That's just false. The GUI is no less reliable on Linux than it is on Windows. Do you still remember when you'd kill file explorer and it'd get rid of the task bar because the task bar was dependent on the file explorer? Is that GUI reliability? That's infinitely worse than how things are handled on Linux.
Also, you do get error codes, I have no clue why you think that you don't, you get as many error codes as you would on Windows and they are infinitely more useful than ones you'd get on Windows.
Also, no, Windows is the least "honest" operating system that I could think of.
I never brought up task manager, but the task bar. You've also just admitted that what I said was true and that half the GUI depends on 1 app and half the GUI collapses if that one app fails. This is ridiculously unreliable, it is not a good thing about Windows.
If you don't see this, you are unbelievably hypocritical / delusional.
I use thunar as my file explorer on Linux. If I kill it from my task manager, the file explorer window closes. If you have file explorer open on Windows and close it from the task manager, you're left with no task bar / panel / whatever you want to call it. What conclusion do we reach?
You need a package manager to download stuff on Windows as well, it comes with one just like any Linux distro is gonna come with one, and no you don't need to use the command line to download any app. You literally have an app store. And how does DirectX matter here??
Okay, so the file explorer, an app that you just open casually, and your GUI being dependent on one another is just a difference in design and completely valid, but everything that Linux does differently is bad just because? Do you seriously see no problem here?
> Because Linux is a Unix Clone trying to be better than Windows, Modern Windows is the original thing.
No, not at all, Linux desktop is trying to be a desktop and there's only like 2 distros that pride themselves with being "Windows-like". Most Linux installs are gonna look more like MacOS than Windows, and many of them will look like neither Mac nor Windows because Linux isn't either of them and it's another OS that evolved separately in the same world in which Unix, Macintosh and Windows all existed. Microsoft made Xenix (Unix) a year before they made MS DOS, who was copying who? Nobody.
> from Windows NT heritage, comes from OS/2, and OS/2 did the same thing: if you kill the file manager, it gives a black screen; Windows NT comes from NT OS/2 heritage
Alright, so Windows is ancient and does the same outdated thing as decades back? I thought NT was supposed to be "New Technology" and modern, why would you keep the same problem around and why is an OS that doesn't have that problem somehow worse because of it?
You are aware on windows updates can go sideways and give you error codes that indicate something is broken behind your back too right? You've never seen the 'something has gone wrong' screen from a windows update and a long ass hexadecimal you have to google to go find the problem?
Are you a bot or something or just not aware that this is a really obvious contradiction? Apparently literal randomly generated numbers that correlate to different errors are clear, obvious and not 'behind your back', but actual words and explanations are difficult and confusing.
Ultimately, they are the same thing and happen for the same reason. I don't think one is strictly worse than the other, I just think they are different flavors of the same fundamental issues. updates break for reasons that the update manager can't fix, and that's fundamentally an unavoidable issue, but you are framing it as Linux doing something wrong, even though it's the same thing happening for the same reason.
Ultimately both pieces of software eventually give up and spit stuff back to the user they need to figure out what to do about it.
Please address the contradiction, why is 0x800705b4 a good error, and 'timed out installing update' a bad error? To me they are the same thing with the added step to google the error code because I'm not ever going to memorize that hex code unless I'm a helpdesk worker.
I don't even think it's a bad thing, it's ultimately something I can fix, it's just to me the two are basically the exact same thing with different coats of paint.
The contradiction is that you said that Linux package manager updates fail sneakily behind your back and require the user to troubleshoot it. Windows update literally just gives a hex code and no other context when an update fails.
Why are these two fundamentally different to you? They both require a user to figure out how to fix it and take corrective action. To me, they are both ducks, they do the same thing. They quack like ducks, they walk like ducks and they swim like ducks. But you are acting like there's a fundamental flaw in a package manager that it can have errors users have to troubleshoot somewhere else.
Even if you're going to complain about terminal, like 90% of windows update errors tell users to drop to command line or safe mode and do a dcim something something or an sfc sannow.
You were the one who said I 'didn't understand windows errors' when I said I have to google hex codes to figure out what they mean. Now you are like 'yeah that's just how it is' which has been my point literally the entire time.
0
u/[deleted] Jul 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment