Thanks for your message! Your Steam drive is using EXT4, but it still isn't working after reinstalling. I chose PopOS as a new distro and am trying it out. It's taking some time to get used to Linux, especially learning commands like Terminal. I understand it can be frustrating after spending years with Windows or DOS. Keep going, you're doing great! Have a wonderful day!
In my view, yes, proceed with caution. Linux isn't fully suited for your particular needs (gaming). While I play games occasionally, it isn't the primary focus for me, and for what I require, Linux offers a much smoother experience. On Windows, I've had to rely on many workarounds to accomplish tasks effectively. Therefore, if your situation doesn't require it, forcing yourself to use it solely for gaming might not be worthwhile at this time. As others mentioned, the Steam Deck could potentially shift the landscape.
If steam causes disk read issues, the mount or hardware might be incorrect, or the drive has deeper faults. For wine, you probably anticipated something different. Wine isn't an emulator; it's a collection of libraries derived from reverse-engineered Microsoft code. What did you anticipate when choosing to run software on an unsupported system?
I've relied on Linux almost every day since 1994, though things have changed. I agree with him—it's not ideal anymore. It's overly complicated now and seems to be getting worse. (I attribute that to RedHat.) The system is also quite fragile; much of it relies on Python scripts. Everything is built and managed by developers who have no prior experience with system administration. There are no longer any system administrators involved in shaping the OS design. The issues I face daily with Linux are hard to imagine. Most stem from its complexity, which can take days to resolve—unlike FreeBSD, where similar problems would be fixed quickly. Or they’re engineering projects forced into its framework. True simplicity is rare. "Learning Linux" becomes an endless cycle of frustration, and you’ll keep coming back because they dismiss years of expertise for new shiny solutions. RedHat seems to do this on purpose to push users toward their enterprise offerings. Windows isn’t the answer either; programmers have been in charge for too long. If you're seeking a solid Unix-like experience, FreeBSD and MacOS are my preferred choices for servers and desktops. Illumos also catches my attention. Solaris was ahead of Linux ten years ago when Sun passed away, and it still leads in many areas today.
I've been working with Linux, and managing both my desktop and server has become simpler rather than more complicated.
You're probably using a laptop, not just a notebook. If you installed Linux Mint Cinnamon and it's freezing, it might be a low-spec machine. Trying the XFCE version could help if the issue persists. It seems your drive might have errors or be damaged. The age of the laptop isn't clear, but the hardware likely isn't up to modern gaming demands. Checking the specs and seeing what games you're planning to run would be useful. WINE can sometimes resolve disk-related problems, and using Winetricks might also assist.
I believe the limited focus of this task highlights the constraints of Linux. Both Luke and Linus possess several machines, yet they haven’t switched all of them. They have two laptops that aren’t running Linux, and they’re only changing one of their many devices. Both are primarily using Windows for most of their work, and Linux is only present on a backup drive. Once complete, they’ll likely reinstall the old Windows drive. For someone choosing an OS for their single machine, the decision-making process shifts significantly. I really enjoy Linux and have had a personal Linux system running in my home for over two decades. However, it doesn’t match the performance of macOS or Windows for everyday use. My current setup includes a Mac as my primary computer, a Windows PC connected to my TV, Ubuntu Server, and Raspberry Pi devices for specific tasks like smart speaker control. Even with two decades of Linux experience, I wouldn’t rely on it as my main desktop or TV PC because I aim for maximum convenience and minimal hassle.
It doesn't quite align with what you're saying. On a broader view, I can provide you with some cases but they'd require more detail. One example is RHEL 6 introduced optional NetworkManager, which is a tool for setting up networks and making things simpler. In RHEL 8 it's now required for servers, which feels unnecessary since configuring network interfaces wasn't a major issue before. It's become a large, complicated system with many components that can malfunction if forced to use. In comparison, FreeBSD lets you configure addresses easily in just one line of rc.conf and has maintained this approach for years. Sysadmins generally prefer straightforward methods without extra GUIs or complex settings.
Unlike FreeBSD, Linux tends to keep things simple—no need for a GUI or extensive hooks. When problems arise, it's hard to trace the issue because of the many layers involved. FreeBSD changes its configuration carefully and rarely, usually only when necessary. They don't add features just to meet marketing demands.
Other issues include removing essential directories like /bin, /sbin, /lib, etc., which seems unnecessary. It would be strange if they expected everyone to rewrite their scripts and change the shebang. /bin had its own purpose beyond just being a root directory.
Removing system utilities like pam_mkdir is another example of poor design. It wasn't a priority for security teams, and updates didn't reflect this. Symlinks aren't a perfect solution either—they can break links over time.
The crypto policy framework in RHEL 8 was added without major issues, but configuring certain services like Cypher required extra work. Some flags were ignored, leading to confusion. It's not a clear-cut mistake, but it does highlight the complexity of modern systems.
Another point is that RHEL 8 introduced new features like the crypto policy framework, which seemed straightforward on paper but added unnecessary steps for sysadmins. Instead of fixing things directly, they created wrapper scripts and XML policies, which added layers of complexity. This approach often requires more training and can lead to errors.
It's clear that many of these changes were driven by non-technical considerations rather than real needs. Simplifying things and respecting user experience is crucial.