If you meant onlyoffice, then I think it promises better compatibility with ms office stuff and also itsinterface is closer to it, compared to libreoffice.
Collabora is a company, they funded some work on OnlyOffice which is a FOSS office suite like LibreOffice. I think they also worked on making it web hostable like Google docs (through nextcloud?)
Edit: Apparently now there’s also collabora office suite?
OnlyOffice and LibreOffice are both very good. The former promises better compatibility with ms office files and has an easier interface imo. LibreOffice seems way more featureful
As for why fewer distros have onlyoffice in their repository, maybe because it’s relatively newer? Anyway, it’s available through flatpak and that’s how I use it. I haven’t tried Collabora online stuff
Is abiword foss?
It is the most reasonable of editors/wp I have found, LO gives me a headache looking at 1000 menus/items.
The gtk2 version is stable as a rock, despite of some bad wrap it got last few years.
All modules that call a Unix library contain WoW64 thunks to enable calling the 64-bit Unix library from 32-bit PE code. This means that it is possible to run 32-bit Windows applications on a purely 64-bit Unix installation. This is called the new WoW64 mode, as opposed to the old WoW64 mode where 32-bit applications run inside a 32-bit Unix process.
Does this change run the 32-bit .exe using x86_64 instructions? From the description it just sounds like it allows 64-bit Linux libraries to be used in place of 32-bit ones, but that the Windows layer still operates in native 32-bit mode. This means there is still a need to emulate 32-bit x86 instructions which I don’t think box64 can do at this time (x86_32 translates to arm32 with box86, x86_64 translates to arm64 with box64). If box86 could translate x86_32 to arm64 then this might work as Wine would handle the conversion between 32 and 64 bit addressing and argument passing into the libraries but I’m not familiar with the inner workings there.
Old Proton builds probably won’t backport this (unless it’s completely isolated, idk the code layout of Wine). But are old Proton builds still necessary? Occasionally there’s regressions, but are there really any games that require like a 2 year old Proton build?
There are, but it’s complicated. Doom (2016) for instance - it doesn’t handle the very large Vulkan swap chain that’s possible on some modern graphics cards, crashes on start-up. Someone patched Proton around that time so that Doom would start; the patch was later reverted since it broke other games. Other games based off of that engine - couple of Wolfensteins, Doom Eternal - have the problem fixed in the binaries, and so run on up-to-date Proton, but depending on your hardware, only a few specific, old, versions of Proton, will do for Doom.
Regressions get fixed - that’s okay. Buggy behaviour which depended on regressions that got fixed - that’s a problem.
Use openSUSE Tumbleweed. It’s a rolling release distribution with the best a great KDE Plasma implementation.
Now, your specific question boils down to choosing between Arch and Fedora, since, arguably, Endeavour OS is actually Arch Linux. Now, as you’re willing to use a Qt-based DE, specifically Plasma, I’d say none of your options are ideal. That’s why I mentioned openSUSE Tumbleweed, but, for you, I’d say Arch Linux, however, you currently use Arch Linux, hence, you should just switch to the Plasma DE.
My vote is Fedora. It offers fresh yet stable packaging, and a polished experience that you can rely on. You can then use flatpaks for even newer apps, or opt to run Arch in a container with distrobox/toolbox and play with as many cutting edge apps as you want, all as if they were installed on the host.
Finally, if you like what you see in Fedora, consider trying Fedora Silverblue, Kinoite, or any of their other immutable distros.
It’s a miracle we have wine at all, reverse engineering an entire operating system isn’t easy. Be grateful for what we have (which is already enough to run a ton of software really well)
reverse engineering an entire operating system isn’t easy
Have you noticed the the NT / Windows XP source code was leaked years ago. There’s isn’t much of a need to “reverse engineering”, it’s just about reading their implementation and providing an alternative implementation that doesn’t copy code…
Didn’t companies have to set up ethics walls to protect against lawsuits for things like that?
