I just installed EndeavorOS on an HP Spectre360 that’s roughly 2 years old. I am honestly surprised at how easy it went. If you google it, you’ll get a lot of “lol good luck installing linux on that” type posts - so I was ready for a battle.
Turned off secure boot and tpm. Booted off a usb stick. Live environment, check. Start installer and wipe drive. Few minutes later I’m in. Ok let’s find out what’s not working…
WiFi check. Bluetooth check. Sound check (although a little quiet). Keyboard check. Screen resolution check. Hibernates correctly? Check. WTF I can’t believe this all works out the box. The touchscreen? Check. The stylus pen check. Flipping the screen over to a tablet check. Jesus H.
Ok, everything just works. Huh. Who’d have thunk?
Install programs, log into accounts, jeez this laptop is snappier than on windows. Make things pretty for my wife and install some fun games and stuff.
Finished. Ez. Why did I wait so long? Google was wrong - it was cake.
The moment that shocked me was when printers, network cards, and even motherboard integrated Ethernet didn’t work on Windows without driver downloads but Linux was plug and play. Full reversal of the situation.
Linux is boring. In a good way. It is so boring that each of my computers use different distros. I have Debian, Fedora, Mint, OpenSUSE Tumbleweed and Endeavour OS installed across 4 or 5 computers right now. Some of them still dual-booting Windows 10/11. Now each time I boot into Windows is fun. In a bad way.
Yep, at this point Linux just does what I need it to.
I mean if you dont have secureboot or TPM support some people would say crucial security features are broken.
TPM is only used for “prevent local tampering with device” but could be used for way more.
deleted by creator
On my machine it says that soft disabling Intel ME would disable the TPM functionality.
But not too sure about that so not spreading any rumors.
It is dasharo coreboot from Novacustom. Very cool project.
deleted by creator
Sound check (although a little quiet).
I have a Lenovo IdeaPad 3 and this was an issue on every Linux install I’ve had (Endeavour, Arch, and now Debian). I know it isn’t a hardware issue because when I first installed Endeavour, I was dual booting with Win11 and it was, no joke, capable of easily twice the volume as Endeavour, and that was even after maxing everything out in Alsamixer. Really not sure what’s going on there. I’ve been incredibly lucky with audio on Linux the entire time I’ve used it, this is the one black spot on my record.
I’ve used Linux since the mid 00’s and, well, I’ve seen some shit. But nowadays? It’s the best desktop OS I’ve used. I recently had to start using a Mac for work and realized just how far DE’s like Gnome and KDE have gotten. It feels like I have to fight MacOS every single day to get it to do the absolute basics, the things that Gnome and KDE does out of the box. And the most ridiculous thing is that the app ecosystem for MacOS is so heavily focused on monetization that if you purchase enough apps to customize the MacOS DE to an acceptable level, you’d likely have spent enough money to buy another laptop. Madness.
TL;DR: Turns out that this year is actually the year of Linux on the desktop!
I’m glad it’s going easy for you. Unfortunately after 3 hours of trying I still haven’t gotten mint cinnamon installed yet. Bitlocker has been a pain to disable. I’m determined to get it working though, I’m really tired of microsoft
which DE?
Gnome
Happy to see you picked a great DE. Things will work out of the box. Install extensions out of these to improve your experience.
Yeah I had an MSI gaming laptop that had a lot of proprietary stuff that was a pain to setup. Everything from display brightness to volume to internet to keyboard lights to headphone jack took special workarounds to setup. This was in 2018 and Ubuntu 18.04. Then 19.04 rolled out, and I didn’t have to do the speaker workaround anymore. 19.10 rolled out, and i didn’t have to do the keyboard lights workaround. This way, little by little, every Linux kernel upgrade added one or another of the components, and after a couple of years, everything on that laptop worked out of the box. That’s when I was truly impressed by Linux.
Yes it literally has come a long way, all the way from 1991 to 2024, I think the only other OS that has managed that is Windows.
I know that’s not quite what you meant, it was just a thought I came to think of reading the headline.But apart from that, it’s also become quite good, but IMO it has been for more than a decade now.
all the way from 1991 to 2024, I think the only other OS that has managed that is Windows
It’s easy to forget about MacOS when it only has 15% desktop market share.
