!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
Linux is a system and a tool, Windows is a product. You don't market high end precise machinery to everyday people, because it can be a pain. You sell them a product that is easy and simple.
Microsoft is trying to do both and failing at both horribly.
Ive used Linux for years as a daily driver. That said, windows is the "better" desktop OS for people who use the OS to open chrome and then buy things from Temu while browsing facegram on their phone with their off hand.
Linux is the better server OS, which answers all your other points.
Vibe coding.
Because there is no profit in good software.
Windows is still good enough for Microsoft to sell licenses, sell services, and other large contracts.
It does not need to be faster, safer, or generally "better" since there is no competition in the traditional sense. Almost everyone is trained to work with Windows and almost all software works on Windows, so it's just (seen as) a more sensible option for most businesses.
Enshitification
Because Microsoft's goal is to make as much money as possible for their investors.
Linux's goal is to make a good (and mostly Open Source) OS for the community.
But to be fair, Windows, at it's core, isn't a bad OS. It's all the bloat, that makes it almost unusable.
Because ease of use and simplicity go a long way.
Its about mass appeal, not quality.
Normal people dont want to have to know CLI
The fact that you cant use Linux without at least some form of understanding of CLI is why it will never supersede windows.
Because programming something that is open and free for anyone to see ane change and contribute is fun! And fun means better programming and love towards the software
Microsoft doesnt love its software or its users.
They got the userbase they ~~have~~ had and abused everyone.. they can no longer do that without consequnces
Why does it ask me to login, including 2FA, to only say, Logged Out, you should logout of all your browser windows?
If windows is worse than linux then why are dev companies holding us all hostage on Windows?
Wdym? In my experience, everything Windows can do, Linux can do better
So why are all these companies holding the majority of the market hostage on windows?
Marketshare
Linux is free
Linux is open
Linux was designed to be small when it needed to be
Linux has historically suffered from insufficient accepted talent to compete with user interfaces on Mac or Windows. Even attempts from window managers to borrow from Windows and Mac had missed the mark for decades.
Windows is paid
Windows is closed
Windows was designed to fuel schools and corporate America
Windows paid UX people and tried to make a comfortable experience for everyone ... until they didn't
For years, Linux distros mostly did their own thing, trying to be good enough to use.
Linux is now close enough to the Windows/Mac desktop experience that every misstep Big corporations make will just push people into open source.
I suspect that within the next decade or so there will be many attempts to pass laws to keep open source out of the public's hands.
Becauae making a good product is not their goal, and never was.
MS exists to monetize their products, or in other words extract maximum profit. When they were an underdog or compwtitor (Win 3.1 era), making a better product was the primary way to beat Apple et al.
But now they rely in integration/lock-in of their ecosystem, and making their products better will not increase their market share. That means improving their products is against their financial interests.
First off, it's different not just better. Windows comes out of the box usable and compatible with everything. It minimized flexibility and most of it just worked. This is kinda changing recently but anyone who says Linux just works better is selling your something.
Second Linux desktop has only become usable and working on a critical mass of hardware recently. Even 5 years ago Nvidia was broken (still is, less so) along with lots of hardware. Wayland was unstable trash.
Finally, valve is putting in hundreds of millions of dollars into Linux because Gabe has made it his mission to take his 30% cut on Linux.
There is tons of money being spent making Linux usable for normies.
Too many chefs in the kitchen spoils the hroth
It’s worse than macOS, Linux not so much
Linux is safer than Windows
Yes and no. Security through obscurity doesn't innately mean its more secure. The recent AUR debacle proved that all it takes is a competent and malicious actor with the time and dedication to make something to target Linux. And why has nobody done it? Because the Linux market share is still absolutely pathetic compared to Windows, and is even abysmal when compared to MacOS. The returns on hacking a single Linux distro simply aren't worth the investment.
I would also argue it is far easier to unintentionally brick your system with Linux, and if people don't know what they're doing (see: most end users) they can and will very easily leave themselves more exposed in the long run than by using the spyware that is Windows/MacOS/iOS/Android.
This pretty effectively explains all your other bullet points with minimal extrapolation; everything else you listed requires significant know-how for the systems to function properly. These are the super-deep superusers. Some of them probably tossed a few bones to Microsoft and their end-users, but as others have pointed out individuals and companies have vastly different motivations.