What are you talking about? There’s copyright infringement that when you copy the leaked Windows source code into something like Wine or ReactOS and then there’s reading it to understand what Microsoft did and coming up with an alternative implementation that will provide a compatible API for programs to use. There’s no “gray zone” or ethical BS - it’s either copied or not.
See the bit about examples and IBM. While you could probably look, the easiest way to defend against a giant tech company’s legal team is to do the clean room setup
Guess that rule was in place because some people would look at it and proceed to copy it. The rule should be “if you copy code from Microsoft you’ll be kicked from the project and the code removed”. While I see why this is place and what it protect the project from this is also a very big roadblock to the project’s evolution and a clear example of what’s wrong with it and why we still have compatibility issues.
Nope, because if you write code and they can prove you were influenced by leaked proprietary code in any way then they will sue the shit out of you and shut you down.
Also see Halt and Catch Fire for a show with this as a plot point. It’s very real though.
Well at least I’m not here perpetuating the delusion that desktop Linux desktop is as user-friendly and productive for every use-case as Windows and macOS are. If one lives in a bubble and doesn’t to collaborate with others then native Linux apps might work and might even deliver a decent workflow. Once collaboration with Windows/Mac users is required then it’s game over – the “alternatives” aren’t just up to it.
Windows licenses are cheap and things work out of the box. Software runs fine, all vendors support whatever you’re trying to do and you’re productive from day zero. Sure, there are annoyances from time to time, but they’re way fewer and simpler to deal with than the hoops you’ve to go through to get a minimal and viable/productive Linux desktop experience.
It all comes down to a question of how much time (days? months?) you want to spend fixing things on Linux that simply work out of the box under Windows for a minimal fee. Buy a Windows license and spend the time you would’ve spent dealing with Linux issues doing your actual job and you’ll, most likely, get a better ROI.
Just buy a windows license next time.
Here’s the thing, I can get a legit Windows license by various means. I don’t need to go into microsoft.com and get it for 300$, a second hand windows machine with an old i5 CPU will sell for 50$ and that includes a valid Windows license. Computers selling on retail stores also include a Windows license, students can get them for free etc. what else?
Well at least I’m not here perpetuating the delusion that desktop Linux desktop is as user-friendly and productive for every use-case as Windows and macOS are.
Wait, are you saying Windows and macOS are user-friendly and productive for every use-case? That’s hilarious!
Oh yes, I value and like Linux a LOT… just not for desktop as it doesn’t deliver as everyone says it does. To be fair I believe that only someone who values Linux as much as I do would be comfortable to criticize what’s wrong with it.
Well I can’t spend all my time trying to fix ridiculous issues that would’ve been fixed by now if people had the balls to look at Windows XP source code…
You’re doing something worse, complaining about something that no one really does. The average Linux user doesn’t want the average computer user to install Arch Linux. Stop spamming this garbage.
Instead of leaving snide comments like this, you can use your head to open up an IDE, implement the features you want, and make a pull request. Keep it to yourself
I recently started using Fedora 39 KDE Spin as my main driver. It mostly just works out of the box. You’ll need to add some repos to get media support etc. but that is just a quick Google-search away.
I have been using Debian for a long time for my home server and to be honest, and it never once failed me. In my experience, Debian on a server is just rock solid. When I made the switch from Win11 (I don’t like a snooping AI in Notepad) to Debian (stable) I wasn’t that happy. Apps were outdated, Wayland was f**king things up, etc. So I switched to Debian testing (trixie) and installed KDE the manual way. That way I hoped to get a really ‘clean’ system, leaving some of the standard apps (that I wouldn’t be using anyway) behind. Although Debian testing seemed really stable, the ‘manual way’ left me with some quirks that left me unhappy. For a reason I can’t remember, I decided to try out Fedora 39. And I have to say, it has been great. Up to date apps, no unexpected errors or crashes, etc.
