[y2zs]

I've been thinking about how an OS can impact you in terms of procrastination, here are my thoughts on Windows vs Linux for productivity & procrastination

Windows:
- I don't feel the urge to open a terminal every second
- Less urge to rice
- I don't get sidetracked as easily
- OS features "just work" (can also be accomplished on Linux with the right hardware and a bit of expectation adjustments, but is less common)
- A problem is that Windows can be slower on older computers, but again, this can be solved by just installing a minimal amount of applications and using common sense.

Linux:
- GNOME and its minimal nature do nothing to help me stay on track, I still get the same urges
- My usecase for Linux is just the same as Windows -- i.e nothing that I do needs to exclusively be on Linux
[-] If you were developing FOSS applications then I see why you'd stay on Linux, but for me there is no reason to exclusively.
- Void Linux -- the distro I use -- doesn't use systemD, it uses runit (which has no "intelligent" "do what I mean" service management, it's all just bash scripts. so user-services are really annoying to work with)
[-] An example of this is that when I log out of my user the services for my user aren't killed, and I haven't found a way to fix this.
- Even if I was on a distro that has systemD, I would still get urges to customize and therefore I would get sidetracked.
- Alot of time is needed to create your own environment, esp. with Tiling Window Managers, and it takes even longer to make everything "just work".

Some links that prove / disprove my point:
https://dev.to/dhruvgarg79/is-using-linu...ctive-37m3
https://www.reddit.com/r/ManjaroLinux/co...ductivity/
http://xahlee.info/UnixResource_dir/writ/unix_phil.html

Good Links:
[Why Windows 10 sucks or everything wrong with Windows 10]: https://itvision.altervista.org/why-wind...sucks.html
[Why Windows 11 sucks or everything wrong with Windows 11]: https://itvision.altervista.org/why-wind...sucks.html
[Major Linux Problems on the Desktop, 2022 edition]: https://itvision.altervista.org/why.linu...rrent.html
[Why Linux/GNU might never succeed on a large scale]: https://itvision.altervista.org/why-linu...cceed.html

I realize that this can't really be compared because it depends on your usecase, and Linux can be configured to "just work", but it requires a lot of initial investment of time.#
I'm never quitting Linux though, I've installed and used nearly every distro under the sun including Arch Linux, I've had trouble with Gentoo though and never got it installed once yet, and I've learnt a lot in the process, this is just a comparison between the two Operating Systems.

At this point I might install Ubuntu LTS and leave it alone forever, fuck non-SystemD distros, SystemD is useful most of the time.

[Request]

Not sure if you are looking for opinions on OSes, but I'll throw my 2 cents in as to why I've picked Linux over Windows as I've already written it when someone asked why someone would still use Linux when WSL is a thing:

X11 support is still shit and commercialized, WSL still runs under Hyper-V (WSL2)/pico processes so heavily multi-threaded tasks (something I have to do a lot, node_modules is also a killer) is noticeably about 50-100% slower under WSL compared to running native.

Lack of custom WMs
no FDE LUKS support
non-systemd-like services
no good integration with git/ssh/pgp/etc
no easy management of kernel-level features via the filesystem (`echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches` is very handy sometimes)
no bash/zsh (minus git bash, which sucks)
system updates taking hours and having to reboot (versus a package manager and live updates)

[y2zs]

Not sure if you are looking for opinions on OSes, but I'll throw my 2 cents in as to why I've picked Linux over Windows as I've already written it when someone asked why someone would still use Linux when WSL is a thing:

X11 support is still shit and commercialized, WSL still runs under Hyper-V (WSL2)/pico processes so heavily multi-threaded tasks (something I have to do a lot, node_modules is also a killer) is noticeably about 50-100% slower under WSL compared to running native.

Lack of custom WMs
no FDE LUKS support
non-systemd-like services
no good integration with git/ssh/pgp/etc
no easy management of kernel-level features via the filesystem (`echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches` is very handy sometimes)
no bash/zsh (minus git bash, which sucks)
system updates taking hours and having to reboot (versus a package manager and live updates)

Points that I agree with on why Windows is worse than Linux:
- X11 support is still shit and commercialized
True

- WSL still runs under Hyper-V (WSL2)/pico processes so heavily multi-threaded tasks (something I have to do a lot, node_modules is also a killer) is noticeably about 50-100% slower under WSL compared to running native.
I didn't know that WSL 2 ran under Hyper-V, on my system I would rather dual-boot anyway since I have limited RAM and CPU power.

- Lack of custom WMs
True but I never stop tinkering with those if the OS gives me an option to.

- no FDE LUKS support
True but you can use Bitlocker drive encryption.

- non-systemd-like services
True, more stuff like services are managed through GUI on Windows, which is slower most of the time.
But you can use Powershell to manage things through CLI on Windows, it does have a learning curve though.

- no good integration with git/ssh/pgp/etc
Also true but you can install apps like git for windows to remediate some of this, and the rest can be installed with Msys2 and it works okay, but Git is slow on Windows.