Between those main ideas... Yeah..
Linux is safer than Windows
Yes and no. Security through obscurity doesn't innately mean its more secure.
Linux cannot leverage security through obscurity, since its source code is open, so this point is not pertinent.
Aur isn't Linux. Aur is a feature of a distro and not Linux code.
But I get your point: Aur is a product of dark-pattern app coding that flies in the face of established best practice, of ISO, and of SLSA. Had we not fired our mentors and documenters 20 years ago we would not have had such a Lost Boy generation of system engineers growing up in that wasteland without mentors to tell them why something is a really dumb idea.
Supply-chain exploits are preventable, but only if coders are led by proper system engineers who follow and enforce standards; but this is boring and costly so neither VC money nor the kids building these really bad tools are gonna magically support such a notion.
Obscurity as in there are how many flavors each with their own repos and dependencies? And which one are you using? So which vulnerabilities work on you? And are you even aware of them?
Hiding among the weeds obscures you from view.
And while AUR isn't Linux code and I definitely understand that, it is very much what you're talking about; if anybody bothered to RTFM, they'd have had as many AUR issues as I did when the shit hit the fan - precisely none. And I'm only on Arch because Cachy is basically iOS for Arch if you can read and utilize copy/paste functions, a dazzlingly high bar for entry that somehow even I am capable of.
Then again, I also know enough to have a clue as to how much I really don't know. Most people just assume magic box makes pretty pictures happen and anybody who knows how to change operating systems are literal wizards.
And so I would argue that being on Linux and the variety of flavors is, again, a form of obscurity in and of itself. Yeah, its all open source. Did you plot an attack for that distro? That file structure? How about a missing dependency? It simply isn't worth it to plot Linux malware at this market share just like 20 years ago it wasn't worth it to put malware on Macs; their use is still too obscure. Once critical mass is achieved, watch Ubuntu and Mint malware variants increase by an order of magnitude. Until then, the whales are all on Windows and Mac.
All scientific supercomputers use Linux
This is not true. Supercomputers do, but in my research centre there are still lots of people using Windows and Mac. Linux usage is definitely way higher than the broader populace, but it's not "all".
It's the invisible hand of the free market at work.
Linux better than Windows?
Lol
They're different.
Ask the world's biggest companies, who spend hundreds of millions annually to manage tens of thousands desktops for tens of thousands of users, which is the better desktop OS for their use-case.
This is such a tired, worn-out argument, that merely demonstrates an ignorance of how business operates.
Hell, Windows user, system, and software deployment management was mature before Linux even existed.
Each has their strengths - Linux is a better choice for general servers, which is why every virtualization platform runs on it, and also why massive file servers, web servers, etc, run Linux. Or for purpose-built solutions.
Also, a hacker recently got caught because he was using Windows, so...
You haven't explained why what hackers use means, anyway.
Those companies aren't paying for quality software, they are paying for support and vendor lock-in.
The familiarity of users is not really an argument for an OS being good though, is it? Neither is how deep you're into the ecosystem. Of course if you say to a windows admin that runs an AD forest with 10k users "you should just switch to Linux because it's better bro lol" you can't be taken seriously, but that is not because windows is "better".
Hell, Windows user, system, and software deployment management was mature before Linux even existed.
Sorry what? I would barely call the mess of AD/AAD/Entra/Intune/whatever "mature" today, the registry is a shitshow, same with GPOs, and you're saying it was actually good in 1991, on Windows 3.0, 8 years before the first release of AD? Also, what software deployment?
Each has their strengths - Linux is a better choice for general servers, which is why every virtualization platform runs on it, and also why massive file servers, web servers, etc, run Linux. Or for purpose-built solutions.
And which are Windows'? Whenever someone says that "windows has its strengths", it always seems to boil down to either a) users know how to use it or b) some software I need is not available on Linux. Both are legitimate points and I don't fault anyone for running windows in those situations, but neither is a point for the OS per se. You listed several for Linux, I'm curious if you can name some for windows that are not the above.
Also, a hacker recently got caught because he was using Windows, so...
So, what? Are you happy a "dangerous criminal" was stopped using undocumented intrusive telemetry or that it demonstrates that skids who use windows exist?
Define worse. For most people's use cases it's not.