I’m really enjoying Fedora (just switched from Ubuntu and previously Debian). More current than Debian, doesn’t have Ubuntu’s canonical baggage, and more stable than Arch (nothing wrong with Arch, it’s just more bleeding edge than I want for anything other than experimenting. YMMV. And Arch documentation is fantastic - I use it to help unravel issues/find solutions on other distros after a bit of translation and sanity checks).
Fedora is well inside the Gnome camp but it’s basically unaltered so you feel freer to tweak and make it your own. (you can obviously run any environment you want).
Not sure if Red Hat’s nonsense will infect Fedora down the road but I can switch it up if I feel like it later. (for a server, I’d just do Debian or possibly Ubuntu.)
Unfortunately, my main machine remains Windows with WSL. Too many things (of what I need) just won’t run on Linux…
Disclaimer: I am by no means a Linux expert, but figured I could give my 2 cents.
I recently installed Fedora on one of my machines that I mainly use for web browsing, file downloading, and general office like activities. And I don’t have much experience with it yet. I specifically went the KDE route, as I am a huge fan of what KDE has to offer. That being said, for the most part everything “just works.” Sorry I don’t have much more to say about Fedora, but I will report back as I use it more.
The distro I have used for a few years now that I quite enjoy is Arch. What drew me to Arch was the fact that it is bleeding edge. That being said, as with anything bleeding edge, you should have backups and other contingency plans for failure. That should be done for all systems, but doubly so with things that are bleeding edge I would argue. Arch has been quite stable for me, but I would say that it is more tailored to someone who is looking to tinker. On my desktop, I unfortunately still run windows due to some proprietary hardware and software that I have yet to figure out how to get working within Arch. The biggest issue I have had with Arch over the few years that I have been using it comes down to the Nvidia graphics card I use in my desktop. I know not everyone has had the same issues I have had with Nvidia, but getting wayland working on it, as well as just general multi-monitor issues, have sort of taken the wind out of my sails for linux on my desktop computer.
Here are a few resources I would recommend checking out to help you make your decision [distrochooser.de](Distro Chooser) - Distro Chooser asks questions about what you are looking for and the like to help you pick a distro to try. [linux-hardware.org](Linux Hardware) - This is Linux Hardware website and is quite handy for looking into getting drivers,and checking to see if there are known bugs for specific hardware you are trying to use on a Linux system.
Nothing beats the Arch wiki, to be honest. One of the best and broadest collections of useful information around the web. And since Arch is not-too-modified in relation to upstream, all of the information is usable for most a lot of other distributions, too.
And yes: I’m using Arch, btw.
To be more specific: I’m running Arch with Hyprland (a tiling compositor for Wayland) on my DELL XPS 13 without any issues, running Arch with Openbox (X11) on my main computer since over a decade without any major issues (device is used for gaming, multimedia, video and image editing and screen recording), and on all devices I serve something from.
Since I run Arch as a server (had it as communication server, as DHCP/DNS server, as VPN endpoint on a Raspberry Pi, and as a gaming server, currently on my main server it’s used as host for a Docker setup), I can tell you, you don’t need to worry about any real issues regarding stability and performance. Arch is way less bleeding edge as non-Arch users think. Just update regularly every 2-3 weeks at least, and check the news before doing so.
I’m curious to hear about your experiences and recommendations!
It boils down to what effort you want to put into it.
If university and work usage is mainly running productivity stuff like some type of text processing or using web-based applications you likely won’t ever have any issues. If you’re constantly switching environments, need to run specific apps (maybe even 32-bit software), constantly use different video outputs, tons of different BT devices, etc. … well … Arch is of course capable of everything the bigger distributions have to offer by default (all the nice “magic” stuff that happens automatically in the background), you just need to set everything up by yourself.
I might be biased towards Arch, but maybe just try if it fits your intended purpose and if you’re willing to set up everything at least once before using it.
linux
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.