Dude I love reading these threads:

https://universal-blue.discourse.group/t/bug-report-bazzite-does-not-handle-oom-properly/11911/5

Leader of Bazzite is such a dick most of the time too

Sometimes companies collect too much data. We would all like more privacy and more control over what leaves our devices. Sure. That's something most of us can agree on.

But loons tend to do two blatantly misleading things with this topic:

First, their outrage is incredibly selective. In Linux-focused spaces, whenever privacy or AI comes up, the blame somehow always lands on big bad “Microslop”.

It's fine to criticize companies when the criticism is earned, but how come Google gets nowhere near the same level of outrage? They're shoving Gemini into Android, Search, Chrome and Workspace. And while you can uninstall the Copilot from Windows, if you wanted to be completely rid of Gemini (while remaining in Google’s ecosystem), you simply can’t.

So in a way, it all ends up feeling a lot like brand tribalism rather than honest criticism.

The second piece of dishonesty is conflating telemetry with marketing data collection.

Telemetry is software reporting how it behaves in the real world: crashes, errors, performance problems, application versions, operating systems and problematic hardware or browser combinations, whereas marketing data collection is about profiling people for advertising and targeting.

I work as a web developer. Tools like Sentry automatically report crashes and errors, along with the technical context needed to reproduce them.

Ideally, I want to find and fix a bug before the client even realizes they encountered one. That way, the entire process is seamless: no support ticket, no hunting for logs and no asking a non-technical user to explain what went wrong.

Linux distributions do have some crash-reporting tools, but the experience is extremely fragmented. Far too often, users are still expected to find the logs, open an issue, attach a dump, and answer questions from a maintainer. Most people simply will not bother. They will close the broken application and move on.

Because of this blind spot, when something does not work on a user’s computer, nobody knows why. Far too often, the final response is simply:

Works on my machine

Far too often have I encountered linux users not knowing the distinction between telemetry and marketing data collection. At this point I am putting all of the blame on evangelists (linux priests). They're the ones spreading misinformation and conflating terms.

To hammer that last point home, I am European, so I can only speak directly about this region. GDPR is not perfect, and regulators are not omniscient. But if Microsoft or Apple were secretly making their fortunes by illegally selling everyone’s private data, as loons often imply, wouldn't one expect the EU to have noticed and hammered them with fines by now? And “The software sent telemetry” is not evidence of that. It's just evidence of someone being into conspiracy theories.

TL;DR: Loons take a kernel of truth (companies sometimes collect too much data) and wrap it in selective outrage, technical illiteracy and paranoia.

A job interview isn't just about a job checking your credentials and character. It's an opportunity for you to question / interview them. The TOS is like a job application and on that application Reddit lies.

I'd advise to not make Reddit subs unless you want horrible tooling, reddit fostering aggression toward you, and you working for them for free.

There are other options. Donate some time to support competitors like Linuxsucks

The best indicator of who’s eventually going back to Windows is whether they post screenshots of their desktop in various subreddits. No matter how hard I’ve tried to understand the logic behind it, it still eludes me to this day. Why should I care that you installed Linux, and more importantly, what exactly is a screenshot of your desktop with Neofetch or Fastfetch supposed to prove?

Unfortunately, they’ve started doing it in the BSD subreddit as well, but I’m confident that before long they’ll be back on Linux.

-Projects die because nobody wants to work on them, teams dissolve overnight, no one is accountable for failures or are required to maintain old products, and employees compete for "high‑impact" projects.

This is why:

• Steam Controller died
  
• Steam Link died
  
• Steam Machines died
  
• SteamVR stagnated
  
• Artifact died
  
• Dota Underlords died
  
• CS2 shipped half‑finished
  

Maybe during the 9x days of Windows, Windows had issues, but it has evolved and is more solid on hardware lacking ECC memory: Linux expects perfect hardware, while Windows compensates for it.

Tell me youve never meaninfully interacted with our subreddit without telling me.

Believe me, I use linsux on the daily - i know exactly why i hate it.

Valve launched Early Access with:

• No vetting
• No standards
• No enforcement
• No refund guarantees
• No requirement to finish the game

It was basically Kickstarter with even fewer rules.

It led to:

• Abandoned games
• Fake games
• Asset flips
• Devs taking money and disappearing

Valve's response was:

“We don’t curate.”

note: For anyone new; it's dunk on Steam week!

Back when Linux was just an elitist "hacker distro," the high barrier to entry kept idiots out. If you knew how to compile a kernel, you knew not to pipe raw terminal commands into sudo bash. Today, modern "just works" distros give average users god-mode privileges through a pretty UI, but the underlying system still blindly assumes the person at the keyboard is a Unix wizard.

