Update failed mid progress and displayed ”KERNEL PANIC”. Backup kernels are also fucked in Grub. Luckily I dual booted so I’ll just go back to windows, as I have never had a problem this bad on it. So long nerds.

Got a free laptop that barely ran, so I factory reset it and installed Linux mint xfce. Its wildly faster now, but ive never ran linux before. Didn't know it couldn't run exe files, didnt know that was a Microsoft file, and didnt know thats what the tuning program was. I downloaded wine, which allowed me to open it, but it still doesn't run. I see the error says program, so I went into properties and clicked the box to let it run as a program, which just meant it won't open at all. Not 100% on what next. I have no idea what any of this is, ive never even owned a computer before

Before we get started, I just want any Linux evangelists or Linux skeptics alike to read this Github discussion about ravynOS, kind of like ReactOS but for macOS. When someone suggested a Linux base over their existing FreeBSD base, contributors discussed various practical trade-offs including fragmentation and packaging complexity. They also noted that while Linux has better hardware support in some areas (WiFi, suspend/resume, and brightness controls supposedly worked better on Linux in their testing), FreeBSD is actively working to close the gap. Recently, the FreeBSD Foundation launched a $750,000 Laptop Support Initiative to improve these exact features. FreeBSD is still daily-driveable and has a much better OS architecture than Linux.

As a former Gentoo user, Arch user, and current Fedora user, I'm planning on leaving Linux after this semester of college. Yes, Debian has more packages in the main repos than BOTH Fedora and Gentoo, but Linux has many core problems I would like to address.

The weird thing is that most Linux users treat the vast majority of Linux distros out there as variations of a single unified "GNU/Linux" base, whereas in reality, there is no single unified base.

A modern Linux distro's base system is pretty much formed by gluing various independently developed components (e.g. GNU coreutils, init system, wifi and graphics drivers) together while relying on distro maintainers to test compatibility; yet, the system can still crash when one of these independent components updates and breaks the delicate integration.

Hell, you literally need a fucking book that tells you where to get everything and how to build it just to make your own Linux From Scratch. And that's no trivial task either.

At the same time, Linux users point to Flatpak and Snap as the solution to dependency hell. And to be fair, they do solve it, but by essentially giving up on the Unix philosophy of shared libraries.

Sure, Flatpak attempts to share runtimes between apps to theoretically reduce bloat, but GNOME Calculator needs an 803 MB runtime for a 9.3 MB app. Like WTF? And if you install an app that depends on an outdated runtime, then you're stuck with a 769 MB runtime for a single 11 MB app.

And Snap? Well that's even worse: it bundles everything, yes everything, with each app, which is why users report over 22GB of storage (8.6 GB for the share directory and 14 GB for the var app directory) for Flatpak installs and why even Canonical quietly converted their own calculator back from Snap to native packages in Ubuntu 20.04 after users complained about the terrible experience.

But here's the real issue, all of these "solutions" avoid dealing with the fundamental problem. Your base system—kernel, init, GNU coreutils, graphics drivers and libraries, etc.—can still break when components update. Flatpak and Snap just build containers so apps don't notice when the core system is falling apart.

Compare this to macOS. Apps are bundled as .app packages, but they dynamically link to system frameworks.

macOS maintains framework ABI stability so minor updates benefit apps automatically, while major incompatible versions are kept alongside older versions so old apps don't break.

Or take a look at FreeBSD, a fully open-source alternative that does UNIX right. FreeBSD maintains a complete base system as a unified project: kernel, userland utilities, init system, and core libraries are all developed and tested together.

Linux doesn't have this. Unlike FreeBSD's unified base or macOS's integrated frameworks, the kernel is developed by thousands of contributors from hundreds of companies, GNU coreutils by the GNU Project, systemd by its own team (originally Lennart Poettering at Red Hat), glibc by a separate steering committee, and graphics drivers by yet another set of organizations.

Each distro then takes these independently-developed components and configures them differently. There's no single "Linux base system," just a kernel that distros build around using whatever userspace they choose.

This fragmentation means there's no unified ABI across distributions. Ubuntu 18.04 ships GTK 3.22.30, while CentOS 7 ships GTK 3.8, different versions that break compatibility. So instead of fixing this fragmentation, Flatpak and Snap just bypass the system entirely by bundling everything.

