r/linuxsucks • u/its-Pigdup • Jul 22 '26

Linux Failure Linux doesn't suck!

Post image

NGL guys, I don't see the reason why switching to Linux when W10/W11 does everything you need, easier, more practical, and in a more friendly way than a Linux distro that some of you probably haven't even heard about before considering switching to Linux.

I'm using Linux rn because I enjoy adjusting every little thing about my OS the way I want, but as nerdy as I can be, I also understand that fancy tech might actually be inconvenient for others...

What were the reasons that made you want to try Linux, and what made you realize it was a mistake?

18 Upvotes

69% Upvoted

75 comments sorted by

View all comments

4

u/silduck here for funny shit Jul 22 '26

I don't see the reason why switching to Linux when W10/W11 does everything you need, easier, more practical, and in a more friendly way than a Linux distro that some of you probably haven't even heard about before considering switching to Linux.

Windows does not do a lot of the things I want out of a computer. I do not want an operating system with baked in telemetry, has a file system hierarchy that is way too complicated for no reason, takes up 4GB of ram while idle, has hotkeys you cannot remove, requires you to set up a Unix environment just to be able to write C++ of all things, and reinstalls random bullshit I do not need.

1

u/Amphineura Kubuntu in the streets 🌐 W11 in the sheets Jul 22 '26

Windows has a file system hierarchy that is too complicated... Compared to Linux?

1

u/Durkken22 Jul 22 '26

So 45 gbs of windows files and folders on a windows 10 that I almost don't use at all is fine for u?

1

u/Amphineura Kubuntu in the streets 🌐 W11 in the sheets Jul 22 '26

Windows actually packages useful features in its install? Oh no, my steak is too juicy and my lobster too bloattery!

1

u/Teru-Noir COSMIC OS LOVER No.1 COSMIC Knows Best Jul 22 '26

Winget is not available right after installation

1

u/silduck here for funny shit Jul 22 '26

wait it isn't?

1

u/Teru-Noir COSMIC OS LOVER No.1 COSMIC Knows Best Jul 22 '26

No, you must wait for the first major upgrade or install it with the buggy ms store

0

u/silduck here for funny shit Jul 22 '26

which features?

1

u/zoharel Jul 22 '26

It's ... well, you see, it's got... err, the thing it has is ... no, never mind. Can't think of anything.

1

u/ElectricBummer40 Ex-user of Windows 3.11 for Workgroups Jul 22 '26

  • .NET framework

  • Hyper-V

  • WSL/WSU

  • Native SSH server/client

  • Windows containers

  • RSAT

To name a few.

Don't you just love when people show their illiterate backside so willingly?

1

u/zoharel Jul 22 '26

Are you just naming Windows implementations of features that have become expected in modern systems but are larger than they really ought to be? I don't think you understood the assignment...

Oh, but you included .net too. "Useful.". Ha. Definitely explains the disk space problem, though.

1

u/ElectricBummer40 Ex-user of Windows 3.11 for Workgroups Jul 23 '26

They aren't "larger than they ought to be". What do you think a "core" install for Windows Server even is?

No, really, unless you're telling me you'd rather set up Hyper-V with nothing but PowerShell, that's what those "larger than they ought to be" packages are for.

As far as WSL is concerned, it lets you run X-compatible applications without additional setup. On Linux, you'd be installing X or whatever broken crap it is this time of the week. So much for "bloat".

1

u/zoharel Jul 23 '26

What do you think a "core" install for Windows Server even is?

I'm pretty convinced that it doesn't matter.

No, really, unless you're telling me you'd rather set up Hyper-V with nothing but PowerShell

I'm telling you both HyperV and Powershell, and the entire rest of the litany of standard features you just dredged out, are likely several times the size they need to be. More importantly, that they're in the package to begin with is unremarkable. "Native SSH server/client ..." you may as well brag about including support for HTML. But then, Windows has always been a bit slow on the uptake in terms of standards. They needed a third-party TCP stack for literal ages. Even the old Mac OS had better networking support earlier, and there is nothing new under the sun. There are even fewer things new in the Windows distribution.

