Kubuntu 22.04. All my games run like butter without much tinkering. I learned most of my Linux stuff on Debian or Ubuntu in the early days and most of what I need comes in .deb form.
Relatively fast updates, AUR, PKGBUILD, Downgrade, the Wiki, the community, not controlled by some corporate entity, no telemetry, and last but not least the logo ;)
xubuntu. stable and apps are reasonably up to date. i’ll probably switch to mint with the whole snaps thing though. fedora is the one distro i never tried in my distro hopping phase though so…
To be honest, very worried. I used Fedora as my main for about a decade but these days, I just don’t care for it anymore, and every piece of news that comes out about IBM and Red Hat makes me even more worried about the future. Sure, it’s ostensibly community-driven, but Red Hat has historically been very involved with it.
Hopefully I’m wrong, and I’m sure someone will tell me I’m wrong, but Arch and Debian seem to have the best chances at a good future these days.
After trying dozens of distros the enjoyment of the new faded and I just wanted something that installed with the minimum amount of fuss and was stable as a rock. The distro that has best fit that combination of attributes (at least on my machines) has been Linux Mint.
I am not worried at all. Fedora and CentOS Stream are upstream of RHEL and I don’t see them giving up community-driven development in either of those projects.
Intel dropped the ball completely, and it will take years to catch up, if they ever do again. Could be a very long time.
If you believe they will become market leader again, buy stocks now. They are dirt cheap and could double or triple the money in maybe 3 to 5 years if they somehow come back from this.
I think it’s weird how intel ‘dropping the ball’ still resulted in them just barely beating out AMD or hardly falling behind.
Part of me truly believes intel purposefully held back their product line so they could milk it for as long as possible; that they’re just putting out enough to stay competitive with AMD but nothing more.
For mid range desktop CPUs (around $300) it’s very even between AMD and Intel. When I was upgrading a few months ago I was deciding between i5 13600K and Ryzen 7 7700X which are similarly priced. Intel has more cores and better multithreaded performance, while AMD draws less power and has better single thread performance.
Going up to $400 it looks like Intel has no similarly priced competitor to Ryzen 9 7900X.
At $550 it looks like the situation has turned around, and i9-13900K has better power usage and single thread performance, while Ryzen 9 7950X wins on multi threaded performance.
In addition, the AM5 platform still has a bit of problems. Supposedly the long boot times have been improved with newer BIOS for my motherboard, but I’m a little bit afraid to update since other users have reported they got instabilities and at least my computer is rock solid now.
13700k seems to be similarly priced now compared to 7900x.
AMD slashed prices due to poor sales of zen4, 7700x used to be more aligned to 13700k pricing than 13600k. Before that Intel was actually usually the better choice between the two.
That has me worried. Intel was what kept AMD honest. With AMD in the lead, there will be no real alternative to AMD if when AMD turns evil, since Intel does not take security seriously (the Intel Management Engine is insecure by design).
Keep in mind that there is, in general, a scheduler tradeoff between latency and throughput.
So, if you’re doing audio recording and mixing, this is likely to have very different scheduler requirements than something churning through batch jobs. The former wants low latency, the latter high throughput.
linux
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.