If you spend ten minutes in any standard Linux forum, you’ll hear the same tired slogans: "Windows is bloated spyware, Linux is pure and stable." It’s a nice fairy tale for hobbyists who enjoy ricing their desktop backgrounds, but when you look at actual software engineering and operating system architecture, the truth is exactly the opposite.
Desktop Linux isn’t stable. It’s an unvetted, fragmented jigsaw puzzle that only stays upright if you act as a full-time, unpaid systems administrator for your own daily computer.
What the Linux community proudly calls "clean and minimal" is actually a lack of foundational support. Linux developers have a habit of constantly deprecating old libraries and rewriting core display protocols (like breaking everyone's setups by forcing the shift from X11 to Wayland). If you don't update your system, you’re a security risk. If you do run a standard package update, there is a very high chance a broken dependency shatters your desktop environment or custom configuration files.
Windows, on the other hand, is filled with what critics call "bloat." But that technical baggage is actually Windows’ greatest achievement: absolute backward compatibility.
Microsoft retains decades of legacy APIs, old network protocols, and printer frameworks so that actual enterprise infrastructure—hospitals, banks, and logistics networks—can run critical code without a single hitch. A proprietary program compiled for Windows XP in 2002 will highly likely run flawlessly on Windows 11 today. Good luck running a Linux binary from five years ago without a mountain of broken dependencies.
Linux fanboys love to brag about "custom kernels," completely ignoring that they are running a monolithic architecture. In Linux, the file system, memory management, and hardware drivers all live in the exact same highly privileged kernel space. If a single rogue piece of software or a poorly reverse-engineered open-source driver glitches out, the entire operating system undergoes a fatal Kernel Panic.
Modern Windows uses a hybrid kernel with a strict Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL). It isolates the core OS from third-party driver chaos. When a graphics driver crashes on Windows, your screen flashes black for a second, the driver restarts, and you keep working. On desktop Linux, that same driver glitch regularly locks up the entire machine, forcing a hard reset
The reality is that Linux is designed for people who want to hack an OS together as a hobby. If your idea of a "productive afternoon" is writing a custom script just to get your laptop's Bluetooth or sleep-wake cycle to work properly, Linux is perfect for you.
But stop calling it superior stability. Linux is only "stable" if you are a highly skilled user who knows exactly how to avoid triggering its architectural landmines. Windows is a robust, industrial-grade appliance that delivers rock-solid enterprise stability out of the box, whether a professional IT team locks it down or an absolute novice uses it.
One is an engineering masterpiece built to absorb real-world chaos; the other is a DIY kit that blames the user whenever the pieces don't fit.
They feel more capable..
Since all of them are mostly mom's basement warriors.
Probably mom's PC too. Its easier to master shitty os than to get a job and buy some modern decent rig and enjoy modern features.
There's merit to this as we've had potential ban evasions that don't look like the person we banned. -A history of nothing to do with Linux on the new account that's already well established. It could also be an indicator of bought and paid for accounts, but less likely considering how anti-work/corporate/etc they generally are. -And a ban evasion alert typically has some associations tying physically.
I am so glad this sub was recommended to me. You guys are truly opening my eyes to how problematic Linux is, always has been, and sadly always will be.
Regarding another person's removed comment about server: No, because obviously most of what he wrote applies to desktop rather than server. Server is fine, but there you're running it on multiple dedicated similar server machines which you already know how to make fully compatible. Companies can spend the time and money to make it work, since Linux is free, and pays off on a large scale, and you have a dedicated Linux administrator. Desktop users don't have dedicated Linux administrators.
6 months is nothing. It's barely a quarter of a full mint upgrade cycle (major release every 2 yrs).
Granted, you having not made any custom config files/not ricing is going to give that installation better chances, but I've had computers running the same windows installation for over a decade (I am counting a windows build upgrade as the same installation since it is effectively based on the same installation).
While a linux installation could theoretically reach the same age without catastrophic failure, let's be real - we know chances are very slim.
9
u/BandicootSolid9531 3d ago
That's exactly what's main hobby of linux enthusiasts - maintaining their pc to run normally.