Despite how this may feel, this post really is about Linux.

Lately I've been thinking a lot about trying to daily drive ... something else. OpenBSD. RedoxOS. 9front, Plan9. Heck, MINIX3. Some of it is that I've always wanted to try living on a micro-kernel, as I strongly agree with the design principles; but more recently a lot of it is because of what's going on in both user space and the Linux kernel. I can escape from systemd by running Artix or Void or a dozen other anti-systemd distributions; Wayland is getting harder to avoid and some people no longer have a choice despite Wayland still trailing X in accessibility. But that's still fine for me since my preferred window manager doesn't run on Wayland at all, and there are no efforts to port it. Most alarming is what feels like a slippery slope around AI in the Linux kernel. No amount of distribution dodging is going to avoid that.

So I spend more and more time looking at alternatives and evaluating if I really can daily drive something other than Linux. Today I realized that I've trapped myself, and that trap is because of games.

I'm not a huge gamer, but I like to occasionally play; and recently, Linux has been really really great for games, even beating Windows on its home turf. I played entirely through Borderlands 4 on Linux -- a game which is demanding of hardware, by any measure -- on what's basically a mobile AMD CPU/GPU and it crashed all of twice the entire game. I waste a few hours every month on Factorio. I've got stuff bookmarked in my Steam library that I know run well on Linux; we have resources like the ProtonDB. Lately, this has been my big blocker, and that realization I mentioned was in the form of realizing that I'm using the exact same excuse Windows users used to use to avoid switching to Linux. Because they didn't want to lose access to games.

Something that's informing my hesitation is that I have a Linux phone, too. It's got an arm64 CPU, and is running some mobil-ized fork of Debian, and so much software isn't available for it. So. Much. Either there aren't packages for the OS and they're not in Flathub; or they are in Flathub but they're not adaptive and so are effectively useless on a mobile device; or they're in Flathub but aren't available to arm64; or they're in Flathub but just don't run because 30% of Flatpaks in Flathub are broken and don't run -- at least, they don't run on my phone, because they don't like whatever's providing GL via Wayland. What this experience has done is made me pessemistic about jumping platforms: if I lose access to half the software I use just by switching CPU architectures, how bad will it be if I up and out change kernels? Pretty bad, I'm expecting; I'm not going to be playing any AAA games, that's for sure. Which is why -- even though Linus himself is slop-coding patches into the kernel -- I feel trapped.

It's incredible that Linux has come so far on the desktop that the availability of games is a blocking factor to migrating off of it -- isn't it? C'mon old timers: we've come so very far, baby, and for most of it I never imagined we'd be here. We've already taken over the world, via phones, via servers, via infrastructure, via all that FOSS that corporations are furtively using illegally by not following the LICENSEs of the libraries upon which their platforms are built. We've won, although desktop users only dimly, if at all, comprehend it; we give ourselves handicaps to ensure we remain the outsider underdog, by using increasingly more constrained sub-markets as our penetration measure.

Maybe it's inevitable: popularity increases capability which begets stickiness. I like being able to just fire up Factorio, not having to dual boot, or faff around with virtual machines or with maintaining two ecosystems. Heck, I don't even have to run Steam -- there's a Factorio: Space Age package in AUR. I just launch it from the command line. I'm going to lose all that by going to RedoxOS. Sure, I'll gain the confidence that the kernel isn't being written by an RNG, but what am I willing to give up? Games?

In a way, Linux has achieved Windows-ness. It's sticky. People have to stay, unless they're willing to accept the austerity measures of a younger (or at least far less popular) OS. The excuses Windows users made, now Linux users are making. I want to move to a better OS... bUt WhAt AbOuT mUh GaMeS?!?!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 13 points 20 hours ago (7 children)

I'm not going to apologize for having standards and morals.

Yah, if BSD starts funneling donations to Omarchy, or they decide to accept cryptographic PRs from the NSA, or they start bundling crypto-mining code in the kernel, or if they start implementing parts of the kernel in Javascript, then I'll have to move on again.

Despite your comment, I would be surprised if you didn't have your own boundaries, your own lines which you would not cross.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 17 hours ago* (6 children)

    Despite your comment, I would be surprised if you didn't have your own boundaries, your own lines which you would not cross.

    Of course I do. And when provided good arguments, I redraw my boundaries. Like any reasonable being. Right? Am I happy with all choices made for me by upstream projects?

    No.

    But at some level they make sense.

    If I want roses, I’ll have to take the thorns with it, because having roses makes me happy. Avoiding them (because I hate thorns) makes me sad.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 13 hours ago

    And, probably, if Linux were all there was besides Windows and OSX I'd just be raging against the wind. My whole and only original point was that there are alternatives, and advocates thereof who are in a very similar position Linux users were 15 years ago: a minority of users who, for various reasons, have chosen to not use the 800lb gorilla. And some Linux users are now in the position Windows users were back then, where they feel they can't switch without giving up too much.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 15 hours ago (3 children)

    I would be surprised if you didn't have your own boundaries

    Of course I do. And when provided good arguments, I redraw my boundaries.

    This is the difference between policies and religion: one of them is open to debate.

    (My take is simple, but similar: today I accept the "caveat venditor" policy, and I watch it like anything else, like we do)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 4 points 11 hours ago* (2 children)

    I don't think you're taking a position, so this isn't about you; it does remind me that frequently the pro-AI folks often characterize the anti-AI folks as being irrational about their positions. This, despite the fact that

    every single
    published study
    shows that
    AI
    makes
    developers
    worse.

    Worse code. Degraded skills. More security defects. I haven't seen a study yet that shows using LLMs make developers better. They think they're faster, but it's an illusion. I want to see the studies demonstrating vibe coding produces better code. Not more code; more reliable code. More bad code isn't "better". Even a single study would be encouraging. The people skeptical about AI-generated code have far more data behind them, and are the ones being rational; the pro-AI team are the ones with religious conviction and no evidence.

    As for Linus, he's not a Christ figure to be worshiped, and he's not infallible. If you had a quant uncle who was smart, made good money, and was a nice guy, you wouldn't say, "he's been day drinking a lot lately, but I'm sure it's OK; he's a smart guy."

    Again, I'm not implying that's what you meant; it just reminded me of discussions I've seen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 hours ago (1 child)

    every single published study shows that AI makes developers worse.

    Can't thank you enough for this list!!! I asked anti AI folks and the best I got was a study on AI assisted essay writing with 8 people per control group. The rest were insults, mockery, shifting goalposts, so naturally, as someone who just arrived at the fence, I found myself siding with the less troll-ey side. My guess is this is more an issue of "worse than an enemy is an incompetent ally" because any single study in your list would have done it for me.

    This study has some positives on AI use in coding, but I'd exercise caution due to the tabloid-ey nature of using the term "AI-slop" everywhere in a study that's supposed to be unbiased.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 6 hours ago*

    A couple of my links aren't entirely negative. One mentions AI code tends to have less conplexity, which is generally a good thing. And at least one is from 2025 (IIRC) and at the pace the field is moving you could argue it is, absurdly, way out of date.

    However: it's telling that even Anthropic's studies show agentic coding makes developers dumber.

  • source
  • parent