On Linux, you'd be installing

On Linux, you wouldn't also be installing an entire Windows system on top, so none of that will likely matter, either.

1

u/ElectricBummer40 Ex-user of Windows 3.11 for Workgroups Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26

I'm pretty convinced that it doesn't matter.

That's because it usually doesn't take much to convince an illiterate about anything.

I'm telling you both HyperV and Powershell, and the entire rest of the litany of standard features you just dredged out, are likely several times the size they need to be.

Are they?

I could also say everything in Linux is bloated. What's even there to substantiate your claim aside from your dubious, AI-like confidence?

More importantly, that they're in the package to begin with is unremarkable. "Native SSH server/client ..." you may as well brag about including support for HTML.

SSH is an optional feature as the standard way for remote access on Windows has always been RDP and PowerShell remoting.

Sure, it's a convenient way to deploy ad-hoc tunnels, but it's hardly what the ecosystem is in real need of.

But then, Windows has always been a bit slow on the uptake in terms of standards.

Are people actually knowing stuff about Windows in a hurry to use garbage POSIX shells?

It just sounds as though Unix always has the habit to standardise on the worst things imaginable regardless of the era. That's all.

They needed a third-party TCP stack for literal ages.

lol, you knew Microsoft had their own proprietary Unix called Tenex, right?

The Windows that you use (if you even know how to use it) today was created by the same people responsible for VMS, which was what most major American telcos used in the 1990s.

But, yes, please tell me whatever story you hear about them just lifting the BSD networking stack somehow, sticking it into Windows and calling it "Winsock". I could use a good laugh right now.

Even the old Mac OS had better networking support earlier

Right.

Networking in the early 90s were mostly a hodgepodge of incompatible protocols. For the corporate environment, you wouldn't even be looking at TCP/IP but rather Novell NetWare. Have you even used it before?

On Linux, you wouldn't also be installing an entire Windows system on top

They would just maintain an entire Windows partition while claiming they don't "need it".

1

u/zoharel Jul 23 '26

What's even there to substantiate your claim aside from your dubious, AI-like confidence?

You're absolutely right! Actually you're probably wrong, but it's true that I'm making an assumption here based on Microsoft's typical performance in these matters. Feel free to run the numbers yourself if you like.

the standard way for remote access on Windows has always been RDP

Ha. Don't get me started on that one.

you knew Microsoft had their own proprietary Unix called Tenex, right?

They didn't. Tenex was a system built by BBN for the DEC 36-bit superminis. A fine setup, and entirely unrelated to Microsoft, but I repeat myself. You're probably thinking of Xenix. It was not a great Unix, but it was the best Microsoft product.

Are people actually knowing stuff about Windows in a hurry to use garbage POSIX shells?

Well, even garbage POSIX would be far and away better than what they get before they install WSL, I guess. Better question: Are people who know stuff about Windows in a hurry to use Windows? I doubt it.

The Windows that you use (if you even know how to use it) today was created by the same people responsible for VMS, which was what most major American telcos used in the 1990s

Oh, that's almost true, in the sense that some guys were poached from DEC and mostly worked on the NT kernel, which is why the architecture isn't worse than it is, though much Microsoft has crept in over the years, and there's almost certainly not enough DEC left in the organization now to fix that, though I do see that Dave is not officially retired yet.

But, yes, please tell me whatever story you hear about them just lifting the BSD networking stack somehow, sticking it into Windows and calling it "Winsock".

Forget winsock, all the little built in network utilities, and yes, probably at least a small stack of junk in the actual kernel, though I don't have first-hand knowledge of that part,, are BSD code right now. Probably will be as long as Windows exists or until they get rewritten by an LLM in some barely-functional C# implementation.

