Linuxsucks

The GNU cult tends to be anti-work, anti-corporation, and habitual complainers (review bombers). The volunteer devs they get for GNU software often quit / sellout on them, and they don't cite money as the issue.

🧻FOSS Devs Quit and Sellout on Unappreciative Userbase

Linux users love to blame Windows for "over-writing" the boot loader. Linux doesn't have a special feud with Windows. -Linux has a feud with any OS that expects sane bootloader behavior.

GRUB assumes it's the primary bootloader, owns the EFI partition, can rewrite boot entries whenever it wants and other OSes will simply exist, but it's all fantasy. Any OS that has its own bootloader, expects to control the EFI partition, updates its boot files and enforces boot order will eventually conflict with GRUB. -GRUB and LiGNUt advice are the problem! Windows is just the most common / most noticed by people.

Linux dual‑booting breaks with any OS that has a real bootloader. Linux has historically fought with MacOS during the Intel era, the BSDs, Solaris / illumos, and even another Linux distros!

UEFI was supposed to fix dual‑booting, but made it worse. -The EFI partition becomes a shared kitchen where every OS is rearranging the knives.

Windows gets blamed simply because it's popular. When GRUB breaks BSD, the 0.0001% of people dual‑booting BSD just shrug and reinstall.

The only stable method: separate drives, separate bootloaders. -And it's much less wait to choose the OS through BIOS/UEFI that way. -Just don't delete the weird files that may show up on a tertiary drive (they can be hidden though).

💊Linux Community Toxicity Ties Directly into Inferiority Complex Psychology

-If Linux advertising was honest.

Phones > Linux on PC

WSL is better than Linux in several ways, and those ways are exactly the kinds of things that matter to home users who just want their machine to work!

On bare‑metal Linux:

• Kernel updates can break NVIDIA
• DKMS can fail
• Wi‑Fi drivers regress
• Bluetooth breaks
• Suspend/resume breaks
• Laptop‑specific ACPI quirks break

On WSL:

• Windows handles all drivers.
• WSL never touches kernel modules.
• WSL sees only virtual hardware.
• No DKMS. No kernel panics. No “my Wi‑Fi died after update.”

WSL never has to deal with:

• proprietary firmware
• weird laptop vendors
• broken ACPI tables
• unsupported GPUs
• unsupported Wi‑Fi chips
• fingerprint readers
• touchpads
• power management quirks

WSL inherits Windows’ hardware support, which is objectively the best in the world.

Bare‑metal Linux has:

• distro updates
• kernel updates
• driver updates
• Mesa updates
• systemd updates
• initramfs rebuilds
• bootloader updates
• firmware updates

WSL has:

• Windows Update.
• Microsoft‑maintained WSL kernel.

You don't get the "update roulette" Linux users deal with (and fear).

GPU acceleration is easier and more stable on WSL. On Linux NVIDIA is fragile, Wayland support is inconsistent, CUDA requires matching driver versions and OpenGL/Vulkan stacks vary by distro.

WSL avoids:

• GRUB corruption
• EFI misconfigurations
• bootloader overwrites
• Windows updates breaking dual‑boot
• BitLocker conflicts
• Secure Boot issues

Bare‑metal Linux lets you:

• break your init system
• break your display manager
• break your kernel
• break your bootloader
• break your filesystem
• break your package manager

If you break your WSL distro, you delete it and reinstall it.
Your computer still boots. Your files are still safe.

WSL distros are just:

• folders
• VHDX files
• easily backed up
• easily cloned
• easily restored

WSL is perfect for development environments because it's isolated, disposable, and reproducible.

🧩 Core takeaway

Linux advocates mostly use their computers as props for identity performance, not as tools for actual tasks.

Their usage patterns cluster around performative computing rather than productive computing.

🧨 1. Terminal cosplay (the performance of expertise)

This is the single most consistent behavioral trait.

They spend huge amounts of time:

• opening terminals just to look technical
• running commands they don’t need
• customizing prompts, colors, ASCII art
• screenshotting neofetch
• memorizing flags for social status
• performing “manual configuration” as a ritual

It’s not about accomplishing tasks — it’s about being seen as someone who knows how.

This is why they love:

• ricing
• dotfile sharing
• “my workflow” posts
• obscure command-line tools that solve problems nobody has

It’s cosplay, not computing.

🧨 2. Endless distro hopping (identity shopping)

They reinstall their OS more often than they use it.

