Red Dead Redemption 2 actually performs better on Linux than Windows with AMD Graphics

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Jun 19, 2020.

  1. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,809
    Likes Received:
    3,366
    GPU:
    6900XT+AW@240Hz
    From my POV, KDE is closer to experience Win XP gave at time which is not bad at all. Gnome is like Vista, annoying as hell. From there Win 8/10 was big improvement.
    = = = =
    @schmidtbag : I moved to XFCE many years ago. And I am fully aware of some missing functionality features which are still in development pipeline. (KDE has them.)
    But in general, I use same customization on all my linux installs with XFCE. In the end, it can do as much as KDE at least on surface.

    My original reason to move from KDE to XFCE was because my primary work ultrabook running RHEL froze like once every few days while running. I managed to track it down to intel iGPU power management hardware bug which was triggered between KDE-RHEL. (No logs as it was hard locks.) Power management overrides did fix it at cost of power efficiency. And it was still freezing during hybrid-sleep.
    With XFCE/lightdm, power states overrides worked 100% as preventive measure. Then with new ultrabook, I gave KDE chance again. But it managed to freeze even when awake and no logs again. (Can't say, I like intel's mobile chips from 4rd to 8th generation as RHEL was happy with KDE with older CPUs.) But XFCE/lightdm had no issue even without power management overrides. (And as you can guess with RHEL, I am not fond of Gnome which was free of freezes.)

    With CLI for packages, Ubuntu has more separate binaries with more separated functionality than AIX and I always had to man it. And that says something. Sure, it is not only one using dpkg/apt/... . But that's one combination I really dislike. I view AIX, Solaris, RHEL/SLES as user friendly in contrast. So I am quite happy that there are really not servers w/ dpkg/apt/... around.

    Linux is secure till privileged user breaks it. Windows starts as hazard playground where attempts to make it secure via TrustedInstaller user is more annoying than useful.
     
  2. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    2,516
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    GNOME is much more like Mac OS than Vista, especially in the early days.
    To clarify, are you saying XFCE can do everything you need it to, or are you suggesting it in general can do as much as KDE? Because if it's the latter, you would be very wrong. Like, 1+1=3 wrong. But if you're just talking about your personal needs then I totally get what you're saying - KDE's level of customization can be overwhelming (if not unnecessary) to newcomers. I typically don't recommend KDE to people who are just getting into Linux (or BSD) for the first time, though in the past year it has dramatically improved in user-friendliness.
    Makes sense - XFCE isn't really GPU accelerated (it might be once it fully transitions to GTK3). I actually had a similar problem once - I had an Ivy Bridge laptop and whenever something became too demanding on the GPU while running on the battery, the whole laptop would immediately turn off. I wrote a script so whenever the laptop was unplugged, it would underclock the GPU by about 200MHz, and that fixed my problem. Besides, when unplugged, I care more about battery life than performance. I'm sure if I was running KDE (or GNOME) at the time, it would likely be unusable.
    So if I understand you correctly, the problem for you was that there are multiple different programs to install .deb packages, whereas AIX and RPM-based distros use a single package manager that handles both local files and remote repositories?
    Although I have a copy of AIX that I got for free, it's PPC based so I never got to use it and I don't really know how it works. Personally, I never really found things like apt or dpkg all that difficult, but to your credit, I do find it rather stupid that they're not used the same way. It's one thing to have different binaries for different functions - I think it makes sense to have dpkg to handle local packages and apt to install from a repo, but it doesn't make sense that the same functions within them are done in different ways.
    Yup, though Windows has improved dramatically over the years. It's still inherently less secure, but it's not as bad as it used to be.
     

Share This Page