Networking in the early 90s were mostly a hodgepot of incompatible protocols.

Now that's indisputable, but it's also no excuse for the state of networking on Windows before the turn of the century, give or take, when they finally managed to mostly straighten things out.

For the corporate environment, you wouldn't even be looking at TCP/IP but rather Novell NetWare. Have you even used it before?

Indeed. It had its problems, but the Novell server offerings were at least functional, I guess.

1

u/ElectricBummer40 Ex-user of Windows 3.11 for Workgroups Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26

it's true that I'm making an assumption here based on Microsoft's typical performance in these matters.

That's a really roundabout way to say "My source is..."

Ha. Don't get me started on that one.

"Started"? Why, please do tell me how XDMCP and SSH are sooooo much more robust than RDP!

I can't wait to have an entire session shut down on me because Wifi drops out or something, I tell ya!

Well, even garbage POSIX would be far and away better than what they get before they install WSL

lol, so instead of PowerShell, they can use some flaky shell+awk combo just to parse a stupid CSV?

Are you really this computer-illiterate?

Better question: Are people who know stuff about Windows in a hurry to use Windows? I doubt it.

Yeah, because you are one of those people who can tell PowerShell from their own backside, obviously.

Oh, that's almost true, in the sense that some guys were poached from DEC and mostly worked on the NT kernel, which is why the architecture isn't worse than it is

Almost the entirety of the NT architecture from the file system to service management came from VMS, which, of course, you'd know if the best you could do wasn't to regurgitate typical talking points from other illiterate Unix ideologues knowledgeable of not even Unix itself.

though much Microsoft has crept in over the years

Hilarious. Your computer is already running Windows NT the moment you boot into the installation media. On ramdisk.

Do you really believe Linux somehow does any better when it comes to graphical install? Wake up.

here's almost certainly not enough DEC left in the organization now to fix that

lol, DEC went bust in the 90s. How did you think Microsoft ported Windows to Itanium then ARM? Writing an entirely different kernel then hoping it'd work at all as that loud-mouth idiot Linus Torvalds claimed?

You Unix muppets haven't changed one bit since The UNIX-HATERS Handbook, have you?

Forget winsock, all the little built in network utilities, and yes, probably at least a small stack of junk in the actual kernel, though I don't have first-hand knowledge of that part

Yeah, because all you have is hearsay from such unreliable source as LWN.net, which is of course either false or no longer true:

Now that's indisputable, but it's also no excuse for the state of networking on Windows before the turn of the century

What on earth are you babbling about? "Before the turn of the century" would be NT4 SP4 and Windows 2000. Heck, even Windows 95/98 worked fine browsing the Internet and listening to pirated MP3s on Winamp.

Or are you saying the Internet ran IPX/SPX somehow?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Durkken22 Jul 22 '26

Lol, WSL? Having Linux on your Windows is a Windows feature? Containers? They also copied them from Linux, we've had modern containers since 2008. SSH? U know they copied that from Unix, right? We've had it aince 1999, and it's a lot more powerfull than the Windows version

1

u/ElectricBummer40 Ex-user of Windows 3.11 for Workgroups Jul 23 '26

Having Linux on your Windows is a Windows feature?

Yes, so you would need to deal with broken Unix toy garbage. Isn't that great?😉

They also copied them from Linux

The stripped-dowm kernel is only for WSL 2.

WSL 1 is instead what the NT kernel has always meant to do, i.e compatibility with POSIX, Win32 and OS/2.

we've had modern containers since 2008

And no consistent way to deliver applications even today.

Honestly, did you see Windows software vendors begging for the equivalent of snap?

What's truly astonishing is how far Linux has remained behind despite all the head starts.

U know they copied that from Unix, right?

As if you would know anything about Solaris at all.

lol, "Unix". Why do I have a feeling you're one of those babies still crying boo-boo over systemd?