Linux remains reliable and safe, offering strong stability and protection.
Linux remains reliable and safe, offering strong stability and protection.
The more I rely on GNU/Linux, the more frustrated I become. They claim stability and security, but my experience has been disappointing. What does stability really mean? It should be reliable features that handle odd situations smoothly. The kernel at its core is likely solid enough, yet it's maintained by professionals who are paid well—so it should function properly. But what fails is the layers above it, or the kernel itself. Picture an upside-down triangle: as you go higher, the software stack grows and quality drops.
For instance, when trying to download a zip from Google Drive using Nautilus, I chose to unpack locally instead of copying. The system expected a zip file on disk before unpacking, but it couldn’t find it. Over time, my memory became full. I wanted to see what would happen if I didn’t swap at all—so I ran into issues where no space existed and the kernel panicked without a crash. After rebooting, my drive metadata vanished, leaving me with only empty space.
I discovered that if no swap is set up, the system mounts an image file as a swap file. Unlike Windows, this swap file is static. I ran out of space too, and even with 4.3 GB of swap pre-configured, my OS used up to 2 GB—leaving over 10 GB free. This suggests a memory leak or unzipping failure. What’s even worse is how the drive was wiped, possibly due to a hardware error or a corrupted write pointer.
My RAM is 8 GB, but Ubuntu auto-added 4.3 GB of swap. With the OS using up to 2 GB, I had over 10 GB available. Yet, the kernel still failed. This contradicts the “stable” label. It seems basic functions should work, but critical operations like recovery are unreliable.
What bothers me most is that Linux doesn’t auto-resize swap, which is a major oversight given its reputation for stability. The lack of support for dynamic resizing makes it risky. I also found out that Linux can’t automatically expand swap space, unlike Windows. This directly undermines the claim of stability.
Security-wise, I’m confused—granting sudo privileges to programs that only need system access feels dangerous. Yet, I see no reason why a user shouldn’t be cautious. Still, I respect the effort behind Windows’ development, which is impressive in its own right.
From a technical standpoint, Linux is broken in my view. The crashes during swapping, the memory issues, and the lack of clear support for essential features all point to problems. I’ve seen similar issues with Ubuntu too—jobs failing, boot errors, and recovery limitations.
Security concerns are real: if a process gets enough privileges, it could compromise the system. But Linux’s design prioritizes openness over convenience, which is why it struggles with these everyday hiccups. It’s not that I don’t respect Windows, but I’ve learned that stability isn’t just about avoiding crashes—it’s about reliability in handling the basics.
Ultimately, Linux may be a step back for some users, but it’s a solid choice for those who value transparency and community-driven development. If you’re unsure, stick with Ubuntu or another stable OS.
Sorry for writing this much lol. This is a rant openly discussing about the problems.
Yes, people often refer to it as a short summary or a quick takeaway.
It's not suitable for everyone. Based on my perspective, it's reliable and consistent. I've put time and effort into making sure of that, yet Linux is widely used by many. Perhaps the problem lies elsewhere.
In my experience with over 100 instances I’ve likely hit memory limits, I haven’t seen this outside of f2fs. A sudden power cut can cause data loss, which is unavoidable no matter the operating system. I’d like to highlight that this stems from the distribution itself. We have a built-in way for this, though it’s mainly used in RHEL, possibly Fedora, and Ubuntu may mask it under Ubuntu Pro. The same approach can also help resolve the earlier problem by enabling a clean shutdown during emergencies—something you might not have noticed. systemd has added some BSD boot options, which could improve things, but I suspect this will mainly benefit enterprise users. This issue is ultimately left to the system administrator to set up, and most users probably don’t need sudo privileges. Except in enterprise environments, where it’s part of the business model. Microsoft even had to shift to Linux for Azure and WSL, bringing MSSQL into the Linux realm. Every company supporting Linux is motivated by profit, not a consumer desktop audience. We’re exploring immutable/atomic distros and moving toward Flatpak and Snap. If you’re interested in this direction, check out SteamOS on the Steam Deck, Fedora Silverblue, or VanillaOS. Canonical Ubuntu and SUSE/OpenSUSE are also working on similar projects. You might want to stop referring to it solely as GNU/Linux—many distros don’t rely on GNU software at all. The kernel is solid, and major companies are helping make desktop Linux more accessible, though enterprise needs usually drive the priority. If you spot a problem, contribute your ideas to help fix it. Complaining about Linux or a specific distro won’t make a difference.
My situation has been quite challenging. In my view, you're at a low probability—about one in a hundred—especially in a larger group, maybe one in a thousand. "I'm talking seriously; if even someone using Ubuntu or Mint can perform basic web browsing and word processing without any issues, they should be comfortable handling the terminal to resolve any problems." What concerns you? WHAT IS THE ISSUE? "So you're implying that granting sudo privileges for a simple system task could give someone the ability to erase everything on my drive? How can this be considered secure?" You're undermining security by suggesting it's as safe as letting someone behind the wheel. Deleting system files? Why? "We need to understand that Linux isn't meant to replace Windows—it's a reliable alternative that doesn't get wiped down annually by Microsoft." Regarding the idea of "fiddling" with it, it seems you're comparing trust in cars to trusting users. In reality, it's about whether you can rely on people to act responsibly.