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.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    1·
    5 months ago

    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.

    • lemmyvore@feddit.nlEnglish
      2·
      5 months ago

      https://web.archive.org/web/20200330150337/http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050727225542530

      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.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        1·
        5 months ago

        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.

        • lemmyvore@feddit.nlEnglish
          2·
          5 months ago

          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.