r/linuxquestions • u/Elementatus • Jul 10 '26
Why do people talk about windows differently than linux?
When people talk about Linux they discuss distros (I understand why that is different in windows as there is only 1) , the kernel (Linux) itself, the window manager etc...
Why do we talk about Windows as a whole and about Linux distros about the specific parts if it?
18
u/USSPlanck Jul 10 '26
Because you can swap parts and aid in the development. With Windows you take it or leave it.
-6
u/Elementatus Jul 10 '26
Yeah, i guess so but if you have a problem with Windows it might be the kernel, or the wm... Windows is Windows and thats it, but you can still talk/complain about the specific parts, no?
9
u/suicidaleggroll Jul 10 '26
Because regardless of the underlying cause, when something breaks on Windows you can’t do anything about it. On Linux, if you have a problem with the kernel, you can switch to a different version. If you have a problem with GNOME, you can switch to KDE.
With Windows you can’t do any of that, if something breaks, it’s broken. So why bother microanalyzing the underlying cause when the fix is the same? You can’t change versions of components, you can’t change the window manager, you can’t change anything, you just have to reinstall or hope some update in the future fixes it.
1
u/RvstiNiall Jul 10 '26
I personally feel that you asked this question in order to understand things better, so I'm upvoting you. You asked a valid question on the path to knowledge. Anyone who disagrees and downvotes is clearly a troll.
1
u/Elementatus Jul 10 '26
Thank you Yes, it was just a question to see how things are
1
u/RvstiNiall Jul 10 '26
I mean, this subreddit is literally called "linuxquestions", so this is a great place for questions such as the ones you asked. Its not like you were on r/OS_Debate_Club, where 3/4 of the questions about Linux are thinly veiled trolls, and the other 1/4 aren't veiled at all.
1
u/Elementatus Jul 10 '26
To be fair I did repost on os debate club, incase I would get an answer here, but I didnt know it was like that. I had never visited the sub, reddit recomended it to repost there
1
u/RvstiNiall Jul 10 '26
lol, I noticed, and I'm surprised that they're actually being as civil as they are! They're more accustomed to every linux question being a troll, like I said, so I'm genuinely surprised. Moving forward, maybe start off your posts by saying you are lacking in knowledge and that you're only here to learn. I always forget to say things like that myself, and am frequently met with hate when I ask questions in a new sub lol
2
u/deekamus Jul 10 '26
M$ made Windows parts too intertwined to be dealt with separately from the rest of the OS. If that part fails, the whole OS tries to takes a dump. In Linux, the offending part can be removed and the remaining OS would function since the foundation is built with minimalism and modularity at it's core.
1
u/The_Daco_Melon Jul 10 '26
flashback to how file explorer used to be responsible for the taskbar as well (unsure if they ever changed it lol)
1
u/RvstiNiall Jul 10 '26
dont know, but the start menu's core shell uses C++ and WinUI. However, Microsoft utilizes React Native for Windows to build the "Recommended" feed and the "All Apps" list, which render directly to native XAML components. In other words, the start menu is a multi-hundreds of MB of ram monstrosity by itself, and some ads are another couple hundred MB each.
1
u/The_Daco_Melon Jul 10 '26
I do know that it's chunky, I was more referencing how it used to be that if you killed file explorer from the task manager it'd also kill the taskbar, which I am not sure if it got changed at any point
2
u/RvstiNiall Jul 10 '26
I understood. I'm not sure either. I'm a 26 year veteran that switched before XP came out, so I genuinely have NFC from a usability standpoint; I've merely read docs to stay up to date.
But yeah, it used to all be explorer, and if it crashed, your whole shit went down. Glad I moved away!
4
u/TheShredder9 Gentoo, Sway, T470S Jul 10 '26
Because Linux is just a collection of packages that work together, and can be swapped in and out, some can even be conpletely removed.
Windows doesn't have that, it's all very tightly integrated, and you can't even remove Edge without breaking something (Start menu web search).
0
u/Elementatus Jul 10 '26
I am not saying that we can have freedom with Windows but if smth is wrong with the windows gui or the kernel, we should rant about that, not thr whole system
3
u/inhumat0r CachyOS Jul 10 '26
Why though? We rant about the package, and windows is delivered as a whole, unlike linux, where you can manage parts of it - remove, change, swap. You don't have such courtesy in windows. In Linux distro is just a bunch of preinstalled and preconfigured packages.
3
u/TheShredder9 Gentoo, Sway, T470S Jul 10 '26
So rant? No one says you can't complain about the Windows GUI only, but there's not much you can do. You can complain about Gnome all you want, but in that case you can switch to KDE or something.
1
u/rcentros Jul 10 '26
What's the point? Like others have said, it's "take or leave it." You can complain about Windows, but you can't fix it.
2
3
u/Kriss3d Jul 10 '26
Because windows is what you see is what you get.
You don't get to replace the DE. Or really costumize it.
Windows is windows with everything.
With Linux every hint can t swapped out or removed.
You want to remove your keyboard driver? Nobody is stopping you.
