It's not the battery life that's the issue on Laptops these days, as it is typically better than windows.
The biggest issue is getting all the hardware supported out of the box. For example, there is a certain amount of mucking about you have to do to get any off the shelf laptop running Linux. On rare occasion system updates change something that the laptop doesn't like, hunting down that change can become tedious.
The solution for that is easy: don't buy the absolute-latest-generation of any hardware.
I've owned Samsung laptops, HP laptops, Thinkpads. I've built my own work desktops. I've never had any issues, as long as the hardware is ~6 months out on the market.
That's about the time it takes for linux devs to catch up with companies that focus on windows drivers.
That's useless advice. Even Webcams from laptops as older as 6 years may still not work under Linux. Anything which has an Intel webcam for example is almost guaranteed not to work, outside of perhaps a couple of popular models (like MS Surface devices, and then not precisely "out of the box").
The rule still is to get either a Linux-supported or at least a Linux-popular laptop, even if it's more expensive or doesn't match all your features/requirements. Then it doesn't matter whether it's 6 years old or brand new. It will work.
i.e. it's more important for it to be Lenovo and the correct line than the age. But not all Lenovo are equal. T/P stuff is likely supported out of the box even if brand new. X depends on popularity of the model. Tablets/IdeaPad stuff.... look elsewhere. (Lenovo is just an example, leaving other brands for the reader).
> That's useless advice. Even Webcams from laptops as older as 6 years still don't work under Linux. Anything which has an Intel webcam for example is almost guaranteed not to work, outside of perhaps a couple of popular models (like MS Surface devices, and then not precisely "out of the box").
I have 5 laptops on linux at home, all but one being from a "pro" line (ie Lenovo thinkpad, HP elitebook, Dell latitude, all have a working webcam. I'd say with the exception of fingerprint readers which I never cared to test all the functionnalities have been working from day 1.
I think anyone is safe provided you buy profesionnal models,
don't buy the latest and newest tech and avoid nvidia GPUs.
Any laptop that has a webcam connected to the intel chipset (the IPU) instead of USB UVC is basically unsupported under Linux. Most consumer laptops use the IPU (e.g. IdeaPads, Miix, HP Elites, Surfaces, all Chromebooks, etc. ), while most business lines use much more standarized USB UVC webcams. The reason is cost, as usual. USB UVC is basically a separate device; IPU webcam is much cheaper (processing is done on the intel chipset, you can use a MIPI sensor like on a phone, you don't even have real hw-controlled privacy LED but a software facsimile, etc.).
The IPU3 (Kaby Lake era!) is the only one generation that has been upstreamed, and as of today it only supports 2 types of sensors that were used in a couple Lenovo Miix models. Nothing else!
There are some patches floating around for the Surface devices of the era [1], but nothing upstreamed. And of course any newer IPU is out of the question (Intel is now at IPU6).
And it happens that all of these IPU3 webcams that work with upstream kernel are mostly because of the effort of just ONE guy, who is not employed by Intel, and who did not even know C a couple years ago (if you happen to be reading this, kudos to you!).
I can confirm that Surface cameras work fine on Linux (even without a patched kernel), and Ideapad webcams that I've tried also work just fine. Not sure where you're getting this from, or if it's still an issue anymore.
I've been using Linux as my main OS for almost 15 years.
Even on very cheap HP laptops, following this rule has worked for me flawlessly so far. Between telling people "you should spend more money on X just to be sure" and "Y is cheaper and it is very likely that it will work", I'd 100% recommend them trying the cheaper option first. Even if it turns out to not work, they can always return it and go to the more expensive alternative later.
The rule is not "spend more money", that's just bullshit. You buy the most expensive laptop they have it is almost guaranteed not to work, because no one else will have bought it. The rule is to keep yourself to the business/professional lines, or otherwise the really popular models.
And not only I have _never_ bought a new laptop ( always used/refurbished/thrift) , but for the past 12 years I have been submitting patches to Linux to support the laptops I get. Once you get outside of the popular lines, there is very few people doing that. It will not happen in 6 months or 6 years unless you do it.
Typing this from an HP laptop which even 6 years after release did not have all WMI hotkeys mapped.
I know you didn't say "buy the most expensive", but you said "stick with professional models" which comparatively are more expensive than general models which can work just fine.
How do you deal with laptops that have both an integrated and an Nvidia graphic card? I can't find a reliable way of having the dedicated card on for just some applications on Linux. It's either always on or always off, which is not as convenient or useful as the on-demand mode available on Windows.
It's been my observation over many years that Nvidia and ATI/AMD video cards are the source of a solid 50% of major computer problems. This seems to hold even for Macs. They're best avoided unless you really need them, at least for machines you plan to do non-GPU-related work on.
I agree that the quality of the hardware has gone downhill (weak hinges, getting more fragile every year, keyboard quality) but running Linux has been fine. No real complaints.
Not OP, but my laptop lives long enough for me to get to a plug point if needed. I have power at work and home and I have suspend turned on when I close the lid. I can live with a few seconds of wake up time, when I have no accessible power for long periods of time. It is really not that complicated.
I dual boot Windows and Linux and I found out I can actually work longer in Linux. Maybe it's related to the fact that Windows services consume more CPU.
It varies, like it does for literally every other combination of hardware and software on the market, but mine gets between 8 (light web browsing) and 12 (terminal programming, no web browser running, wifi disabled) hours on a single charge.
For reference, Windows on the same laptop gets about 6 hours while just sitting there.
Are you really that careless with your privacy and your basic freedoms to the point that you make your choices based on the ~battery life~ of your computing device?
Sorry to pick on you, but whenever I hear these sorts of questions I realize how shallow people can be, even those who are (supposedly) informed and smart enough to know better.
To be worried about the inconvenience of ~shorter battery life~ over fundamental freedoms is like failing the marshmallow test for tech people.
1. The marshmallow test has been debunked (just like so many other flashy claims in the social sciences field, the science is questionable and the replication crisis is very real). So using it in a rant about how uninformed people are is itself a laughable irony.
2. Many of us simply do not agree that the use of an Apple computing device impinges on either our privacy or basic freedoms, or (more nuanced) that the marginal risk is so small that it’s not worth the moderately large inconvenience of shorter battery life.
1. It doesn't matter if the effects of the marshmallow test are true or not. The idea is just to illustrate how tech people are as weak-willed, short-term focused and plain "convenience-at-all-costs" as the general consumers.
2. There is no argument here: if you can not control what and how your device operates, your freedom is being taken. You can argue that you don't value this freedom over the convenience it brings you, but this is at best an admission of you being on (1).
> 1. It doesn't matter if the effects of the marshmallow test are true or not. The idea is just to illustrate how tech people are as weak-willed, short-term focused and plain "convenience-at-all-costs" as the general consumers.
Can you explain to me what the long term gain I could expect, exactly, by foregoing a MacOS laptop?
I have lots of computing devices; many are Linux, a couple are Windows, and I have an Apple laptop.
This follows two attempts at a Linux laptop, with crummier hardware in many ways, and many inconveniences from Linux-on-the-desktop sucking. It just works, and I have lots of battery life.
> 2. There is no argument here: if you can not control what and how your device operates, your freedom is being taken.
Am I supposed to be a free software zealot? If my computer sucks, that also impinges on my freedom.
Yes, there may be some hypothetical ability to clone lots and lots of repos and do a lot of troubleshooting and cure one source of suck-- and then argue with upstream maintainers and kowtow until eventually my fix is accepted. When the sources of suck on Linux outnumber the sources of suck on MacOS by a reasonably high multiple, I'd rather keep the MacOS device in my bag than the other machines I have that run Linux.
If you're going to argue about some kind of collective loss by many people making the same choice as me-- that we all lose freedom, etc-- spare me. Tragedy of the commons, etc: not enough people are going to make the choice you're posing to have any significant effect.
> Can you explain to me what the long term gain I could expect, exactly, by foregoing a MacOS laptop?
You would not be contributing to an ecosystem controlled by a single entity who is increasingly abusing their dominance to extract more rent from consumers and other developers.
> You would not be contributing to an ecosystem controlled by a single entity who is increasingly abusing their dominance to extract more rent from consumers and other developers.
c.f.
> > If you're going to argue about some kind of collective loss by many people making the same choice as me-- that we all lose freedom, etc-- spare me. Tragedy of the commons, etc: not enough people are going to make the choice you're posing to have any significant effect.
So, I'd be using my market power to advocate for things that are disproportionately important to you at my own expense. That doesn't seem like "freedom".
I've been a Linux user and developer forever. For awhile, I was a kernel subsystem maintainer. I've walked the walk about making free software available and useful.
I also believe having a Mac laptop benefits me, and is worth the money, and that it is not morally corrosive. Can you please spare me the judgment that I'm "weak-willed" or stupid for my choice?
> not enough people are going to make the choice you're posing to have any significant effect.
A billion flies can not be wrong...
I am not personally affected by what you choose to use. I could give two shits about it and go on with my day.
It's you who stands to gain or lose - along with all those that make a similar choice.
> That doesn't seem like "freedom".
