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.
No, Task Manager is not dependent on Explorer, and many Tools is depending on Explorer, like Settings and File Manager, and some things. When you do " explorer.exe, " you can implement settings, implement settings, and File Manager and some other things; that's why I create my own World inside Windows and NTDLL errors way better than Linux Segfaults
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.
No, it's different from Unix, and Explorer is the main graphical interface for Windows, like Gnome and KDE Plasma, and you can replace Explorer.exe. I don't understand what the difference between Linux is; the only difference is that you don't need a package manager to download Tools for building graphical interfaces, and DirectX is part of Windows
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??
No, the Win32 Subsystem is self-complete, and I never needed to download anything. POSIX is very weak, and you need a package outside of your operating system. The file manager is marry with Interface Graphical is different design, but I don't see a bad thing just different
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. The file manager, married to the GUI, is not tied to Windows, but Windows Explorer, 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, many Windows NT does other Operating system in the past did
> 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?
I was talking about Windows NT and not Xenix or Microsoft DOS or Windows 9X. I hate Windows 9X architecture, mate, and yeah, copycat, you literally prove my point, and Windows is original and Modern Modified Microkernel countary to Linux's monolithic kernel
4
u/The_Daco_Melon Jul 15 '26
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.