I officially give up on Linux

I've tried multiple distros over the span of a month, and none of them had been any good.

Major issues:
tons of bugs - even in major distros like Ubuntu
weird oddities - in certain distros it took like 2 minutes to shut down. Sometimes they just wouldn't shut down randomly, giving me a blank screen with the cursor
PC was under heavier load than in Windows, even if I wasn't using anything in particular
screen tearing
more bugs - apparently in KDE 5 you are not allowed to go AFK otherwise the screen locker will crash the work session
Speaking of KDE, installing window decorations causes KWIN to crash every 10 minutes
"Disks" program not working, must put HDDs to sleep manually, otherwise they'll never spin down
Lackluster programs and alternatives
Having to choose between security and usability. Risk yourself and install wine and good programs, or stay safe and use substandard ones

"Minor" issues:
Being forced to use command lines for simple changes that should've had GUI made for them ages ago
Most desktop environments are objectively ugly aesthetically, and not at all customizable
The one desktop environment that could be customized freely, disintegrates on a cellular level if you do so
Most distros are about as user friendly as advanced String theory.
No videogames.

I'm sure I've left out a few things, but here you go.

2017 will be the year of linux on the desktop

I don't blame you. You just create headaches and non-existent problems by trying to use Linux on the desktop. It's not worth the time in exchange for the illusion of privacy and freedom.

...

I know this is a pasta but why are you so insecure, dumb wincuck? Don't you have you broken webcam to fix?

May be pasta but it's still true.

This, my PC refuses to boot correctly into Linux. Even with Secure Boot off, it simply refuses to work even with the terminal modifications. For example, ALSA drivers are so broken that it crashes my whole setup. This is unacceptable, specially when the parts are from 2013. It should already be supporred, no excuses.

Also, why the fuck are the display drivers so bad still? Nvidia and ALMAO are still horse shit, can't they get into 101 programming classes? Oh wait, they never did. My bad.

Some of its true maybe.
However, it sounds like a good portion of his problems come from using KDE.
The bit about the desktops is a little retarded.
Most are much more customizable than windows, even the ones less so than KDE.
The 'lackluster programs' thing is also complete bullshit. The only one I can think of is foobar.
t. recent linux convert

The funny part is that you think you're being clever but this is genuinely the Lunix experience for most people.

The closest to a decent out-the-box experience is probably Oogabuntu and even then you're married to piece of shit Unity without booting from a minimal install or something.

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.

linux is not for everyone
you gave it a try, you did not like it, its absolutely fine
dunno why need to make life story post about it

>"Being clever"

Look, I don't fucking like Windows or Mac spying palooza... But my ass doesn't have a massive dildo stuck inside.

You have to admit it, Linux is a failure at the moment; and the whole community needs to fix it. Making new distros won't help, and being this closed minded will make Linux a forgettable piece of software, killed by its own community. Google is also moving away from the kernel, its days are numbered and time is running out.

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.

cont.

cont.

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:

cont.

cont.
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.

RMS rekt btfo freetards and go languish with the Hurd

This.

There's absolutely no reason to not just use what you like and what is good for you. I realize you're just trying to justify your life's choices, but this blind fervor for one thing or another is pure ego.

Linux is not an operating system!

This pasta is too kind to foot-eater RMS if anything.

There is no Sup Forums without shitpost.

You have two options, OP:

1) Fix it. Linux is open and can be improved by anyone. If your improvements are useful to other people, you can even submit a pull request so your improvements can be integrated into official code.

2) Give up, go back to Windows, and ask for your money back. Oh, wait...

Ya Linus could have cussed him out like nobody's business.

What bugs did you encounter in Ubuntu 16.04.1 LTS?