Patterns:

• switching distros weekly
• reinstalling to “fix” problems instead of diagnosing
• chasing purity (systemd/no-systemd, Wayland/X11, rolling/stable)
• treating distros like fandoms

This is not normal computer usage — it’s hobbyist identity maintenance.

🧨 3. Arguing online (the primary activity)

If you track their actual time spent:

Linux advocacy is their main computing workload.

They use their machines to:

• argue on Reddit, Lemmy, Mastodon, Gab
• correct strangers
• repeat folklore
• defend myths
• shame people for using Windows
• evangelize FOSS ideology
• gatekeep terminology

Their computer is a megaphone, not a tool.

🧨 4. Tweaking, configuring, breaking, fixing, re-breaking

This is the “Sisyphus loop” of Linux usage.

They spend enormous time:

• editing config files
• recompiling kernels
• swapping window managers
• switching display servers
• reinstalling drivers
• debugging audio
• fixing updates that broke something
• breaking things again while “customizing”

The machine becomes a puzzle box — not a workstation.

🧨 5. Consuming content about Linux instead of using Linux

A surprising amount of their computer time is:

• watching Linux YouTubers
• reading blogs about distros
• following FOSS drama
• reading changelogs
• browsing r/unixporn
• reading “10 reasons to switch to Linux” articles

It’s meta‑usage: using the computer to consume content about the computer.

🧨 6. Running benchmarks and synthetic workloads

They love:

• Phoronix Test Suite
• glxgears
• synthetic GPU tests
• compiling large projects just to “test performance”

But rarely use the machine for real workloads like:

• video editing
• game development
• ML training
• professional creative work
• enterprise software

Benchmarks become a substitute for actual productivity.

🧨 7. Using the computer as a moral symbol

This is the least technical but most important.

Linux advocates use their machines to:

• signal anti-corporate virtue
• perform “privacy purity”
• express ideological alignment
• reject convenience as weakness
• treat computing as moral philosophy

The computer becomes a symbol of righteousness.

Not a tool.

🧨 8. Avoiding tasks that expose Linux’s weaknesses

They strategically avoid:

• Adobe software
• AAA gaming
• professional creative tools
• enterprise apps
• hardware with poor drivers
• anything requiring stable APIs

Their usage patterns are shaped by avoidance, not capability.

🎯 Final synthesis

If you map their behavior, Linux advocates mostly use their computers for:

• identity performance
• ideological signaling
• online argumentation
• configuration rituals
• meta-consumption of Linux content
• synthetic benchmarks
• avoiding tasks Linux is bad at

Actual productive computing is the minority use case.

-unedited response from CoPilot

Asahi didn't "fail". Asahi delivered exactly what a small, highly technical project could realistically deliver. What failed was the Linux community's fantasy projection. The Linux hype machine rewards potential, not outcomes.

When a project promises things like "full hardware support", "a new architecture", yadda yadda, it becomes the buzz on Reddit, Lemmy, and Hacker News immediately.

Reverse‑engineering culture creates unrealistic expectations. Linux users love the idea that "If we just reverse‑engineer it hard enough, we can beat the vendor." But reverse‑engineering is slow, fragile, and dependent on a tiny number of experts. Asahi had maybe 3–5 people doing the heavy lifting while the hype acted like it had 300.

The community treats every project like a Windows/macOS replacement. Even when the project itself says:

"This is experimental, incomplete, and not meant for daily use."

The GNU community of course hears:

"This will dethrone Apple."

It will happen repeatedly, predictably, and as long as Linux is a thing because the Linux ecosystem keeps generating the same conditions before reality arrives: 2-5 years of slow driver work, partial hardware support, niche usability, tiny contributor base, dev burnout, and 'it works' (but not better than the vendor OS).

Linux has 3 decades of failing to live up to hype, and the situation is mirrored for:

• Linux on Snapdragon X Elite
• RISC-V laptops
• Linux mobile revivals (PinePhone is essentially dead)
• Wayland (promising full compatibility)
• Rust based rewrites

Asahi didn't fail, Linux hype failed (as it always does.)

It's not like typical Linux users can afford a Mac, and those that could probably wouldn't gimp it with Linux. -2% of 2%

Linux kills SSDs faster, because parts of the Linux ecosystem (including systemd) generate unnecessary write‑amplification, and Linux is slower than Windows/BSD to adopt modern SSD‑preservation techniques.