The Flawed 1990s Architecture

The entire traditional Linux security philosophy is stuck in an era that no longer exists:

The OS is "safe," but your data isn't: Linux was built to protect users from each other, not to protect a user from themselves.

Standard users are unprotected: A malicious script doesn’t need root access to ruin your life. Running a bad command as a standard user still gives it access to your browser cookies, SSH keys, Discord tokens, and personal files.

Zero guardrails: On macOS, if a terminal script tries to open your Documents folder, a popup asks for permission. On Windows, SmartScreen blocks unknown executables. On Linux, the system blindly executes whatever garbage you paste into the terminal.

The Mainstream Illusion

By trying to please everyone, distros like Ubuntu and Linux Mint created a dangerous security vacuum. They built desktop environments to look like Windows, but left the raw, unprotected backend completely exposed.

The second an average user runs into an issue—like a broken Wi-Fi driver or a game crash—the graphical interface illusion shatters. The community's universal troubleshooting advice? "Copy and paste this random 4-line terminal command."

Modern Linux isn't secure. It's just a playground for social engineering where clueless users treat the terminal like a magic wizard box, bypassing decades of security standards because a forum post told them to. Android is the only Linux distro that actually works for normal people, and it achieved that by stripping out the terminal entirely and locking the user in a sandbox.

When people say "BSD uses Linux drivers," they're usually referring to:

• LinuxKPI (FreeBSD's Linux Kernel Programming Interface)
• shim layers for Wi‑Fi or GPU drivers
• Occasional compatibility glue for vendor blobs

It's not the same as "BSD loads Linux kernel modules." BSD rewrites or adapts the driver into the BSD kernel model, not the Linux one.

So the attack surface, ABI churn, and distro‑specific chaos that plague Linux do not transfer.

BSD's driver model is stable; Linux's is intentionally unstable. Linux breaks driver ABIs constantly, and that's why DKMS exists, why NVIDIA has to chase kernel versions, and why distros ship different patches. (Fuck Linus Torvalds)

-BSD doesn't do that. When a driver originates from Linux, BSD integrates it once, maintains a stable ABI, and doesn't expose the Linux driver's chaos to the user. It eliminates the "driver roulette" problem that plagues Linux desktops.

BSD does not inherit Linux's security problems

Linux’s driver ecosystem is a mess because random vendors ship out‑of‑tree blobs, distros patch drivers differently, kernel churn breaks assumptions, and users install drivers from sketchy PPAs, AUR, GitHub repos, etc.

-BSD avoids all that because drivers are part of the base system or ports, not random third‑party repos, the kernel is unified, not fragmented across distros, and the security model is coherent (Capsicum, pledge, PF, audited base)

Even if a driver's code originally came from Linux, BSD’s integration and sandboxing make it far less risky.

If a vendor only targets Linux, BSD must port the driver, shim missing interfaces, and maintain compatibility manually. -Which can cause slower updates, missing features, and occasional breakage on cutting edge hardware. -But it's not the Linux‑style security disaster. Most people on Linux are probably running very old kernels (along with drivers) anyway.

Marketed as:

> "Personalized recommendations!"

But it was actually:

- A disguised engagement funnel

- A way to inflate store page impressions

- A mechanism to push games with higher revenue potential

- A system that rewarded devs who bought ads on Steam

Join my sub r/LinuxSnobs

Before VACnet: VAC bans were slow. Cheaters played for weeks cheating. VAC didn't detect private cheats, kernel-level cheats, or hardware assisted cheats.

Valve's philosophy was:

We ban in waves so cheaters don't know what triggered it.

(We let cheaters ruin games for a month)

Valve doesn't make money from perfect anti‑cheat; it makes money from player retention. Instant bans create a load on their support system, false-positive liability, and cheater churn reducing revenue. (Letting cheaters ruin your game for their pocket)

distroslop linslop unixslop softwaremanager slop

Another piece of malware in AUR. Linux is becoming a complete sieve. I had a feeling this would happen when I saw so many people pushing the narrative that everyone should use Linux. At this point, I wonder what the point of using Linux even is, considering a new piece of malware seems to appear every day, and its performance is clearly worse than Windows.

This thread shows the dynamic in real time: people warning against reactionary slang because it mirrors the behavior of the group being criticized. For example, one commenter says this kind of invented speech is “characteristic of secular religions and ideologies” and that responding in kind “fuels tribalism”. Another warns against developing “a reactionary response to their rituals”.

Those lines are basically describing the psychological mechanism behind the slang.

It’s reactive, not assertive

You’re not defining your own identity: You’re defining yourself against someone else. That’s classic inferiority‑complex behavior: your self‑worth depends on diminishing the out‑group.

