Updated to Linux? Let me know your feedback.
Updated to Linux? Let me know your feedback.
I’m really frustrated with how Windows 10 is performing lately. Despite holding a significant share of the market, it still struggles with stability and doesn’t match the polished feel of Linux desktops, which are built by independent teams without corporate backing. It also falls short in developer support and program updates. The numbers here seem off—what’s going on with Microsoft? I’d prefer using a Mac, but its game support is worse than Linux in most cases (except those odd exceptions where developers release Mac versions).
I find it annoying that Linux isn’t more widely adopted for common desktops and distros. If more companies invested in developing these platforms, fixing the existing bugs and improving hardware drivers would make a big difference. The same goes for desktop hardware issues—currently, companies like NVIDIA and AMD are not prioritizing support.
For example, DaVinci Resolve works well despite some problems, and its installer is compatible across different systems. Many people dismiss Linux because of these claims, but there are valid reasons behind them. PopOS and Manjaro handle preinstallation smoothly, while NVIDIA seems reluctant to back up drivers for non-proprietary hardware.
AMD adds driver support a year before the actual release, and Ubuntu LTS should eventually roll out updates. Still, you often have to wait for kernel versions or vendor fixes. It seems most desktop problems are handled by a single developer, which isn’t ideal.
I've been using Linux (Ubuntu) for three years mainly for my university assignments—not for gaming. When it comes to Ubuntu specifically: how the desktop looks customized is a personal choice. The default folder layout works, and the console is adequate. Installing software can be tricky, but I prefer building everything myself to match my preferences. Linux offers plenty of free customization options, yet I still enjoy tailoring the environment exactly as I like.
Software setup in Windows lets me use dynamic wallpapers, custom sidebars, and interactive effects, with a console that stays within bounds and takes focus when needed. There are also several alternative file managers available. For those kinds of tweaks, Linux and Windows perform quite similarly.
I’m puzzled by the default directory names—three characters instead of longer, clearer labels. Users often wonder why the "Programs" folder isn’t used for programs, and why the console feels so essential on Windows. On Linux, I appreciate having everything in a dedicated "Programs" area rather than mixing it with "bin" or "Program Files." It’s frustrating when uninstallers leave behind unnecessary files or registry entries, especially on Windows.
For me, it’s about comfort and familiarity. I like seeing programs neatly organized in subfolders inside Program Files, as most installers do. Ubuntu’s apt-get installs things directly where it wants, which is straightforward.
Uninstalling is another pain point. On Windows, uninstallers often leave behind files and registry keys, which feels like a mistake. I’d rather have the option to remove items cleanly instead of having them vanish.
In general, Linux has many customization tools, but it can be overwhelming with too many options. Windows still offers a strong installation experience, especially for those who prefer a GUI. I’m more comfortable with Windows programs and its straightforward setup, though I respect how Linux lets you personalize the console and file structure in ways that feel intuitive.
Personally, unless you really need to rewrite your OS’s source code, sticking with Windows makes more sense.
I’m not sure where to begin honestly. First, it’s not just about tweaking and recompiling code. It’s about free choice—there are many programs and desktops you can pick what fits you best, and you can adjust them easily without changing the source code, since most systems are built with customization in mind. I don’t get what you mean by windows API and dynamic wallpapers; Linux has had these features for a long time.
Second, I’m not sure why you’re bothering with the root folder. It’s the same on MacOS because it’s Unix-like, and those are old Unix-style directories. You shouldn’t touch them unless you’re a developer or someone who packs software. They make sense in a package-based system where binaries, libraries, and resources live in separate places, unlike Windows. You don’t run programs through /usr/bin; you just select them from the menu.
Third, for most users, you don’t need to open the terminal at all. There’s always a graphical interface, and tutorials usually focus on console commands to save time. On both Windows and MacOS, you can use PPA files, enable repositories via GUI, or update through the interface—no need to dig through old directories.
Fourth, package managers install things deliberately, keeping binaries organized in specific folders. This saves space and makes updates easier. For programs that need special setup like web engines or databases, they let you reinstall without losing data, and they often clean up automatically after a while.
Fifth, for distros similar to Windows, it doesn’t really matter much. Most times, if they share the same base, there’s no fragmentation. A distro like Manjaro using Arch Linux as its foundation is just a convenience for users. WSL is problematic—it slows down I/O, complicates compilation, and lacks many Linux features. Visual Studio Code works on Linux too, and there are plenty of IDEs comparable to Windows, especially for larger projects.
Microsoft even uses Linux for compiling, which shows it’s viable. The fact you’re used to Windows is good—you just need to get comfortable with Linux. Honestly, I found Windows to be more buggy, especially with Windows 10. It’s frustrating to own a license worth €300 and deal with constant issues like night mode breaking or system instability. Problems like these are rare on Linux, where desktops aren’t maintained by big companies. Linux holds around 2% of the market, but that’s not enough to make it perfect. Windows should aim for fewer bugs, but it doesn’t always succeed.
The discussion revolves around personal preferences in software environments. Some favor direct control during installation, while others appreciate the flexibility WSL offers. Compilation workflows vary, with Linux tools running directly from Windows and Visual Studio supporting Linux builds. The conversation touches on user interface quirks like night mode and the new start menu, noting that Open Shell handles those. Updates are a point of contention, but the speaker suggests disabling them. Ultimately, opinions stem from individual taste, and the speaker clarifies they’re not advocating for any specific OS but sharing personal experiences.