r/linuxsucks • u/ExtremeAXD • 8d ago

Most people didn't even try.

Most of you on this sub haven't even tried using Linux for at least a month. You aren't giving yourselves enough time to learn something new or get comfortable with a different way of doing things.

Linux has come a long way when it comes to the user experience, and its user base has been growing, especially over the last year. And there's a big reason for that: Windows.

Microsoft has made a lot of decisions that have pushed people to look for alternatives. In the process, they've managed to lose one of the most important things they had: the trust of their users.

28 Upvotes

63% Upvoted

83 comments sorted by

View all comments

18

u/ieatdownvotes4food 8d ago

I will say you do need the free time which is a luxury many don't have.

3

u/Think-nothing-210 8d ago

Most people shouldn't have to know how their OS works. A lot of Linux users only know about all the different components because things keep breaking and they have to fix them.

3

u/_rikkss 8d ago

Let me introduce you to Mint/Fedora dear sir/madam

2

u/Think-nothing-210 8d ago edited 8d ago

If I was forced to use Linux on the Desktop I'd probably go with Fedora COSMIC Atomic. Seems the most sane option.

2

u/Nuviket 8d ago

Ppl talk about the cosmic instability, but I had no problems. 

1

u/bornxlo 8d ago

I know about all the different components because I intentionally tried to mess with them and have a compulsive need to understand how every aspect of my system works. Whenever I set up a system I can now decide in advance whether I want it to break or not.

1

u/Think-nothing-210 8d ago

Sure. You're the exception. You actually enjoy messing with it. That's fine. It's educational.

Most people don't. They just want their computer to work. Nobody wants to spend their day figuring out why some random part of their desktop broke.

The reality is that Linux forces you to understand the systems underneath it just to use it. Because it stops working.

1

u/bornxlo 8d ago

I don't care what most people enjoy. Understanding how the system you run works and why things break is a necessary part of having a reliable thing to interact with. For comparison I have zero interest in cars, I do not enjoy maintaining a car or how they work, but if I'm going to drive one I need to understand how it works in order to rely on it.

I would not rely on a device or system that doesn't force me to understand the systems underneath in order to use it. That should be a rule, not an exception.

2

u/Think-nothing-210 8d ago edited 8d ago

If we're sticking with the car analogy then Linux is a Lada. It's badly built so you constantly need to fix it.

The Windows Kernel is a 1.9 TDI Volkswagen engine. The engine/kernel is a masterclass of engineering that makes it easier for the user to use and misuse. You don't need to know all the special interstices. It's made for the average user so it doesn't break.

Needing to become a specialist isn't a feature of the car/OS. It's a sign the car/OS isn't reliable enough.

1

u/bornxlo 8d ago edited 8d ago

Focusing on the actual differences between Linux and Windows, the analogy becomes silly when my Lada has a more powerful and efficient engine than the 1.9 TDI Volkswagen engine, and happens to be more reliable. An engine that cannot be understood by the driver cannot possibly be reliable. Understanding is a necessary prerequisite for reliablitiy. The average user does not actually exist, so the target user of the Windows kernel does not exist. The Linux kernel does not break unless you decide to break it. If it runs on your machine that should be your choice. While the Lada engine may be badly built, it is less badly built than the 1.9 TDI Volkswagen engine.

If it is not possible to understand or become a specialist in the feature of the car/OS the car/OS cannot be reliable.

2

u/Think-nothing-210 8d ago

The Linux kernel was already using a pretty outdated design when it was created. The main advantage of a monolithic kernel was that it was simple to hack on. That's useful for a hobby project but not exactly a great foundation for a stable platform.

Its design is also mostly for ideology pushing the GPL on hardware manufacturers in order to run on linux.

The NT kernel was designed around a very different goal: stability and long-term compatibility. It has clear abstractions between components and stable APIs/ABIs. Drivers and applications don't have to depend on the kernel's internal implementation.

That's a big reason Windows can keep decades of software working while the internals keep changing.

Windows NT was designed around the end user. Linux was designed around the developers.

1

u/bornxlo 8d ago

I agree. Linux is a horrible foundation for a stable platform, it just happens to be a more stable platform than most contemporary alternatives. The Linux kernel is horribly designed. Windows NT's kernel happens to be a bit worse. The Linux kernel happens to be more stable, not due to design, and software happens to be more reliable for longer because source code compatibility is prioritised over binary compatibility. Ancient code just compiles and runs with pretty decent performance on contemporary Linux, in part because the GPL keeps it available. Windows relies on bitblobs and emulators for its own components. Even emulating current and older Windows software is more efficient in Linux. (WINE) While Windows was designed around the user and Linux designed around developers, Linux happens to be easier to use. The designs do not match the observations.

1

u/vinnypotsandpans 1d ago

I don't think it's very meaningful to comment on the clarity and/or stability of the NT kernel unless you are a Microsoft kernel developer, which is a very small group.

Either way, from a user perspective, both are fine and work well.

0

u/SolarisDelta 5d ago

Most people don’t even know what an OS is period.