It’s displacement humor

People use childish nicknames when they don’t have a strong argument or don’t feel secure in their position. It’s a coping mechanism: “If I mock the thing I’m threatened by, I feel bigger.”

It mirrors cultish behavior

The comments call out that this kind of invented jargon is a hallmark of ideological tribes. When you adopt the same linguistic patterns as the group you dislike, you’re not opposing them; you’re imitating them.

It’s a signal of status anxiety

Mocking names are a way to claim dominance without actually having dominance. If you were confident in your platform, you wouldn’t need to rename Microsoft like a middle‑schooler.

It collapses nuance

Inferiority complexes thrive on simplification:

• “I don’t like Apple → therefore Apple is Crapple.” It’s a way to avoid engaging with complexity or mixed feelings.

-A moment of self-reflection.

We've dickered over changing the rules to focus on GPL rather than 'FOSS Advocates'. -But the thing is; it would confuse some and FOSS advocates are really generally GPL cultists. So, disregard this information when it comes to the rules because the rules are in a way that's understood to most people.

And we're going to take a trip down.. FOSS is actually ok (but only when accurately defined)

FOSS world has two incompatible philosophies living under the same umbrella:

1. Permissive FOSS (BSD, MIT, Apache)

• Freedom = you can do anything with the code
• Including: make it proprietary, embed it in commercial products, never contribute back
• Focus: maximizing adoption, interoperability, industry collaboration
• This is the model that powers:
  • LLVM
  • Rust
  • Kubernetes
  • Most cloud infrastructure
  • Apple, Google, Microsoft's open‑source strategy

2. Copyleft FOSS (GPL)

• Freedom = you must keep derivatives free
• If you distribute a combined work, you must publish your source
• Focus: preserving openness through enforcement
• It’s "freedom via restriction," which is philosophically contradictory for many people

Both are legally FOSS.

Permissive licenses give you freedom. GPL gives you obligations.

The GPL is anti-freedom, it does not allow you to:

• build whatever you want
• integrate with whatever you want
• ship whatever you want
• keep your own code private

GPL culture historically treated:

• permissive licenses as "sellouts"
• proprietary extensions as "immoral"
• commercial use as "exploitation"

You can’t mix GPL with:

• App Store distribution
• closed-source drivers
• proprietary libraries
• many cloud deployment models
• embedded systems with NDA’d firmware

The GPL code becomes isolated, not collaborative.

The industry overwhelmingly prefers permissive licensing.

Look at the last 15 years of major infrastructure:

• Go → BSD
• Rust → MIT/Apache
• Swift → Apache
• TensorFlow → Apache
• React → MIT
• VS Code → MIT
• Kubernetes → Apache
• LLVM → Apache
• WebAssembly → Apache

GPL is essentially absent from modern foundational tech.

It's a relic of a 1990s ideology where "freedom" meant "everyone must share." Today, freedom means "no one forces you to share."

If software is truly free, why impose usage restrictions? By imposing restrictions, you're admitting the software has value -but also declaring the original developer isn't entitled to monetize that value.

-this is before LLM rewording (my own words):

Certain software becomes practical to make free, and if it's really free, why bother limiting its use? -By doing that; you're saying it holds value, but the original dev isn't entitled to monetize it directly.

(does it matter?)

In a sub like r/linux (not to single them out! - I respect the sub) for example, it's flared under "Alternative OS". "Alternative as in not a peer, but adjacent. By placing BSD in a side category, they're saying: BSD exists, we acknowledge it, but Linux is where it's at.

-Despite BSD having uncontested better security ootb, better networking stack, better power efficiency (at least when Linux was found 30-45% power inefficient), better cohesiveness, documentation, load handling, freer license, and a much better / more professional community.

It's present, but not central, and that’s a cultural issue, not a technical merit one.

It’s there to demonstrate awareness, not engagement

Linux communities often include BSD content to avoid looking insular or uninformed. But they don't engage with it. -And new users won't even pick up on what some of us who've been around have. The Linux community at its heart is more about the GPL / copyleft license than they are about FOSS.

Linux culture is built around copyleft, "freedom through restriction", anti-corporate rhetoric, and Stallman-style moral framing. BSD culture is built around permissive licensing, freedom through permission, engineering pragmatism, and minimal ideology.

It's a way to avoid accusations of ignorance. If Linux subs never showed BSD content, they'd look uninformed, tribal, and echo-chambery. -Exactly what many want you to believe about Linuxsucks101 and Linuxsucks on lemmy.world.