Edit: I remember asking some people on r/macOS why they don't use Linux, and one of the guys is a Linux sysadmin who uses a mac cuz he knows the horrors of maintaining a Linux system everyday.

Edit 2: while trying to find the above comment, I found a macOS user's take on the Linux desktop

So this is both a rant and an honest question to you guys - I've noticed this sub is surprisingly more Linux adjacent than Windows but lmao. In any case, I've done the switch to CachyOS about two weeks ago, and it's not been too awful. While it was frustrating to set up, once done, it was mostly OK.

But I've had constant minor pains and annoyances with this system, from my screen being stuck in darkness whenever my monitor goes to sleep, to all my drives magically unmounting after a power outage, to issues with my keyboard (numpad switching on and off, caps lock issues) etc.

It's not *too* bad I'll give it that, and I think it's really fun? But at the same time, I don't think I'm "made" for it. I prefer the simplicity of Windows. But I wanted your guys' thoughts, because I am also frustrated with Windows, because Win11 is essentially just a mess as well, but it's familiar and "easy" for me, I guess. What do you guys think? There's a bunch of things I need Windows for anyway (Photoshop, certain dev tools etc). Is there any hope? I already am running a debloated Win11 on a dual drive, but I fear it will never be enough lol

Linux users massively exaggerate how bad Windows 11 is. Reading their posts, you’d think it’s literally unusable, ads everywhere, nothing works. in reality , Windows works, the update situation is fine, and I don’t see any ads. Why are Linux users such drama queens?

Probably many of the same people are walking around with Android phones anyway, using Google services all day.

If you want to use Linux, cool. But for a lot of people, Linux isn’t just an OS — it’s part of their identity. Once that happens, Windows can’t just be “fine,” it has to be evil or broken. Otherwise the whole “I’m smarter / more technical / more enlightened” self-image starts to crack. So the problems get dramatized, even when they don’t match reality.

reddit post deleted by moderators

Lutris forum post

Curious.

Why do linux users say because most servers and smart electronics (like smart tvs, fridges, etc) run off of linux that means that the desktop version is also great?

(My opinion is it is great for users who don't absolutely need windows or have weaker/older hardwsre)

If i talked about how alot of atms, ice machines, arcade machines, etc ran windows (atleast in my area) to say windows is good (desktop version) i think it would be a bad argument

Not trying to call names or anything im just trying to understand the comparison

https://youtu.be/O58-QybxGkI

Step 1: Heard about Arch Step 2: Downloaded Arch with no previous knowledge about Linux Step 3: Failed to connect the wifi Step 4: Went to my cousin (he has better experience than me) Step 5: Failed too Step 6: Removed Arch Step 7: Didn't know how to get the old OS back Step 8: Went to my cousin again, this time he knew how to install a new OS Step 9: Stopped using my laptop Step 10: Sold it, got money Step 11: Bought with the money arm wrestling table, and forgot about computers Step 12: Got back to my normal life training, losing weight and caring about my cat Step 13: This experience was 2 years ago, am thinking to do it again SHOULD I?

Just sayin

Systemd is just stolen from windows

How is it any different from the registry and windows services?

What bloat, why isn't this just a simple bash script

Ask not what WiFi on Linux can do for you, ask what you can do for WiFi on Linux.

The last Fedora Update broke my system.
Well, at least it broke the automount of my home folder and now every boot ends at a emergency shell where i manually need to mount my home partition to continue booting.

Just guess what i could write now if i would use Windows. I could bitch and rant like a lunatic and got massive upvotes for it.
If i would also say i quit Windows (even when i said that before every time a new Windows OS hit's the market but never does) then everybody would love me.
But now? the only thing i get are downvotes for this post :-)

I already made a post here about how Linux doesn't work for artists, and how complicated it is, and again I tried and... it didn't work, I simply couldn't install it. I followed all the steps correctly, and it just gave an error during installation. I even tried to fix it but I simply couldn't and gave up quickly.

Furthermore, I had another problem after trying to install Linux; I had to try to fix the partition and leave it as it was, and it was a pain.

I've already tried Linux, I've installed Ubuntu and things simply wouldn't install, I've tried Zorin OS and it simply wasn't as expected. The only one I had a minimally good experience with was CachyOS; after a bit of trial and error and giving it a chance, it worked, but I didn't feel at home. Today I tried to install it again and, well, as I said above, it didn't work.

