Linux aims to provide a reliable, open-source operating system that can run on a wide variety of devices and platforms.
Linux aims to provide a reliable, open-source operating system that can run on a wide variety of devices and platforms.
It seems you're pointing out that complaining about specific issues shows a lack of grasp of the Linux community. What you've mentioned before is accurate—principles like "Free Software" and "Freedom of choice" remain relevant. For example, if you dislike apt on Ubuntu, you can switch to pacman on Arch or yum on Fedora. Or you could abandon the package manager entirely and rely on make instead. From a usage standpoint, Linux has traditionally leaned toward server environments, and I support its server side (If your network is entirely Linux, AD integration becomes a real challenge).
Installing a browser in Linux can seem tricky, but it varies by distribution. In Ubuntu, you can easily add PPAs from the official site with simple copy-paste steps. Arch offers a reliable alternative, though it’s less common—often found in the AUR. Manjaro simplifies the process too, requiring just a few mouse clicks after opening Pamac. On Windows, the experience is more complex, involving multiple steps and caution against malware. Most users prefer the terminal for daily tasks, while server setups demand more technical knowledge. Linux desktop versions aim to balance power and ease of use.
If Linux were completely unified, we’d lose the variety we enjoy and it could feel quite similar to Windows or Mac OS. We have many desktop environments and window managers in Linux that power users appreciate. I’m currently using Qtile and would never consider returning to Windows. It’s perfectly fine to build your own small projects when bigger ones exist—indeed, it’s encouraged. This reflects the spirit of open source: freedom! If Linux were a single large project instead of many smaller ones, things would become chaotic. Picture just one distribution rather than dozens. Would Linux still be so impressive?
It requires a straightforward process—just a few clicks and entering a password—to set up NVIDIA drivers on Ubuntu. I’m not sure about other distributions, but such a simple task shouldn’t be so hard for most users. Probably because people don’t get paid for these kinds of tasks, so they follow what interests them. Let me be clear: this isn’t typical. Many apps provide clear instructions or even copy-paste commands to make installation quick and easy across different Linux versions. I’ve seen everything from basic guides to advanced shortcuts, and it’s usually straightforward. It’s strange that some claim otherwise, especially with the availability of detailed setup steps online. Good health to you if you’re not into Linux!
The idea isn't that Linux is universally appealing. Many users enjoy it, and respecting those preferences is important. The real question is what comes next if people can't develop free software. Banning developers wouldn't solve anything. Complaints should go directly to the companies making the hardware, like nVidia. Expecting the community to back a manufacturer that won't provide drivers isn't realistic.
You still need AMD's exclusive drivers to access their full capabilities. For most everyday users this isn't a big issue, though AMF does require those proprietary drivers. ROCm seems to follow the same rule as well.
You’re certain about this? From what I know, AMD’s GPU-Pro driver is essential for OpenCL support on Debian-based systems, especially when using the 5700XT. I’m confident Blender on Ubuntu 20.04 won’t utilize OpenCL without installing the GPU-Pro driver via the OpenCL switch. It seems GPU-Pro acts as a proprietary layer built on top of the open-source driver, needing it to operate properly.