Operating systems that started before 1991 that are still in active development (had a release in the last 12 months):
- Multics (1969-)
- MVS (1974-) via OS/390 (1995-) -> z/OS (2001-)
- VMS (1977) via OpenVMS (1992-)
- BSD (1978-) via 386BSD -> FreeBSD, NetBSD -> OpenBSD
- HP-UX (1982-)
- SunOS (1982-1994) via Solaris (1992-)
- MacOS (1984-)
- AIX (1986-)
- RISC OS (1987-)
Almost made it:
- Minix (1987-2017)
- Genera (1982-2021)
- AmigaOS (1985-2021)
- NeXTSTEP (1987-1997) via GNUStep (1993-2021)
- IBM i (1988-2022)
- SpartaDOS (1988-2022)
That’s an impressive list, 👍
I admit I forgot AIX, but the others there are reasons I didn’t consider, I have explained in other posts why on BSD and MAC OS. Same arguments are true for most of your list.
But it’s still an impressive and interesting list. And yes AIX absolutely qualifies.
Windows only has more support because it is 10 years older but of course the shareholders will destroy its market dominance.
Windows became popular with Windows 3.0 that came out 1990, And the Linux kernel came in 1991, but the first distro which is a better comparison came in 1993.
So Windows had a 3 year advantage.
But that wasn’t the more crucial thing, the real advantage was DOS compatibility, which everything legacy ran on. So with Windows people and companies could still run their old DOS programs, they could even run them better than in an old fashioned DOS system, because Windows was brilliant for multitasking DOS programs.
1991 to 2024, I think the only other OS that has managed that is Windows.
Also the various BSD-based OSs. FreeBSD etc. are still around, and MacOS is based on BSD too. And since BSD (1978) is a Unix, you can trace these all the way back to 1969.
That’s kind of true, but MacOS and Mac OSX are 2 different things. What is based on BSD is the MAC OSX that came out in 2001 AFAIK.
And BSD was interrupted for 2 years because of copyright disputes with AT&T. If that hadn’t happened, BSD would be the longest continuous OS today, and probably way more significant than it is.
I don’t consider MAC OSX as part of BSD, just like Android isn’t part of Linux Desktop, but only uses the Linux kernel. OSX took parts of BSD and shielded it behind a proprietary wall, because the BSD license offer no protection from that. So they become separate projects the moment they enter the Apple domain.
Problem here is when people mix up the use of the word Linux as an OS with Linux the kernel. I am 100% sure OP meant Linux as a Desktop OS like GNU/Linux or something like Free desktop according to freedesktop.org. Using his experience with EndeavorOS as an example.
But you are right, it can be said Unix/BSD has an even longer running time, but it has been somewhat problematic and interrupted because of AT&T and SCO and Novell.
I don’t consider MAC OSX as part of BSD, just like Android isn’t part of Linux Desktop, but only uses the Linux kernel. OSX took parts of BSD and shielded it behind a proprietary wall, because the BSD license offer no protection from that. So they become separate projects the moment they enter the Apple domain.
Check : What happened to the open source Apple Darwin OS then ?
tl;dr : Darwin OS is kind of obsoleted.
Up to Darwin 8.0.1, released in April 2005, Apple released a binary installer (as an ISO image) after each major Mac OS X release that allowed one to install Darwin on PowerPC and Intel x86 systems as a standalone operating system.[12] Minor updates were released as packages that were installed separately. Darwin is now only available as source code. As of January 2023, Apple no longer mentions Darwin by name on its Open Source website and only publishes an incomplete collection of open-source projects relating to macOS and iOS.
That’s kind of true, but MacOS and Mac OSX are 2 different things
Then Windows 3.0 and Windows 11 are two different things, so by that metric you can’t include Windows either.
I’d agree with that.
I think the windows NT lineage should be considered separately from the MS-DOS based ones (pre win 2000).
So I’d say MS-Dos family died with windows 2000. and the current windows lineage traces back to the early windows NT business oriented stuff - not back through windows 95.
So I’d say MS-Dos family died with windows 2000.
Did you mean Windows Me?
2000 was NT-based.
yeah, that’s what i meant; 2000 killed off the old one.
I forgot about Me though - never used it.
Good catch, I guess that’s mostly true, but Windows NT was an evolution of Windows that mainly got rid of the DOS legacy. Which after Windows NT ran on a compatibility layer, where Windows 3 ran on DOS directly.
It’s a bit of a grey area. But I’d say windows NT was a continuation of Windows that shared almost the entire API from Windows 3.0.
The old “System n” OS was also called MAC OS. And the switch to OSX was a completely new OS where the old MAC OS software ran on a compatibility layer.I guess it can be seen either way.
If that hadn’t happened, BSD would be the longest continuous OS today, and probably way more significant than it is.
Or if the GNU project had used the BSD kernel instead of deciding to make their own from scratch.
Yes BSD just hasn’t had much luck, I have no idea why the GNU project didn’t use the BSD kernel? They say the Linux kernel was the final piece to make it a complete OS. But AFAIK BSD existed with a kernel way before that.