- no easy management of kernel-level features via the filesystem (`echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches` is very handy sometimes)
True but I never do things like this, and I think Windows being able to recover after a graphics driver crashes for example is helpful.

- no bash/zsh (minus git bash, which sucks)
Powershell is pretty good and is better than Bash/Zsh IMO, but Powershell can be installed on Linux too, so it doesn't really matter.

- system updates taking hours and having to reboot (versus a package manager and live updates)
You would still have to reboot after a big update on Linux, but I get your point.

Another thing is that you can use cool web UI's on Linux like Cockpit to externally manage your system / view stats and logs, idk if that is possible on Windows, maybe Netdata has Windows support?

I've switched over to RHEL 8 on my dualboot and enjoying it so far, no as much urge to rice as rolling release distros + it's very stable and I get good documentation.
RHEL also comes with SELinux enabled by default so you can very tightly control what is allowed to access what, but also has a big learning curve (I'm currently in the process of learning SELinux), on other distros though SELinux is hard AF to get configured as well as how RHEL does it, I don't think Windows comes with an equivalent for this.

If you want to get the latest version of RHEL for free, create a RedHat account and sign up for the developer program: https://developers.redhat.com/
And here's a RHEL 8 ISO (this is what I used): https://piratebay.party/torrent/52135336...Server_8.1
You have to sign in with your RedHat account while you install RHEL 8 because if you don't you won't be able to update the system.

IMO the OS that you use depends heavily on your usecase, as I mentioned above, nothing that I do on Linux is exclusive to Linux, can also be done on Windows, so for me I can use any ATM and I just use whatever OS I feel like using on different days.

[scargo]

security=linux
stability=windows

i think that sums it up

[mothered]

stability=windows

Particularly Windows 11.

I'm very Impressed with Its overall stability and functionality.

[Drako]

Linux is not safe system, because do not have good antivirus

I feel like this is the default position from Windows users. Yes, Linux can be exploited. But it has 4 advantages over Windows when it comes to security.

Its kernel and nearly all of its packages are open source. Which means that anybody can access the code from Github. Yes, even hackers. But there's a better chance that the greater community will find the exploit before a hacker would. Plus, the code isn't pushed by a company with a CEO behind it. It's pushed by people. So you won't get rushed and archaic code.

Security through obscurity. There are so many different ways that Linux can be used and customized, it would make your head spin.

Packages come from safe and approved repositories. Most Windows viruses originate from executables that come from unapproved sources.

Market share. Windows has a much greater desktop usage rate than Linux. Around 25x greater actually.

Now combine all of those factors. Which would you rather waste your time on exploiting? Windows or Linux?

many outdated software via repo.

This depends on what distro you're using. If you're using a dead distribution you will have this problem. But if you're using a very popular distribution that uses Arch packages, then you'll do just fine.

[Boudica]

Linux is not safe system, because do not have good antivirus

I feel like this is the default position from Windows users. Yes, Linux can be exploited. But it has 4 advantages over Windows when it comes to security.

Its kernel and nearly all of its packages are open source. Which means that anybody can access the code from Github. Yes, even hackers. But there's a better chance that the greater community will find the exploit before a hacker would. Plus, the code isn't pushed by a company with a CEO behind it. It's pushed by people. So you won't get rushed and archaic code.

Security through obscurity. There are so many different ways that Linux can be used and customized, it would make your head spin.

Packages come from safe and approved repositories. Most Windows viruses originate from executables that come from unapproved sources.

Market share. Windows has a much greater desktop usage rate than Linux. Around 25x greater actually.

Now combine all of those factors. Which would you rather waste your time on exploiting? Windows or Linux?

many outdated software via repo.

This depends on what distro you're using. If you're using a dead distribution you will have this problem. But if you're using a very popular distribution that uses Arch packages, then you'll do just fine.

I think this kind of "Linux security sux" talk (sorry those that have said something to this effect, I mean no offense), comes from this constant battle between people having a preference for one or the other, and having to defend their preference. There's a lot of the "ew why would you use Windows" or "Linux is annoying" type of conversations out there as people get defensive.

I don't personally use Linux, but that's purely because Windows suits me, and not because I think one is better than the other. I think they're very different and they absolutely should be. They both meet different needs and demands for a variety of users, and that's why both are relevant and useful in today's market.

[uranium23592]

Windows is much better GUI side, but I have to admit that there is quite some bloatware, I personally prefer Linux, much more efficient, fast and not spying on you

[mothered]

Windows is much better GUI side, but I have to admit that there is quite some bloatware

You can remove bloatware, components, etc and customize the OS to your needs with this tool.

I've been using It for years, and It's served me extremely well.

[Tibo inc]

I switched from Windows to Linux as my daily driver having only basic knowledge of terminals and Linux as a whole (besides a raspberry pi).

And I'm loving Linux. As a complete starter it was a hassle when some things like WiFi didn't work and I don't have Ethernet on my laptop. (I even downloaded arch once and was like fuck that)

But from my use case which is coding/developing stuff and just diversifying the computer related skills I have it's 100x better than Windows.