On T420, on a fucking meme machine. After using arch, gentoo, Slackware and many others I wanted something that works. Turns out even the most stable distro is a steaming pile of shit for my case because it managed to become unbootable.
Fuck it I'm going back to my comfy Windows and I'm gonna develop on it but at least I will be developing my code instead of adjusting fucking dotfiles. You all linuxfags are delusional if you think linux has a future on home desktop/laptop.
Nobody cares.
Oh, and forgot to mention. I didn't find anyone else with my problem on Google. I literally broke it beyond what is called repairable.
congratulations on being a retard
...
lol g is full of unemployed idiots
you're a bigger idiot from taking advice from morons. also try ubuntu
For what it's worth even as an experienced Linux user I feel that what holds Linux back the most is the occasional breakage of things in unexpected ways that are usually beyond what a "regular" user could solve. Once, I installed a second DE to toy with it. After removing it my user folder belonged to root. Shit like that. There's always something not quite working or being annoying in some way.
great blog post, would read again
>On T420, on a fucking meme machine. After using arch, gentoo, Slackware and many others I wanted something that works. Turns out even the most stable distro is a steaming pile of shit for my case because it managed to become unbootable.
If you can't use mint, i highly doubt you installed gentoo.
>After removing it my user folder belonged to root.
Why did you assign your user folder as root user? A theme let alone a DE can be moved into a root file without making your user folder with root privileges.
Thank you! Added to my gold collection.
OP is a retarded fag.
install CloverOS
>be me
>use anything
>just werks
I dunno
>managed to break linux mint
Not hard to do, considering it's just Ubuntu with a shitty, buggy, wannabe Windows desktop environment.
It sickens me that reddit recommends that shitstro instead of a proper one, like base Ubuntu.
t. Archfag
The only distro I've found that doesn't break itself is Fedora. You should try it, the only thing I don't like about it is the fast release cycle.
Anything other than Debian stable or testing is wrong for a “just works” district. Mint is shit and Ubuntu comes packaged with spyware.
>I'm going back to windows
Yes, please, and do not reconsider. We do not need or want you.
Use operating system which you understand.
Leave sophisticated software to sophisticated people. Thank you.
XUBUNTU
Literally the best distro. Even if it's just ubuntu with XFCE
>wanted something that works
>switches to mint instead
You really belong to Windows for being a retard
>After using arch, gentoo, Slackware and many others I wanted something that works
How to spot a liar 101
>install denial stable
>has Firefox ESR
>download file
>try to open file in file manager
>system locks up
"stable"
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
I used Mint for a long time as my first distro, literally never had a single issue. The fact that you can't even say what you did to it leads me to believe that you did something retarded. Also, I am highly skeptical that you have ever used Arch, Gentoo, or Slackware.
You do.
>Using Mint
Hahahhahhahahah
wtf is wrong with you? Mint (and manjaro, etc) are bad and insecure distros that are made by incompetent glow in dark CIA niggers. Just install devuan. If you use a bad distro, then don't be surprised if (read when) it breaks or dies or gets backdoored. kys
Debian has crashed on me three time since I switch from Arch.
Arch never crashed on me.
What did you do
I also broke Mint the first time I used it.
I pressed on the update button and the gui disappeared. Luckily that was easy to fix. But that was my first experience with Linux.
>gentoo
>slackware
If you wanted something that works, why would you use anything else?
Why the fuck do people even bother with any distro besides debian if they want stability?
Seriously, they use it on the fucking ISS for a reason.
>implying debian works
>install debian testing
>download firefox quantum
>works perfectly
maybe a case of retardism
No, Richard, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation. Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ. One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you? (An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.
Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it. You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument. Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD? If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this:
Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag. Thanks for listening.
This, but unironic
You're welcome, Linus.
Thanks for taking time to post on Jow Forums.
>congratulations on being a retard
mint is infamous for offering optional updates that can brick your system. you should have done your homework and used ubuntu.
Nice blog