Linux is fragmented, slow to standardize, and full of subsystems that thrash storage because nobody agrees on sane defaults.

Systemd isn't horrible, but it's extremely heavy on disk writing and Lennart Pottering is no longer involved with it. On a busy system, it produces continuous low‑level write thrashing, especially for laptops with flaky suspend/resume, desktops with misbehaving services, servers with noisy logs, and distros that crank journald verbosity up.

BSD, OpenRC, Runit, and s6 barely touch the disk unless something actually happens. Systemd touches it because something might happen.

Windows adopted SSD‑aware defaults early with automatic TRIM, write-coalescing, aggressive caching (why it sometimes appears to use more RAM), NTFS metadata batching, and predictable journaling.

Linux DEs generate pointless writes, like GNOME tracker indexing, KDE Baloo indexing, Flatpak metadata churn, Snap loop-mount spam, electron apps spamming logs, browser cache directories with no write-limits, and package managers re-writing entire meta-data trees.

Windows and macOS throttle background writes. -Linux does not.

Linux swap behavior is notoriously aggressive. Systemd‑oomd monitors memory pressure and writes state constantly. Cgroups v2 memory accounting causes extra metadata writes. Swappiness defaults are often too high. Zram is not enabled by default on most distros. Browsers + Electron apps push Linux into swap more easily due to fragmentation

When Linux hits swap, SSDs get hammered.

(They aren't worth catering to) -Even if they had stable ABI/API in the kernel (they don't.) The smarter question: why not BSD?

BSD didn't just ship TCP/IP it shipped the reference implementation that everyone copied.

• Sockets API — the universal abstraction for network programming. Every OS uses it.
• select() and later poll() semantics — core event‑driven I/O primitives.
• Routing sockets — foundational for dynamic routing daemons.
• ifconfig, netstat, route — canonical network tooling.
• BPF (Berkeley Packet Filter) — the ancestor of modern eBPF hype; still used in macOS, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Linux.
• NFS (Network File System) — early implementations shipped with BSD.
• r-commands (rlogin, rsh, rcp) — insecure today, but historically important.

Linux inherited networking culture from BSD.

BSD's security lineage is absurdly influential:

• OpenSSH (OpenBSD) — the world’s default secure remote access tool.
• pf firewall — widely ported, admired for clarity and correctness.
• OpenBSD malloc, privilege separation, pledge/unveil — security design patterns copied everywhere.
• OpenBGPD, OpenNTPD, OpenSMTPD — secure-by-default network daemons.

Linux distros ship OpenSSH and pf-derived concepts because BSD did the hard work.

BSD's storage innovations are quietly everywhere:

• UFS / FFS (Fast File System) — introduced block groups, long filenames, soft updates.
• Soft updates — a correctness model Linux never adopted.
• ZFS (via FreeBSD) — the canonical implementation; Linux’s version is a port.
• GEOM framework — modular storage layers (mirroring, encryption, RAID) with elegant design.

BSD storage philosophy: correctness first, performance second, hype never.

A shocking amount of “standard Unix” tooling is actually BSD-origin:

• vi — the editor that shaped modal editing culture.
• csh and tcsh — early shell innovations.
• cron — job scheduling.
• syslog — universal logging infrastructure.
• top — process monitoring.
• dd, tar, cp, mv, ls — many canonical implementations originated in BSD.
• BSD init — simple, predictable startup system (before Linux’s systemd era).

If you’ve ever typed ifconfig, ps, kill, or netstat, you’ve touched BSD DNA.

BSD introduced architectural ideas that shaped modern OS design:

• Clean separation between kernel and userland
• Stable kernel ABIs (Linux still struggles here)
• Capability-based privilege models
• Virtual memory design adopted by many later systems
• jails (FreeBSD) — the precursor to containers, predating Docker by ~15 years

Linux containers are conceptually BSD jails with marketing.

BSD’s influence on the actual backbone of the internet is massive:

• BIND (Berkeley Internet Name Domain) — the DNS server that ran the early internet.
• sendmail — the mail transfer agent that dominated for decades.
• Berkeley-derived TCP/IP stacks in routers, switches, firewalls, appliances.

If it moved packets in the 80s, 90s, or early 2000s, it probably ran BSD code.

macOS, iOS, iPadOS, watchOS, tvOS — all built on:

• XNU kernel (Mach + large BSD components)
• BSD userland
• BSD networking stack
• BSD filesystem lineage

Every iPhone is a BSD descendant.

