I’ve been working on converting my gaming PC to Linux for a few weeks, but everything is running, but it all is just a little jankier than I would like.
I have an 8th gen Intel i7 and an Rtx 2070, running Arch linux.
Sometimes I boot up and my mouse doesn’t work and I have to restart. Sometimes I launch games and they just don’t launch right.
It feels like I’m doing a lot of work for no benefit. In fact, Elden ring runs way worse on my Linux partition than my Windows partition.
I’ve tried GE proton, gamemode, steam compatibility, everything… I’m sorry but I’m going to have to stick with Windows for gaming.
So for a linux virgin who is planning to jump in - what’s the difference between the two groups?
Linux is really a superfamily of loosely-related OS’s (called distributions). Arch and Debian are 2 of the more common ones. Arch in particular has a reputation of being really beginner un-friendly, particularly in that, to my understanding, you have to build the OS yourself.
There’s also the caveat that many Linux distributions end up sharing/copying code from each other, so you end up with a kind of “OS lineage.” The most common distribution, Ubuntu, is copied from Debian. And then the most beginner-friendly distribution, Linux Mint, is copied from Ubuntu. Arch, to my knowledge, doesn’t copy code from elsewhere, so much of the advice given from users of other distributions won’t apply to Arch (hence the meme, “I use Arch btw”)
Anyways, the real advice for a Linux beginner is to stick with a beginner-friendly distribution: either Ubuntu or Linux Mint or Pop!_OS. Most or all distributions have various “flavors,” which are basically like how the OS looks. I think the real difficulty is picking a flavor that you like. I personally like the look of KDE Plasma (IMO resembles Windows 10 the most), so my personal recommendation is Kubuntu, which is the KDE Plasma flavor of Ubuntu
Thanks. For a second it sounded like there are different “types” of linux that are fundamentally different, but it’s just endless chain on what specific OS is based on which specific different OS and some of them are used as a reference point for how stuff feels - I think? :D
What are the differences between Fedora and Debian, since those were used as major reference points?
All distro’s differences come down to how the chain of utilities is stringed up together. You have:
- Bootloader
- Kernel
- Init and service daemons
- Package manager
- Display server
- Window manager
- Widget toolkit
- Desktop environment
- User applications
And a whole lot of in-between. Essentially Fedora and Debian each have defined and originated a set of core software that work as standards for the first 4 parts of this chain. Arch is another, even on pure Arch a wizard installer has to deal with those in order to set up a properly working system. For some, those are the most technical and difficult parts of setting up and designing an OS. Then every distro is a variation on the rest of the chain or customizations on the first few parts, but almost always based on one of the —current— three standards.
There are also philosophical differences that drive technical decisions in the background. Favoring one way of doing things over the other. Debian is usually focused on stability, reliability, security, function over form. Arch is usually about the bleeding edge, speed, max efficiency, innovation, customization, user freedom. Fedora is pragmatic and down to earth, compromising between the two and focused on smooth user experience. Usually different distros will provide some variation or adaptation on those themes. Like making Debian more corporate, or updated, or making Arch easier to install, or making Fedora but optimized for gaming, etc.
