the ripper pointed out, one reason for not leaving windows at work (health care) is windows-specific special software, like PACS (x-ray software), lab. systems and similar. And we can't expect our users (25 000) to use two different operating systems.

Could some of the software run on WINE? Some programs, maybe. But I doubt the PACS clients would work. And anyhow, our vendors won't support that.
DS.

I know that many of the large Linux deployments use terminal services to provide legacy Windows apps. But, I guess if virtually everyone is using such software, it becomes a bit inefficient to switch.

Originally Posted by Ripper
I know that many of the large Linux deployments use terminal services to provide legacy Windows apps. But, I guess if virtually everyone is using such software, it becomes a bit inefficient to switch.

Terminal services might work for some of our systems, I'm not sure if it would work for all of them. And again, there's the question of support, requirements for support can be very specific. One (a bit unrelated) example is that we had to use Word 97 longer than we normally would, because some clinical systems required that version. We could start using a later version, and it might work, but the vendors would not support it (I'm sure we asked them).

And in a huge organisation like ours, desktop environment must be as similar as possible ion order to streamline user support. Additionally for security reasons, we have to limit what programs are available to the users and prevent them for installing software themselves. We use special software for that.

pibbur who, since he's working at the development department is not affected by those rules.

Originally Posted by Ripper
I imagine you are somewhat of a "power user". Would you say that you have to resort to using the command line in Linux to accomplish things that would be trivial in Windows, or because the things you're doing would always be a bit more technical?

Myself, I often have to use the command line in Windows, too.

Software for Linux is primarily open source. Often someone has created a package of that software, so it can be installed using your version of Linux's package manager. If you are lucky, the installer even adds it to the application repository, so that you get updates as well.
This is however not always the case, which means that I need to resort to manual entering the right commands to accomplish things or even building the software from code, which is definitely not something I would advice a standard Linux user to do.

The software updater of Ubuntu/mint does a rather good job, but I prefer to go to the command line to accomplish the same thing as it gives me a better view of what is going to be installed in detailed. Again, not something I would advice standard users to get themselves in to.

And for setting up a working Apache and SQL environment in order to be able to run RPGWatch locally, I definitely need to dive into the configuration files from the command line. In theory I could use an editor in the GUI, but I need to make sure files are stored with the right owner and privileges. I know I can use a LAMP package for that and I used to do that, but these days I prefer to install and configure mySQL, Apache and PHP myself.

The file and media server I have is headless and I log into that with an SSH terminal, so for a large part that is command line only. The only GUIs that are available are web interfaces for OpenMediaVault and Emby and despite all the stuff that OMV offers, I find myself still tweaking things through the command line to get things the way I want them to be, up to the point where I am wondering why I actually felt at some point I needed OMV.

I find myself needing to resort to the command line more in Linux than in Windows, but I suppose I am not a standard user

FYI: If you are new to linux and choose ubuntu be aware that ubuntu will be dropping the desktop environment in 16.04 and reverting to gnome in 18.04.
-
This doesn't impact myself (I run ubuntu) as I use gnome and/or xfce4 depending on my mood. I personally dislike mint but a lot of folks swear by it. For the vanilia package there is debian and fedora is popular with a lot of folks. Actually there are so many distributions it is hard to remember how they differ.

Originally Posted by Ripper
The big problem stems from the fact that even discussing Linux as a single platform is misleading. Linux is really just the kernel, and the layer of software that sits on top of that can be as different from one distribution to another as you can imagine - to the point that different flavours of Linux can be effectively different operating systems.

That's actually a problem with Windows, too, when you compare against consoles.

It also speaks to the whole monopoly problem. Microsoft *really* needs some serious competition to make them pay more attention to keeping their customers happy. But, if there's serious competition, software developers will want to make software that runs on all popular OS's which means a lot of work spent and cuts made to deal with compatibility. Your OS quality goes up but your software quality goes down and/or gets more expensive! Arg!

I wonder if the little sandbox machine solutions could help there. Would it be possible to make some meta-OS that will look at a program trying to run and rez up a virtual machine specifically for it? If it needs Windows 10, give it Windows 10. If it needs ubunto, give it that. If it needs MacOS, give it that. If it needs OS/2 Warp… well, let's not go crazy. I'm sure it would be murder-at-best when it comes to licensing but that's already going pretty crazy with virtual machines.

Originally Posted by Zloth
I wonder if the little sandbox machine solutions could help there. Would it be possible to make some meta-OS that will look at a program trying to run and rez up a virtual machine specifically for it? If it needs Windows 10, give it Windows 10. If it needs ubunto, give it that. If it needs MacOS, give it that. If it needs OS/2 Warp… well, let's not go crazy. I'm sure it would be murder-at-best when it comes to licensing but that's already going pretty crazy with virtual machines.