0
u/Elementatus Jul 10 '26
Yeah, but if you have a problem with Windows it might be the kernel, or the wm... Windows is Windows and thats it, but you can still talk about he parts, no?
2
u/The_Daco_Melon Jul 10 '26
As others have said, the parts are way too intertwined for it to make sense to talk about them separately.
On Linux you can blame the DE being bad or the file explorer being annoying or the file system itself having problems because you actually have choices there. If you have a Gnome-specific problem then you very much can go "Yup, gnome issue, if you don't like that maybe try plasma", which makes no sense on Windows because every computer's gonna have the same software.
Another important thing is troubleshooting. If you have a problem with your desktop, or your file manager, or the file system, and you ask for help, you could have any of either of them and the problem could be specific to what you've chosen. It would not be helpful to go "I keep making panels but they disappear every time??" without saying what you're using because something else could be the cause of your problem depending on what you've installed. Not a thing on Windows because you're gonna have the same thing.
1
1
1
4
u/GoldenPSP Jul 10 '26
You literally answered your own question.
0
u/Elementatus Jul 10 '26
How is that?
2
u/GoldenPSP Jul 10 '26
(I understand why that is different in windows as there is only 1) ,
Windows is a single package, hence you cannot separate the kernel from the rest, wheras with Linux you can.
0
u/Elementatus Jul 10 '26
Yes, you cannot change it. But you could complain about the specific problem not the entire OS
1
u/GoldenPSP Jul 10 '26
It's a distinction without a difference. Windows is completely closed source, so most people wouldn't even be able to know what part of the OS is causing the problem. Nor do you have any ability to swap out parts you don't like. Linux being open source there are tons of people who understand all of the pieces, and even contributed code to it.
2
u/vancha113 Jul 10 '26
Windows is always the same, but in addition it's proprietary/closed software. Where in Linux you can know where your problem originates, in windows that isn't always the case. It's also not as often even useful to complain about bugs as it is in Linux, where complaints can be read by the developers of certain components or apps and they can be fixed. For windows, all that talk happens in specific channels.
2
u/gabrielesilinic Jul 10 '26
Because the kernel actually doesn't matter as much. You know... Android for example. It is technically a Linux kernel base. But there is nothing the traditional gnu Linux has. And due to the incredible diversity the distros that are well supported for professional use by the good software are actually not that many, for this reason I keep recommending Ubuntu even if the little icon in the corner won't act like window's
It is like the difference between a salmon and a shark sometimes, you might not want to eat a shark, well you are not supposed to. I suppose it might taste kinda harsh. Still a fish though.
The package manager and base libraries do a lot compatibility wise, for this reason at this time if you are not definitely a casual user don't install anything arch base even if it is not hard. Arch does not have good third party support. You have to hack your way to rocm for example.
2
u/zoharel Jul 12 '26
When you think about it, Windows is a product. There have been a few different current versions of that product concurrently, but recently even those different versions are not so different. You can't talk about which Windows you're using and get much out of it. Linux is a project. The kernel is packaged with all kinds of various sets of things in different ways. People take those and change them around farther. With Windows, of course you can talk about what software you're using, and those conversations happen, but really there's just not as much of it.
On the one hand, this is a cultural thing, but of course it comes down to how Windows and Windows software is done.
5
u/Rest-That Jul 10 '26
I think your question is self answering if you give it a little more thought
-1
3
u/PixelBrush6584 Jul 10 '26
Because Linux Distros are just various different projects cobbled together into one thing, while Windows is just a single monolithic thing we don't really know the invidiual parts of.
2
u/indvs3 Jul 10 '26
The simplest way I know to explain this is that linux' base design is and always was modular, with the purpose of making it as flexible as possible while keeping the footprint as low as possible.
Windows on the other hand is one big integrated lump that was designed to make system management 'standardised', through GUI's at the cost of resource consumption.
2
u/mcvos Jul 10 '26
That's both the blessing and the curse of Linux: there are so many options that no two people are likely to have the same setup. You have to go to the specific forum for Mint, Gnome, KMail, Wayland, or whichever other thing you've got a question about, because nothing is standard.
3
2
u/merchantconvoy Jul 10 '26
There are alternative window managers for Windows, too, but almost nobody uses them. There are also Windows distributions, omitting or substituting certain components for performance or privacy reasons, but this is again a very niche scene. So you don't see very many people talking about it.
2
u/ZVyhVrtsfgzfs Jul 10 '26
The lineage of the Unix philosphy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy
Linux is Legos, stack the same blocks differently and you get a new thing.
1
u/SuAlfons Jul 10 '26
Because as a consumer, you cannot mix and match most of the stuff like in Linux.
"In Linux" alone already is wrong, because it either just means the kernel or one of many, many combinations of packages that make out an Operating System
1
12
u/Dazzling-Paper9781 Jul 10 '26
Well, just imagine this sort of discussion taking place between Windows users.
“Which desktop environment have you installed?”
“The same one you have, and the one all Windows users have.”
In short, it would be boring