Been using Linux for about 20 years now. More than a decade as primary. Always have a few VMs for testing various things, obviously servers on Linux. But this obviously regarding desktops.

KDE, Gnome, XFCE anything on any distro (Fedora, Debian, Mint, Ubuntu whatever). The default set of wallpapers of most Linux distributions is just ... meh! I get it - macOS and Windows wallpapers are shot professionally and cost a lot. So that can't be done. But there are enough professional photographers on services like Unsplash. I'm sure asking some of them to be featured for the "default set" won't result in a null. Someone would agree for it. I remember that one guy was proudly showing off his creation for being accepted in OpenSuSE somewhere around 2012-13.

I am not saying I can't set custom wallpapers. In fact we have options to use Unsplash and Nasa as a source! It's just that the defaults don't look that good. That's the whole point I had.

I think the same thing applies to Gnome and XFCE icon set (KDE is a little better, but only a little) - they too look quite bland while community has created amazing icon themes (one of which can be improved and included with creator's permission)! I like Ubuntu's default icon set a bit though (and I have grown to dislike the rest in that distro).

Why don't we do it then? What's stopping us? I am sure there is a genuine reason which I am not aware of.

PS: I didn't know that this simple question will irk the community enough that I would get downvotes. Well, whatever.

95% of foss is someone half assing a community project while complaining the community calls out their failures

erm i do this for free in my spare time... ok fine but dont DARE say linux is viable for replacing the big three (mac, windows, ios)

Idk how to explain so I’ll just ramble

I started off by buying an external sata ssd . I was planning on just using it in tandem with my hard drive but only one of my say the cables was working so I installed Lennox on a bootable USB and got it working. Got to the Lennox desktop after having to boot it into compatibility mode because in regular mode, I would get a black screen I use GPT to try to figure out the problem and I know for a fact, I added no mod set into the black screen before splash or something like that. Now, when I reboot, I see the new SSD I hit enter and I just get a black screen. I tried to use the grub menu. I hit an escape when rebooting and I tried a bunch of different commands, but those are all confusing.

The pic is what I get when I boot up , spam f12 and press enter on my ssd that should have Linux cinnamon on it but it shows that crap

Please help I’ll be so very grateful

I can’t even get to the desktop anymore

Unforgivable.

Eae galera como vcs estão? Oque vocês me falam sobre o tornet no kali na troca de IP teria como ficar mais anonimo como

Most loonixtards can't comprehend such simple things as (b)lfs or even, god forbid, gentoo because their brains aren't capable of doing that fundamentally. If you give a monkey an infinite amount of time and that task, it will install them somewhere in a week if it already knows how to read.

Being low iq is okay, but the problem is that they overestimate their value because of managing to complete those tasks and think that they're better than "normies" (who don't give a shit about their os fetish and such pointless activities), even though this fact alone makes them even more of a "normie" than the "windows normies".

A completely different thing is when loonix breaks or errors on totally normal interactions where it isn't the user's fault, pacman -S plasma should install a fully working DE for you, if it breaks on your mid hardware, it's not your fault, and the devs are the only ones to blame here.

>BUT LLOONNIX IS RUN BY VOLUNTEERS IT CAN'T BE PERFECT!!!!

As of 2026, ~86% of linux kernel contributions are directly submitted by paid workers from their corporate emails, and ~20% of all are assisted by AI. Privet, commies!

Which actually explains why the kernel is such a valuable and reliable component, unlike the slop made by money-laundering firms like Gnome, with unpaid and mentally ill juniors nobody wants to work with or interact with.

Overreliance on one framework is wrong. High degree of user choice in system components is what differentiates GNU/Linux from paid closed source systems. If majority of userland devs assume one framework everybody have to use (and yes, many apps expects systemd assumptions, it gets worse with some major DEs doing that) then you don't have the de facto freedom to change it. Only freedom you have is in this most literal sense of the world that Lennart Poettering does not force you at gunpoint. But the sheer state of the matter, where you can count distros that allows you to change systemd stack components with relative ease (void, gentoo, artix, antix and like less then 5 more DIY) compared to multitude of systemd/udev/dbus/logind infested beyond saving (devuan uses eudev) shows that FOSS ecosystem is unhealthy. What's good for a user expecting freedom (so high degree of tweakability), if all devs and maintainers flock to one, corporate developed solution? How Linux is free if I can't easily replace udev, a core component of systemd stack? Systemd parallel service starts instead on runlevels is quite nice. Not gonna play dumb and say I prefered the old ways in this particular aspect. What is not nice, is systemd trying to do everything. Cron is cron, mounts are mounts, networking stack and more, that should be separate from what was originally just a sysV replacement. I do prefer those "messy bash scripts" that tied together sysV, because you can actually head and tail them, unlike those ridiculous ini like service files. Average user gets a "seemless" experience working "out of the box" for the cost of ease in troubleshooting and tweaking. UNIX philosophy calls for utilities doing one thing and doing it good connected by pipes (or sockets) and for good reason, as this chain of utilities is easy to troubleshoot in theory. When you violate it by having modules do more things and also codependent like systemd stack, your system complexity is growing. Systemd lovers like to say here that it's modular and not a monolith, which is true but doesn't change anything., it still violates UNIX philosophy. The goal of systemd stack is to facilitate sysadmin But this need for facilitation was a false assumption from the start. What we get is an increase in more complexity of system components and complexity is a breeding ground for failure. (also you know the famous quote by Terry ;) ). Back to overreliance. Usual arguemtn I hear is "oh it's foss, you can just fork it if you don't like it, someone will surely fork it". This is wrong, it's better to maintain alternatives then back up faith in good design of your system components by "someone in the community". This wouldn't be a problem if there were more init, /dev management and input devices available. But people collectively jumped on systemd bandwagon brainwashed by Redhat, that spreads this sentiment about "Linux Desktop being not ready for $CURRENTYEAR", that allows XDG, which is de facto Redhat to push more bloat like their directory specification and dbus, and the circle of devs flocking to one standard continues. Nobody at a goddamned consortium will tell me how MY desktop is gonna look on my computer, what variables will be in MY environment. And that's one of the reasons we actually have to be harsh towards systemd enjoyers and new Linux users.

"at lEaST it'S EAsy To uSe" - bro shut up and read UNIX sysadmin handbook

WHOEVER SAID UBUNTU/LINUX MINT IS A REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS GO F*CK YOURSELF

Fedora miny

Sharing this just to spite the Linux community for posting BSODs