Funnily enough, that sort of already exists in the form of QubesOS, which I also use. The meta-OS is a modified Xen hypervisor, and the applications are run in separate VMs. In this case, the focus is on security, the idea being to keep a security breach in one area from reaching others, or pwning the OS. But it also means you can run Windows and Linux apps side by side.

The downside is that it's very memory hungry, as each VM is essentially its own OS. The Flatpak system is more like containerization than virtualization, so it's not designed for OS hopping, unfortunately.

In the long run, if there were more real competitors with Windows, I think the software companies would probably move to cross-platform frameworks, like QT.

Originally Posted by Zloth
That's actually a problem with Windows, too, when you compare against consoles.

It also speaks to the whole monopoly problem. Microsoft *really* needs some serious competition to make them pay more attention to keeping their customers happy. But, if there's serious competition, software developers will want to make software that runs on all popular OS's which means a lot of work spent and cuts made to deal with compatibility. Your OS quality goes up but your software quality goes down and/or gets more expensive! Arg!

I wonder if the little sandbox machine solutions could help there. Would it be possible to make some meta-OS that will look at a program trying to run and rez up a virtual machine specifically for it? If it needs Windows 10, give it Windows 10. If it needs ubunto, give it that. If it needs MacOS, give it that. If it needs OS/2 Warp… well, let's not go crazy. I'm sure it would be murder-at-best when it comes to licensing but that's already going pretty crazy with virtual machines.

I would think there is serious competition now in the form of Android and iOS. That's why we have abominations like Windows 8 and the new advertising id and the other telemetry in it.

Linux is okay… until something breaks. Then you're SOL due to the long chain of components and dependencies created by multiple parties that all need to be changed using a text editor or console command (no GUI), or that are only sporadically worked on by said people, or are fixed at different times, meaning you have to constantly check if program A works now that program B or program C have been updated…

Open source software on Windows is not much easier, I guess, if you have to compile it yourself.

Originally Posted by Ripper
This is now being seriously addressed by both Redhat and Ubuntu. The Redhat solution, which I suspect will become the standard, is called Flatpak. Essentially, this allows software makers to build a single executable, and also define the packages and environment it is intended to run on. Then, when a user installs a piece of software, it effectively creates its own sandbox, into which it can download any pieces it needs to run properly, and create its perfect setup in a way that won't interfere with anything else on the system. It's also intelligent, so that if another piece of software has already downloaded some of those pieces, it shares them and brings them into its sandbox.

These sound like virtual machines, which usually hurt performance pretty badly, but are great otherwise.

[edit]

Okay, Wikipedia says "application virtualization" (Flatpak) is not quite the same as a "virtual machine", though there still is a performance hit.

[edit]

Windows is sort of like the Ten Commandments, where some of the commandments get rewritten every five years. Linux is like 1000 mini-commandments, labeled with versions 1.0.1.3, 4.5.2, 8.17.6 and so on. Each have their advantages I guess.

Originally Posted by Dilvish
These sound like virtual machines, which usually hurt performance pretty badly, but are great otherwise.

No, it's not using virtualisation, which would be very inefficient.

If you've ever used Mod Organizer for Skyrim, it's doing something similar in principle. When you mod Skyrim manually, you must copy tons of files into the correct Skyrim directories, and sometimes the mod files must overwrite each other in the correct order. This quickly becomes a nightmare to manage. What Mod Organizer does is to leave the Skyrim directory untouched, but when Skyrim is run, it presents it with a virtual directory created from the list of mods you have selected. This doesn't affect performance, because no hardware is being virtualised - it's just manipulating the way Skyrim perceives the file system.

Flatpak is a bit more complex than that, but it's a similar concept.

Wikipedia mentions "application virtualization".

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

I.e. once you encapsulate an application, you are surrounding it with an added membrane/layer of code that requires extra runtime processing power to pass through.

But I suppose that could just be one possible usage, not a mandatory one?

After a vexing weekend with win10, although I solved the problems, I wish I could stay on win7 till I passed away

Interesting conversation. From my own exposure where I work (University) which uses Linux as well as Mac and Windows, and other systems, my experience with Linux for my CS courses and work, and what my fellow gamers have talked about … Linux still seems the area of the hard-core group.

I play games with a lot of folks and some of them are computer wizards but the vast majority I talk to on Nexus, Flickr, and Discord in regards to modding, ENB, and other things … they barely understand their PC and can't see the masses embracing something like Linux unless it becomes a whole hell of a lot simpler and easier to use - as well as supporting most games right out of the box.

But I lack a lot of background in this so just my own view point based on limited exposure - so enjoying this thread as learning some things.

Yes, that's one term for it, but that's completely different from the hardware virtualization used by VMs. That will always come with a performance penalty.

When they talk about penalties for using Flatpak, it's a much smaller problem. In terms of CPU and GPU performance, there's no issue. Where you would see some penalties are in cases where an application was using libraries that had not already been loaded by the system - it would take fractionally longer to load, and use a bit more memory. On modern systems with generous RAM and fast SSDs, this would likely be so trivial as to go unnoticed.