Is Linux really that stable?

Chat about Zorin
,
#11

I've been using 16 beta since it became beta, have updated every time i boot into zorin and have had no issues whatsoever. I had to go to 16, and i have appreciated the opportunity to test the alpha and beta versions, because of getting new hardware. 15.3 didn't have the support for the newer processor, nvme drives and the video card. The 5.6 kernel introduced a lot of support, but 5.8 was the minimum to recognize and support the hardware. Upgrading the kernel semi-broke zorin... only half supporting the hardware and not really integrating with the os completely. Other than the move to newer equipment, both versions have served me well and been more stable than windows ever was (blue screen... Again).

Win 10 has improved and doesn't blue screen as often as past versions, but drivers and software have both tanked windows (as well as updates). I can't say the same for zorin.

4 Likes
#12

I appreciate all of your insights. Thank you.

1 Like
#13

Thank you everyone for sharing your insights. It's really helpful to see all your thoughts.
I took my lesson and now I pay more attention to backups :smiley: I setup a whole partition to only serve for Timeshift backups.

2 Likes
#14

You have a far better attitude toward change than I do.
It's funny how a person can live life thinking they are an above average driver or above average talent... You wonder where the averages come from.
When I migrated over to Linux, it was less by choice. My HDD went out and I only had a Blank one to spare and a Zorin OS 12.1 core disk some guy gave me at the flea market. The idea of buying Windows irked me... I opted to try out Zorin.
And all I did was complain.
I messed up my system repeatedly, requiring a wipe and reload often. I am so used to "being in charge" that I was trying to be in charge of my computer before I properly learned the system.
Looking back, I see far more flaws in myself than I do in Linux. I am working on changing my attitudes about change.

3 Likes
#15

@anon37206250
That is such a great idea! Taking "baby steps" and keeping things as simple as possible, while you get your Linux bearings will serve you well and make the experience much more enjoyable.

@Aravisian
What drove me to Linux was the desire of not being forced to do things (by Microsoft) that I didn't want to do with my own computer. With Windows, I always felt that I was forced to upgrade equipment on Microsoft's schedule. I was forced to spend more money on software just to keep my system secure and running. I was forced to do things Microsoft's way. When I'm forced to do something I don't believe in or enjoy, I'm driven to do things my own way no matter how much I have to change. And if I'm told that I can't do it that way, I get stubborn and go out of my way to do it anyway. Here I am, twenty years later still out from under the heels of Microsoft or Apple, doing what I want to do with my own computer. :smiley:

4 Likes
#16

That is exactly how I feel about Gnome. Gnome is forcing it's wants and what it thinks is best on the user. Gnome firmly believes that minimalism and reduction on functionality to resemble Mobile UI is the way to go. That is fine... except that they force that onto everyone using Gnome and like Microsoft, Gnome is the dominant desktop environment in Linux. Even XFCE is turning gnomish, now. Adopting the Gnome icon naming conventions and csds...
What makes it so galling is that they behave this way under the Gnu license- and it restricted them so much, that they tried to leave the Gnu License in order to better restrict users to the Gnome Mission Statement.

My point: On Linux, things are shifting the Microsoft way.

2 Likes
#18

That's a real shame. My other OS of choice these days is Exe GNU/Linux. One of the reasons I like it so much is because it uses the Trinity Desktop Environment (TDE) by default. Although it has it's issues, I think it's about as close to the original Linux philosophy as you can get these days. It's also well suited for the older hardware that I currently use.

3 Likes
#19

Yes, this is a concern for me, as well.

#20

@tomscharbach, @davidb_sk why are Ubuntu derivatives a turn off for you? Is it because of systemd?

2 Likes
#21

systemd is one aspect. My older hardware works better without it. But, I guess for me, it has to do with some shady practices with user data Ubuntu has tinkered with in the past. They may have changed their ways since, but I'm wary of any organization that goes down that path. It doesn't help that they're a corporation. I have a personal bias against corporations. They also do things a little differently than other distros, which can be annoying at times when trying to troubleshoot problems.

3 Likes
#23

Yeah I agree that the Vanilla Ubuntu is pretty untrustworthy. But derivatives like Zorin, KDE Neon, etc. have removed the telemetry implemented by Canonical. When I was making the switch to Linux, I was wary of the fact and particularly avoided Ubuntu. But I'd say that Ubuntu is also the most compatible. It has the most packages available and apps are mostly available for it and run fine. I think that's the redeeming quality of Ubuntu derivatives.
But as @tomscharbach mentioned, it also includes a whole lot of junk and bloat.

3 Likes
#24

That is a very interesting insight and food for thought. Could you elaborate more on that?

1 Like
#25

There's certainly a fine balancing act that takes place to provide flexibility, stability and security yet "easy" to use. So far, I feel that Zorin Lite is a nice compromise.

1 Like
#26

I have an 18 year old Laptop I recently took out of mothballs and Trinity seems to have improved this old best quite a bit. I will probably keep playing with it. Provides me a way to experiment with learning Linux without risking my spritely new machine which is 8 years old.

1 Like
#28

Yeah, I like the Trinity desktop. It's fast on older systems but has a lot to offer in the way of functionality. They forked the project from KDE 3.5, after KDE went down the bloated Plasma path. I never really liked KDE after that... far too "heavy" and overly complicated for me.

3 Likes
#29

Linux is DEFINITELY stable. I had windows, and it was a pain in the head. A little tweaking led to its breakdown. After which i had it reinstalled to make it working. My computer is hell slow and therefore Windows started lagging in it. But I had used Ubuntu for half an year, and it NEVER needed a reinstallation. I was attracted to Zorin OS and downloaded it, and as it is based on Ubuntu, it worked very smoothly. In Linux I get DAILY security updates, which Windows does not give. Windows is good for beginners, but Linux is good for Stablity and Security.

3 Likes
#30

I don't mind (re)installing Linux, it take tops 20 min including updates. I don't have (and I will never have) Windows. But my mom got Windows and when I have to (re)installing it - it takes most of the day - it's updating system is so cumbersome. It's like navigating an elephant through a glass shop.

Is Linux that stable? Depending which distro you'll pick. If you pick bleeding edge distro be prepared to use some of the time to fix things when new upgrades arrive.

5 Likes
#31

True. I will upgrade my laptop to prevent lagging but never have Windows instead.

#32

I love your humor, even if it's unintentional

2 Likes
#33

LOL!! Oh my, that was a definite faux pas on my part and wasn't intentional! I'm not that clever when it comes to being witty. :blush:

I've since corrected it.

2 Likes