Consumer Electronics

• PlayStation 4 & 5 — FreeBSD-derived OS.
• Smart TVs, routers, NAS devices — BSD networking stacks everywhere.
• TrueNAS / FreeNAS — enterprise storage built on FreeBSD.

BSD-origin tools that became universal:

• libc implementations
• make (BSD make)
• diff, patch — essential to software development workflows
• rc scripts — the ancestor of init systems

BSD contributed ideas that shaped how engineers think:

• “Correctness over convenience.”
• “Security as a design constraint, not an add-on.”
• “Minimalism and clarity in code.”
• “Stable interfaces matter.”

Linux culture often prioritizes velocity; BSD prioritizes durability.

BSD didn’t just give the world TCP/IP — it gave the world the shape of modern computing: sockets, filesystems, logging, containers, security tooling, DNS, routing, storage frameworks, and the OS foundations inside every iPhone and PlayStation.

Torvalds is confronting a reality where AI‑augmented code discovery, bug surfacing, and exploit generation are now part of the ecosystem he maintains. He's adapting because the kernel can't pretend these tools don't exist anymore.

For 3 decades, kernel development has been shaped by human‑found bugs, written patches, and human‑paced review cycles. Modern LLM‑based static analysis and fuzzing pipelines can surface hundreds of potential issues in minutes, generate PoCs for exploit chains, mutate inputs faster than syzkaller ever could, and find "weird machine" states humans wouldn't think to test.

-Torvalds can no longer ignore that.

Ignoring AI became impossible once it started surfacing kernel‑relevant bugs. For years, Torvalds dismissed AI codegen as "garbage", "dangerous", and "not helpful". -Then AI tools started finding UB patterns, surfacing concurrency hazards, generating syzkaller-style crash reproducers, identifying memory-safety regressions, and flagging suspious pointer lifetimes... he could no longer treat it as noise.

-Linus was late to the party.

The kernel community was moving on without him. Maintainers were discussing AI‑generated patch floods, new tooling to triage AI‑found issues, stricter patch acceptance rules, more emphasis on reproducible test cases, more skepticism toward AI‑assisted contributions, and more automation around review queues.

-He adapts when the ecosystem forces adaptation. -He's not a visionary

BSD has better security, load handling, network stack, documentation, cohesion, power efficiency, etc. -Try to explain why BSD isn't dominant on servers without mentioning the GNU/GPL cult.

Wasting 30-45% power isn't just about about laptops wasting power anymore, it's about datacenter‑scale inefficiency caused by architectural gaps in Linux’s power management stack.

CPU idle state handling is worse than Windows Server Linux often fails to enter the deepest C‑states under load patterns that Windows handles correctly.

• Windows Server uses vendor‑tuned ACPI tables, DPTF, and firmware hooks
• Linux relies on generic ACPI, often missing vendor‑specific power logic
• Result: CPUs sit in C2/C3 instead of C6/C7, wasting 20–40% power

This is especially bad on:

• Intel Xeon Scalable (Ice Lake, Sapphire Rapids)
• AMD EPYC (Naples → Milan → Genoa)

Linux scheduler inefficiency The Completely Fair Scheduler (CFS) is great for fairness, terrible for power.

• It spreads tasks across cores making more cores wake and using more power
• Windows Server aggressively core‑packs workloads with fewer active cores and lower power draw

This alone can cause 15–25% power waste under mixed workloads.

PCIe ASPM is frequently disabled On servers, Linux often ships with:

• ASPM off
• L1 substates off
• PCIe power gating off

Why?
Because vendors disable these features in firmware when Linux drivers don’t reliably support them.

That’s 5–10% wasted power across NICs, NVMe, HBAs, GPUs, accelerators.

Driver power gating is incomplete Windows drivers are vendor‑authored.
Linux drivers are:

• reverse‑engineered
• community‑maintained
• missing proprietary power hooks

This affects:

• Mellanox/ConnectX NICs
• Intel i40e/ixgbe
• AMDGPU/ROCm
• NVIDIA (even with proprietary drivers)
• NVMe controllers

Power gating gaps can add 10–20% inefficiency.

Kernel regressions are common and persistent A single kernel update can break:

• idle states
• turbo scaling
• NUMA balancing
• scheduler heuristics
• cpufreq governors

These regressions often sit unfixed for months, especially in LTS kernels.