You are also free to stuff yourself with sugar, drugs, play russian roulette, sleep around with any willing consenting adult.
But no, being free to do X does not mean that X is morally virtuous. And you don't get to say "spare me of your judgement" and you shouldn't be expecting any sympathy if you have to face any consequences when things blow up on your face.
This willfully pretends not to understand the argument (I hope). My use of MacOS is not likely to make a big difference in the adoption of MacOS, and therefore ascribing all of the massive network effect of usage to me is a tad unfair.
> I am not personally affected by what you choose to use. I could give two shits about it and go on with my day.
OK. Personally, I'm doing quite fine with MacOS for my laptop. Thanks for your concern, but you don't need to call names and judge me over it. If you really don't care so much, you can spare us all the invective.
> You are also free to stuff yourself with sugar, drugs, play russian roulette
All of these things have likely and measurable short term harms to the individual doing them. Using Apple carries some risk of individual and systemic negative effects, but also some benefits (both individually and communally).
Note, this is true of all things. I just drove to school to teach some classes to kids. I could have died on the way. There are possibly even better moral choices of where I could spend my time that are given up (opportunity costs). But, I judged this is what I wanted to do and the benefits outweighed the risks.
> But no, being free to do X does not mean that X is morally virtuous.
I'm pretty sure that I've done way more to make open systems possible on the desktop than you. The fact that one thing I'm doing isn't moving the needle that direction (but isn't hurting it, either) should be OK. Otherwise, you should immediately stop all activity which isn't helping the cause of open-systems-on-desktop to avoid accusations of hypocrisy.
> you shouldn't be expecting any sympathy if you have to face any consequences when things blow up on your face.
Anyone deserves sympathy when things blow up in their face.
> My use of MacOS is not likely to make a big difference in the adoption of MacOS, and therefore ascribing all of the massive network effect of usage to me.
It's not all to you. But you are contributing to it, and you shouldn't be excusing yourself on the basis of "look at everyone else doing it".
> I'm pretty sure that I've done way more to make open systems possible on the desktop than you.
This is not a competition to see who is more virtuous or less of a sinner. It is just me arguing that using Apple products is a moral failing.
> you should immediately stop all activity which isn't helping the cause of open-systems-on-desktop to avoid accusations of hypocrisy.
I am not perfect and I am not free of sin. But at least I am willing to call a failing as such. The first step to redemption is to accept your own faults.
> But at least I am willing to call a failing as such.
I think there's room in the world for closed offerings and open offerings, and that they each have their own advantages and contributions to the world (and their own risks).
> The first step to redemption is to accept your own faults.
P'raps calling most of the world "weak-willed" (which I notice you've stealth-edited your prior comment to soften) and implying they may not be "smart" is going a bit beyond accepting your own faults and instead exposing others to harsh judgment for not valuing the things that you do.
This is not about "open offerings" and "closed offerings". It is specifically about how little it takes for people to give away their freedoms. To wit, ~battery life~.
It is not a matter of "turning evil". They are already do "evil" things. It's just that you don't care because it doesn't affect you personally or the things that you consume from them.
I disagree. I think Apple has been a pretty good steward as a commercial vendor, with a few missteps. I have a pretty high degree of trust in them-- though my eyes are always open for any substantive problems emerging.
> 2. There is no argument here: if you can not control what and how your device operates, your freedom is being taken. You can argue that you don't value this freedom over the convenience it brings you, but this is at best an admission of you being on (1).
To illustrate something by exaggerating (one of) the numbers to make it crystal clear what I'm getting at:
A Mac that I don't fully control but has 12 hour battery life feels more free in practice than a fully-open platform with a 1-hour battery life. The latter leaves me less able to use the device for things I want to, and takes up more of my time hunting for wall outlets or just having a dead machine when I need one that's working. Time spent keeping my devices working does not feel like freedom, since I could have used that time for other things.
There's hypothetical freedom to do stuff I don't really care to do (audit or fiddle with my OS), then there's the actual range of liberty-of-action for stuff that I do care to do. Personally, I tend to favor the latter, strongly. The former's just a nice-to-have.
>Are you really that careless with your privacy and your basic freedoms to the point that you make your choices based on the ~battery life~ of your computing device?
Not OP, but yes. In a laptop, battery life is the number one thing I'm looking for. That being said, Linux does fine when it comes to battery life in my experience.
You make trade-offs on dimensions that do not violate fundamental principles or when you are confronted with a situation when you need to choose the lesser of two evils.
"Inconvenience caused by a shorter-battery life" vs "patronizing a company that is systematically abusing its power to take away freedom from everyone" is not such a case that requires any type of trade-off to be made.
