On a serious note, having used Linux on and off since the 90s (aah, Slackware, how I miss installing you from floppies … not), Linux has, IMHO, actually been desktop ready for ages (though definitelly not in the days of Slackware when configuring X was seriously interesting for a geek and pretty much an impossible barrier for everybody else).
The problem have always been applications not having Linux builds, only Windows builds, not the actual desktop Linux distros being an inferior desktop experience than Windows (well, not once Gnome and KDE emerged and made things like configuring your machine possible via GUIs - the age of the RTFF and editing text files in the command line before that wasn’t exactly friendly for non-techies).
In other words, from maybe the late 00s onwards the problem were mainly the “networks effects” (in a business sense of "apps are made for Windows because that’s were users are, users go for Windows because that’s were the apps are) rather than the “desktop” experience.
The almost unassailable advantage of Windows thanks to pretty much just network effects, was something most of us Linux fans were aware since way back.
What happened in the meanwhile to make Linux more appealing “in the Desktop” was mainly on the app availabilty side - OpenOffice (later LibreOffice and derivatives) providing an Office-style suit in Linux, the movement from locally hosted apps to web-hosted apps meaning that a lot of PC usage was really just browser usage, Wine improving by leaps and bounds and making more and more Windows applications run in Linux (most notably and also thanks to DXVK, Games) and so on.
Personally I think Linux has been a superior experience on the server side since the late 90s and, aside for the lack of Linux versions of most commonly used non-OS applications, a superior experience in the desktop since the 00s.
Oddly enough it seems like Microsoft themselves that’s working towards breaking the network effect. They are pushing people to use the web versions of their software now and since edge is chromium, their web versions should work in Linux.
In the past Microsoft made most of their money from Windows and Office, but now they make more money off of cloud services so the traditional Windows and Office products are becoming more and more about just driving people to their cloud services. But as they they put more emphasis on cloud services they’re actually making it easier for people to dump Windows, and as they make Windows more about marketing their cloud services, they give people more incentive to dump Windows.
To make a long post short, windows is shitty but its setup bullshit is very straight forward and clear to deal with, linux is great when it works but its setup bullshit is byzantine as all hell. I got Linux working with only light bullshit on a laptop but just gave up entierly after 3 days of trying to get different distros at different advice working on my desktop.
In theory all Linux distributions support the same hardware. Its just that sometimes you need to manually install drivers and configure sth. And on Other distros you don’t need to do that for certain hardware.
I guess Linux Mint is usually pretty good at default support, but of course not everything will work.
Now about if certain hardware has Linux support:
Check if the manufacturer is claiming Linux support. This is the best case, you can assume it just works.
If there is no mention about it from the manufacturer it is still possible to have support. Use an online search machine and enter “specific hardware Linux support” or use linux mint instead of linux so that you can be sure it works for your distro.
What usually works almost always:
Motherboards(except if they are a few months old from release)
Keyboards (unless they are gaming keyboards with special tools like razer, then only the normal keyboard functions are working without special config)
Monitors
Grafic cards (they don’t work from day one release, you should always wait a few months)
I suspect Mint would work fine on that same desktop at this point, since it was just very new at the time and support take a bit to come in, but now its all set up how I want. Perhaps when windows next shits itself and I need to re-format anyway.
Can confirm. In over 10 years of Arch I had only three breakages, two of which were self-caused by not checking for required manual intervention before upgrading. The third was because my laptop’s battery died during an upgrade.
And the fix was always the same. Boot a life image, chroot into my install and fix it.
“No, you don’t understand, Linux is not desktop ready, I know that because I installed Fedora back in 2008 and it was kinda wonky.”
On a serious note, having used Linux on and off since the 90s (aah, Slackware, how I miss installing you from floppies … not), Linux has, IMHO, actually been desktop ready for ages (though definitelly not in the days of Slackware when configuring X was seriously interesting for a geek and pretty much an impossible barrier for everybody else).
The problem have always been applications not having Linux builds, only Windows builds, not the actual desktop Linux distros being an inferior desktop experience than Windows (well, not once Gnome and KDE emerged and made things like configuring your machine possible via GUIs - the age of the RTFF and editing text files in the command line before that wasn’t exactly friendly for non-techies).
In other words, from maybe the late 00s onwards the problem were mainly the “networks effects” (in a business sense of "apps are made for Windows because that’s were users are, users go for Windows because that’s were the apps are) rather than the “desktop” experience.
The almost unassailable advantage of Windows thanks to pretty much just network effects, was something most of us Linux fans were aware since way back.
What happened in the meanwhile to make Linux more appealing “in the Desktop” was mainly on the app availabilty side - OpenOffice (later LibreOffice and derivatives) providing an Office-style suit in Linux, the movement from locally hosted apps to web-hosted apps meaning that a lot of PC usage was really just browser usage, Wine improving by leaps and bounds and making more and more Windows applications run in Linux (most notably and also thanks to DXVK, Games) and so on.
Personally I think Linux has been a superior experience on the server side since the late 90s and, aside for the lack of Linux versions of most commonly used non-OS applications, a superior experience in the desktop since the 00s.
Oddly enough it seems like Microsoft themselves that’s working towards breaking the network effect. They are pushing people to use the web versions of their software now and since edge is chromium, their web versions should work in Linux.
In the past Microsoft made most of their money from Windows and Office, but now they make more money off of cloud services so the traditional Windows and Office products are becoming more and more about just driving people to their cloud services. But as they they put more emphasis on cloud services they’re actually making it easier for people to dump Windows, and as they make Windows more about marketing their cloud services, they give people more incentive to dump Windows.
Microsoft is digging the grave for windows.
RTFF? What’s a fanual?
Read The Fucking FAQ.
1990s Usenet reference.
A fan of manuals, obviously. There are dozens of us!
To make a long post short, windows is shitty but its setup bullshit is very straight forward and clear to deal with, linux is great when it works but its setup bullshit is byzantine as all hell. I got Linux working with only light bullshit on a laptop but just gave up entierly after 3 days of trying to get different distros at different advice working on my desktop.
True. Linux supports a lot of hardware. However some distros support some better than others.
Basically before you buy hardware you need to check if it works on Linux. Usually it does, but better check throughly
Is there some website or tool i could search my hardware specs for the best distro?
Uff, that one is difficult.
In theory all Linux distributions support the same hardware. Its just that sometimes you need to manually install drivers and configure sth. And on Other distros you don’t need to do that for certain hardware.
I guess Linux Mint is usually pretty good at default support, but of course not everything will work.
Now about if certain hardware has Linux support:
Check if the manufacturer is claiming Linux support. This is the best case, you can assume it just works.
If there is no mention about it from the manufacturer it is still possible to have support. Use an online search machine and enter “specific hardware Linux support” or use linux mint instead of linux so that you can be sure it works for your distro.
What usually works almost always:
Motherboards(except if they are a few months old from release)
Keyboards (unless they are gaming keyboards with special tools like razer, then only the normal keyboard functions are working without special config)
Monitors
Grafic cards (they don’t work from day one release, you should always wait a few months)
I suspect Mint would work fine on that same desktop at this point, since it was just very new at the time and support take a bit to come in, but now its all set up how I want. Perhaps when windows next shits itself and I need to re-format anyway.
Ironically, for me, Arch has been the “Just Works” Distro lol.
Can confirm. In over 10 years of Arch I had only three breakages, two of which were self-caused by not checking for required manual intervention before upgrading. The third was because my laptop’s battery died during an upgrade.
And the fix was always the same. Boot a life image, chroot into my install and fix it.