this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2023
263 points (95.2% liked)
Asklemmy
43831 readers
1161 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you think that's the case. Check some big forums for each big distro right after a point update to read the tales of woe and breakage.
My personal experience with this has been:
Pop_OS broke after an update. Unrepairable as far as I could tell. And I tried hard. Happened to multiple.people there was a reddit thread about it.
Fedora broke on an update. Not sure if repairable. I didn't try. I had the most boring vanilla installation possible.
Arch has been unbootable twice over the years. And had to do many manual interventions. Both times it was fixable.
People are not lying to you when they say it breaks randomly. Just because it wasn't your personal experience doesn't mean it isn't a common experience. You just have been lucky so far.
Your'e right people are not lying, they just don't realize what they have done to break it. Linux is great because it gives the users full power... and that includes the power to break it. Windows babysits the user, and it doesn't allow them to make changes that break it.
So? A lot of dumb people use Linux too... just because dumb people break things doesn't mean that Linux isn't stable. There is a reason 90% of web and cloud infrastructure runs on Linux... because it's a more secure and stable OS.
Luck has nothing to do with it.
I'm running a fresh Debian stable build for the past 2-3 days, with NO apt package installed(other than flatpak), no other modifications, vanilla as vanilla gets, only flatpaks installed.
So far: On first install, apt upgrade was broken... lol.. yeah.
Other than that, it freezes on suspend, and I'm getting weird screen flickering that it's really hard to troubleshoot so far, specially because when I turn on OBS it mysteriously just doesnt happen. Also steam doesnt open up sometimes, sometimes it does, depends on if you're feeling lucky or not, it also doesnt respect the DE settings, so when it does open the scale is wrong, and everything is tiny.
And this is with a distro known to be stable.
Why don't you explain to me why I have not had any problems running 3 servers for the last 5 years. And why I've not had any problems running it on 6 other machines of varying desktops and laptops? Why don't you explain to me why 90% of web and cloud infrastructure chooses Linux because it is so reliable and stable? I do everything in Linux... everything, including recording in OBS and video editing in Lightworks, no problems.
So tell me, why is it only certain users that seem to have a problem with Linux? Why do you think that is? Because it seems to me the really basic users get on fine with it, and the really advanced users get on fine with it. The only people that have problems are Windows power users that have no fucking clue what they are doing, but try things anyways and break things.
You seem upset.
You seem like you're trying to avoid acknowledging the fact that you are wrong.
Literally linked ya debian stable being broken out of the box. No user input required. Not sure how else to show ya that even stable Linux distros break on their own.
What part of my argument do you think that counters? Because I never said Linux has 100% reliability, I said, Linux is more reliable than Windows. Try to follow what is actually being said instead of setting up strawman arguments.
This part:
Your first line.
Again, Linux gives the user full control over it, and that includes the ability to break it... again, many people can not wield that power properly.
You're right, they are not technically lying, they are just too dumb to realize the thing they did to break it. When immutable distros become more popular, those people will be less likely to break things.
It has absolutely nothing to do with luck. Don't get me wrong, some Linux distros are known for updates breaking them. Arch based distros are infamous for it... but those are bleeding edge, rolling release distros. Distros based on Debian? Redhat? Never fucking break... there are reasons 90% of the top web and cloud infrastructures run on Linux: security and stability.
And Windows breaks all the time with updates... multiple times Windows updates have deleted peoples' user files. That's the most erogenous thing an OS can do... delete important user files.
https://www.howtogeek.com/fyi/microsoft-explains-why-windows-10s-october-2018-update-was-deleting-peoples-files/
https://www.howtogeek.com/658194/windows-10s-new-update-is-deleting-peoples-files-again/