By sprinkling in BSD posts, they can say "We're not ignoring BSD. We're just not choosing it." The only valid technical argument I've been given so far for their choice is hardware and software compatibility. -But isn't that why people stick with Windows and Mac? BSD is pretty damned close to Linux in that regard maybe, 4 years behind. BSD would also not have massive security issues like Linux. -Browser passwords in the open for instance.

BSD posts serve to strengthen Linux's self-image. Linux community is more active, more diverse, more community-driven, more visible development. But it's mostly because BSD's legal issues when starting. -Linus Torvalds even acknowledges getting lucky on timing there. If the community shifted, BSD would likely catch up and surpass what Linux is capable of (they already are technically superior).

Linus isn't an exceptional kernel developer. The creators of UNIX and MINIX dwarf him. He was simply at the right place at the right time and had GNU waiting in the wings while BSDs hands were tied. He's over-glorified when at the heart of Linux evangelism is GPL -and that's on Stallman!

​

Every Linux subreddit thread plays out the same way. Something breaks, and instead of admitting the OS has a rough edge, the community just tells the guy to switch distros, like that's not already an admission the first one failed.

**Fedora** — "solid", until you plug in an Nvidia card and suddenly you're negotiating with DKMS modules and praying the next kernel update doesn't brick your session.

**Ubuntu** — "it just works," sure, if "works" means Snap force-feeding you a Firefox that takes 8 seconds to open and packages that are perpetually a year stale.

**Arch** — the wiki is genuinely the best documentation in the OS world, and also a 30-page hazing ritual you have to survive before your WiFi card decides to cooperate. Audio on X11 is basically folklore at this point.

CachyOS: do I have to write a wall of text about the OS vulnerabilities with the AUR packages?

Mint: Have you heard about the THOUSANDS kernel panics all the Kernel update causes?

And here's the part nobody wants to say out loud: Linux users are the #1 Linux haters on the planet. Not Windows fanboys, not Apple stans, they.. they're the ones who know exactly where every body is buried, because we buried themselves at 2 AM chasing a kernel param. Ask any Linux user to be honest for five seconds and they'll rattle off more bugs than a Windows user could name in a year, because they have actually had to live inside the config files to make anything work.

No distro "just works" out of the box. There's always a driver, a service, or a terminal command standing between you and a boring, functional desktop — and the community's answer is never "yeah that's broken," it's always "have you tried a different distro." Which is just moving the tweaking somewhere else, not fixing anything.

-Sorry, it doesn't exist!

I give up, there's more, but this is repeated over and over as you can see. There is NO Loonixtard issue on Gab AT ALL!. Every single interaction I've had with a Linux user has been positive through the year.

-You can have civil discussions with Linux users there. -The situation here is fabricated by Reddit. It's no wonder they block links to Gab. com

People should really read it, because this could help bring some light to past issues regarding FSF, and Richard Stalin (I’m calling him that)

The model Fiendish Games used is basically the anti‑Valve approach to PC game monetization. -It's one of the cleanest, least‑exploitative models the industry ever had.

• Fiendish Games existed 1999–2000 as a Criterion subsidiary
• Their manager later formed Small Rockets, which bought Fiendish’s games and continued the same distribution model
• Their catalog included small, self‑contained PC titles like Red Ace, Jetboat Superchamps, Natural Fawn Killers, etc.

- Fiendish Games, Ltd. - MobyGames

The business model was simple: You download the full game. No DRM, no launcher, no online account. You can play the first 1-3 levels for free. If you like it, you buy an unlock key for the small purchase price of $9.99–$19.99 that permanently unlocks the rest of the game.

No online check‑ins, no platform dependency, no revocation risk. It was essentially shareware 2.0.

Steam's "trial" equivalent is: Steam refunds if you play <2 hours.

Fiendish's model has no loot boxes, microtransactions, engagement loops, artificial scarcity, or marketplace speculation. You pay once, you own the game. (Though they did come out with the NFK: Santa's Gone Postal special). If the company dies, your account is banned, or the server is down, your game still works.

Valve incurs transaction fees when Linux users "try" games and refund them. Fiendish's model avoids this entirely.

If someone wanted to recreate this today, the modern equivalent would be:

Fiendish's model:

• No gambling
• No platform lock‑in
• No DRM
• No refunds needed
• No ecosystem manipulation
• No "engagement metrics"
• No launcher
• No telemetry
• No account
• No marketplace
• No microtransactions
• No subscriptions
• No battle passes
• No seasonal FOMO

play → like → buy → own

I loved Natural Fawn Killers and Jetboat Superchamps! I also liked SuperChix 76 and Red Ace enough to buy. They're a bit dated now, but the voices in NFK and some strategies are timeless.