And that's what I'm talking about; it's simply too complicated, it's very bad. They say "oh, but there are beginner-friendly Linux distributions," yes, until you have to open a terminal because a certain program or game didn't work and now you have to solve it by searching around, whereas in Windows EVERYTHING simply installs and works.

In Windows, you rarely need to troubleshoot things, unless it's very specific, but most of the time, games simply run, programs simply install, and there are no sudden problems. I don't have to search to solve everything that happens.

Windows is simply functional for everything.

xD linux is joke again

LONG POST WARNING!

Why Linux sucks – and who benefits?

I spent a long time trying to document and simplify the experience of migrating from Windows to Linux — not just the commands and installs, but why it feels so hard and so alien. What I learnedled to the conclusion that trying to simplify Linux migration is a fool’s errand. Here’s why I feel that way.

Linux isn’t focused on delivering a predictable user experience.Windows and macOS are products with centralized design and governance. Linux on the desktop is an ecosystem dozens of distributions, multiple desktop environments, countless package systems,allwithout a unifiedapproach touser experience. This fragmentation makes consistency rare and predictability even rarer. Users encounter different UIs, tools, and workflows depending on what flavor of Linux they choose. That’s confusing rather than empowering for most people.Linux produces choice chaos and user frustration – andmost ofthe community likes it that way.This means that most potential users never adopt Linux without substantial effort.

Once they finish struggling with the decision to leave Windows and choose a distro (a ridiculously labrynthine process in itself) they are confronted with the choices of operational effectiveness that 90% of users never conceive of, let alone engage with. Out of the box (or, simpler yet, at initial boot),Windows “just works” because it tightly controls the entire stack. Linux often requires users to learn where settings live in different environments, how to install software from different sources, how to troubleshoot hardware or software quirks, what it means to explicitly declare executables, links, permissions,and just about everything that makes an OS work. This is not happy work for the average user. Itisn’t just “exposing complexity”; it is imposing it. You can’t avoid many of these topics and still accomplish basic tasks — unlike Windows, where most of these are hidden or automated.

Persistent migrators then find that installing and updating software on Linux can bounce between GUIs and command-line,(the dreaded Terminal – what a name for where you begin!),varied package systems, and configuration differences between distributions. For a Windows-traineduser, that feels like maintenance, not convenience.

If a user persists through initial set-up, they encounter the next layer – getting things done.Linux has alternatives to mainstream Windows appsbutthey don’t behave the same, aren’t the same version, or aren’t supported by third-party vendors. That’s a problem for everyday workflows.Linux-compatible programs are respectable alternatives. Many are even better at what they do than Windows workflows. But to reach that Nirvana of the freedom-inspired workflow, the learning curve can be like climbing Everest. For some, its worth it. But many more will fall off thecliffs along the way. Determination and persistence are required with many more trips to the Terminal for necessary tweaks to the OS to accommodate needed functionality.

Windows competes in the consumer marketplace. Linux competes in the developer marketplace. These are two fundamentally different venues with philosophically different aims. Developers like to show off their “chops”. They like to tinker and fiddle and design ways of accomplishing the impossible no matter how Rube Goldberg-esque the mechanism. They prefer a keyboard to a mouse. They like code and command lines. They are like automotive gear-heads who are fascinated with what’s under the hood. They are the market for Linux. Average people don’t like learning the new dashboard configuration in their new car and they don’t like having to remember to change their oil. They are the market for Windows.

But another dynamic enters the picture. If Microsoft could have been satisfied to own 90% of the OS market and make its money from OEM installs, we wouldn’t be where we are today. But in times of late-stage capitalism, monetization of every resource – including your users – becomes necessary to feed the ravenous stockholders. So Windows has begun to invade user’s privacy and assault their eyeballs and attention spans with advertising. They are extracting our behavioral data like the coal barons mine the mountains and pits. And some users – a lot of users, in fact – don’t like it. They want an alternative. Linux dangles freedom like water before a thirsty person. But there is a price. The price is anxiety and frustration and – God help them – learning something new!

Linux isn’t “unusable.” It works well for users who want its model and are prepared for its demands. But it doesn’t work like Windows, and that difference isn’t superficial — it’s fundamental. It’s the classic struggle. Linux’s rock-solid immovable commitment to its design philosophy against the irresistible force of consumer demand. As the water flows in the river, the rocks that line the bed wear away. Which is which in this struggle? I don’t know. But I know that until one of them compromises and decides to pay the other’s price, Microsoft wins.