Stallman wanted to use TRIX initially but it was considered too limited for the goals of GNU.
BSD was considered too but some of the Berkeley crowd were uncooperative because they secretly planned to make a commercial version (BSDi).
In the the end he compromised on Mach.
Thomas Bushnell:
RMS was a very strong believer – wrongly, I think – in a very greedy-algorithm approach to code reuse issues. My first choice was to take the BSD 4.4-Lite release and make a kernel. I knew the code, I knew how to do it. It is now perfectly obvious to me that this would have succeeded splendidly and the world would be a very different place today.
RMS wanted to work together with people from Berkeley on such an effort. Some of them were interested, but some seem to have been deliberately dragging their feet: and the reason now seems to be that they had the goal of spinning off BSDI. A GNU based on 4.4-Lite would undercut BSDI.
So RMS said to himself, “Mach is a working kernel, 4.4-Lite is only partial, we will go with Mach.” It was a decision which I strongly opposed. But ultimately it was not my decision to make, and I made the best go I could at working with Mach and doing something new from that standpoint.
This was all way before Linux; we’re talking 1991 or so.
From “The Daemon, the GNU and the Penguin” by Dr. Peter H. Salus.
Interesting, I just don’t get that last line, Linux came out in 1991, so how is 1991 way before Linux?
I’m not sure either, that if the GNU project had managed to make a decent kernel, that it would have made the world a different place today. At least not for the better.
The Linux kernel is the most successful piece of open software ever made, and it’s GPL like GNU. I am far from sure another kernel would have been equally successful either technologically or in benefiting all sorts of computers.Linux started in 1991 but initially it was just one student’s project. It was only considered mature in 1994, by which time there were over 100 people working on it, lots of software was ported to it, the first distributions came out, and it officially hit version 1.0.
A working, established kernel in 1991 would have given the GNU project a 3 year head start. I’m also unsure if the combination of GPL userland and BSD kernel would have been ideal but 3 years can mean a lot in tech.
I haven’t hurd much about that
Let’s get even more technical with MacOS X then. Which, btw, doesn’t exist anymore as macOS 11 was released in 2020 (tho it still maintains the BSD-legacy in the same way Windows 10 does the NT legacy). It is based on the NeXTSTEP operating system from NeXT Computers, who Apple bought in the 90s to famously also bring Steve Jobs back into the fold. The initial release of NeXTSTEP occurred in 1989, pre-dating Windows and Linux…
My experience has been pretty similar. With Windows turning the invasive crap up to 11, I decided to try and jump to Linux. The catch has always been gaming. But, I have a Steam Deck and so have seen first hand how well Proton has been bridging that gap and finally decided to dip my toes back in. I installed Arch on a USB 3 thumbdrive and have been running my primary system that way for about a month now. Most everything has worked well. Though, with the selection of Arch, I accepted some level of slamming my head against a wall to get things how I want them. That’s more on me than Linux. Games have been running well (except for the input bug in Enshrouded with recent major update, that’s fixed now). I’ve had no issues with software, I was already using mostly FOSS anyway. It’s really been a lot of “it just works” all around.
Linux works for roughly 80% of what I do. The BIG missing piece is audio production. The software is mostly okay, it’s the actual audio system that’s the problem. Audio on Linux sucks big floppy donkey dicks. Yes, I know all about JACK (complicated and never works the way you think it should), RT kernels, Pipewire, etc. It’s all terrible.
Did you get your audio volume fixed? My ThinkPad is so quiet on Linux (Silverblue) that it’s hard to use it for anything with media.
I recall that at least on KDE, in the audio settings you can enable the ability to go WAY past 100% volume.
Does this then also work for the media buttons? Then maybe I should try to rebase…
Yes, but you have to enable the checkbox “Increase maximum volume” in the audio widget on the taskbar panel.
Not with the volume buttons on the keyboard. Alsamixer helped a little - it was set to ~70% (whatever the line between white and red is). But it’s still quiet. But you can drive it way beyond 100% through software. The problem is pushing the volume button stops at 100%.
The lazy way is to open pulseaudio, grab the slider bar and put it to say, 150%. You can also do it with a terminal command. Somewhere close to the top of a Google search somebody mentioned they bound their volume keys to that terminal command/script where each press resulted in a 5% increase or decrease in volume - allowing the button presses to go beyond 100%. I may or may not do this.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say it doesn’t work - merely one of the annoyances I was expecting. Except I expected many of these and this is the only one I encountered.
I know about those “workarounds”, but it’s ridiculous that the regular UI (including media buttons!) is more or less useless 🙂
Maaan, you turned off secureboot and tpm though. Does EndeavorOS not support that?
