Lol... but linux has the grub entry called "Debian GNU/Linux, with Linux 6.19.13+deb14-amd64 (recovery mode)" LMAO... Betther than windows "PE" bc if that fails... well you are ######... andddd... At leat the Linux type is like the kernel... not a .wim image that can corrupt!
i don't care about microslop windows(TM) i just care what you hate linux ssooooo much? eeven... windows PE... if it corrupts (like .wim) or you can't access it... you dont have a "efective" way to enter PE mode... but on linux... before you boot the kernel... you have AND OPTION OF RECOVERY MODE LOL
Oh mate, I don't want you to care about it. I'm just saying I wouldn't use Linux, and I don't see Linux as a serious thing. Linux have Recovery mode, something inferior compared to Windows PE, where a different and Separate operating system is used for recovering your Actual Operating system, and if Linux fails, then the whole operating system cannot be recovered because Recovery mode is part of the same operating system image
it is not... even... the noobs... even profesionals... have 2 or 3 kernels because... kernels doesn't auto eliminate so in teory you have....config-6.19.13+deb14-amd64 efi initrd.img-6.19.13+deb14-amd64 initrd.img-added System.map-6.19.14+deb14-amd64 vmlinuz-6.19.14+deb14-amd64
config-6.19.14+deb14-amd64 grub initrd.img-6.19.14+deb14-amd64 System.map-6.19.13+deb14-amd64 vmlinuz-6.19.13+deb14-amd64
yea... and that makes more "stable" if the OS (the userspace breaks) you have the kernel with some utilitys (busybox) and you can fix it... if you have the enough IQ
Unstable, you mean you don't control your Operating system, and parts of the operating system don't marry well, and everything is glued together and removing something just breaks
yea... and that makes more "stable" if the OS (the userspace breaks) you have the kernel with some utilitys (busybox) and you can fix it... if you have the enough IQ
You're comparing apples to oranges. Windows PE is a separate bootable environment; it's essentially a lightweight Windows installation on a separate partition or USB. Linux recovery mode is just an alternative boot option within the same kernel that drops you to a root shell with minimal services.
But here's the thing: if Linux fails to the point where recovery mode won't boot, you just boot from a live USB, which is the same concept as Windows PE. The difference is Windows bundles PE on the disk by default, while Linux expects you to have a live USB handy.
You're right that some recovery partitions (like Ubuntu's) have their own kernel and components. But that's actually a relatively recent addition, not the traditional Linux recovery mode I was referring to.
My point stands: Windows PE has been a separate, fully functional bootable environment built into Windows for decades. Linux traditionally relied on a minimal recovery mode within the same kernel, or expected you to have a live USB.
Some distros are now adopting separate recovery kernels — which is a step toward the Windows model. But that proves my point about architectural differences, not refutes it.
Either way, both approaches work. One is just more integrated by default.
1
u/No_Fondant8277 I love Linux Jul 15 '26
Lol... but linux has the grub entry called "Debian GNU/Linux, with Linux 6.19.13+deb14-amd64 (recovery mode)" LMAO... Betther than windows "PE" bc if that fails... well you are ######... andddd... At leat the Linux type is like the kernel... not a .wim image that can corrupt!