• Taleya@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Windows treats user commands like most tech treats consent. Negotiable, ignorable.

    Linux brooks no bullshit. The program will do as it is told.

  • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Android ain’t no better. If I don’t pull up my app list and manually kill my media player, it doesnt stop and drains the battery despite tapping the exit menu item

  • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Oh sweet summer children… its worse. Linux tells the program to kill itself, then makes sure it happens

  • TheBannedLemming@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I fully support Linux, but Firefox doesn’t deserve that kind of heat. Yes, the Mozilla Foundation has been in hot water over the press release describing the direction and implementation of AI into the browser. But compared to the competition they are still are far better then the rest.

    • ohshit604@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      So you’re telling me SIGTERM kill doesn’t actually send a hit squad to my house to assassinate the program? Lame.

      Genuinely can you link the previous discussion?

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    From what I’ve heard about Windows, it works more like the Simpsons “Barney coming up behind Moe” meme.

    So, as it should be, Tux.

  • da_cow (she/her)@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    95
    ·
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

    While the meme is very funny, it is technically incorrect. Linux has two major ways of terminating a process. When Linux wants a process to terminate execution (for whatever reason) it first sends the SIGTERM signal to the process, which basically “asks” the process to terminate itself. This has the advantage, that the process gets the chance to save its state in a way, that the execution can continue at another time. If the process however ignores the SIGTERM signal at some point Linux will instead forcefully terminate the execution using the SIGKILL signal. This represents what the image shows.

    Before someone gets mat at me: I know, that there are like 50 more Signals relevant to this, but wanted to keep it simple.

  • NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Stop spreading this lie. Linux has a more graceful shutdown process than Windows ever did. It doesn’t abruptly kill everything.

    • chaospatterns@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Windows has something called the ShutdownBlockReasonCreate API which enables apps with long running operations to prevent a shutdown to avoid corruption or losing work.

      Is there an equivalent for Linux? When used appropriately, it makes shut downs even more graceful.

      • NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 hours ago

        I don’t know the technical details, all I know is that if I click Shut Down while I have unsaved work open, it tells me about it and doesn’t just kill everything.

      • UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Well, I don’t know whether it’s by default, but systemd does so - if the program doesn’t close in a timely manner (or there is an exception configured)

  • Shanmugha@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Windows:

    • program refuses to shutdown
    • system: okay, guess you don’t need your computer to turn off anyway
    • JelleWho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      18 hours ago

      There is a windows registry hack to set the shutdown wait time for 1s and that did fix it for me. But every update they turn it back to unlimited.

      (I ended up installing Linux, I only have the dnf5daemon server holding the shutdown up for atnost 5min now. But I haven’t tried to fix it)

      • Shanmugha@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Which is why in my Windows days I got a habit of turning computer off with Windows + R --> shutdown -s -f -t 0

        Windows just works, my ass :)

  • Rolivers@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Windows task manager:

    Let’s play a whack a mole game where the app you’re trying to kill constantly moves up and down a list by default! Enjoy!

    • egrets@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      17 hours ago

      There’s a non-obvious freeze function in the Task Manager - for as long as you hold the Ctrl key, it’ll stop updating the list. I have no idea why this functionality is hidden, but I guess Dave Plummer had some unusual ideas about UX.

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Graceful like closing a laptop and putting it in a backpack only to have windows refuse to shutdown and become a heater until it cooks the battery and ruins the screen…

    • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 hours ago

      worse. windows literally goes to sleep when i close the lid after i told it to shutdown.

      so when i boot it up again, what happens? inevitably it wakes from sleep, only to remember that i told it to shut down, then it shuts down. then i have to boot again.

    • Aganim@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      To be honest, Mint is no better in that regard on my laptop. Closing my laptop and pulling the power adapter always results in the system not going to sleep mode, but remaining active. Opening it will actually cause it to resume going to sleep. Really annoying.

      • EldritchFemininity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        I literally had this happen with my desktop last night, and it’s entirely down to Windows actively choosing to go into sleep mode or not. No activity on the computer, click on sleep, the monitors go off and I started to walk away except I noticed that my keyboard and mouse were still on (the first things to turn off when Windows goes to sleep for me) and the fans were still running. Wiggled the mouse and it had only turned the monitors off. I tried it 2 or 3 more times and Windows kept doing the same thing - putting the monitors to sleep and nothing else. I eventually just straight up shut it down with the power button.

      • baropithecus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        15 hours ago

        It absolutely isn’t. If a laptop lid is closed, it needs to be sleeping, period. No random updates, no search indexing. I’ve also had this happen after explicitly putting laptops into sleep AND closing the lid. No idea how Apple is the only company able to do this consistently.

        • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          no search indexing

          hear me out. how about … there doesn’t need to be a background process that runs constantly and consumes 30% of your processing power and makes the fan spin all the time because it generates so much heat.

          • Redkey@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            46 minutes ago

            I am stuck using an otherwise old but theoretically bearable PC at work running Windows 11 from a spinning HDD. But I’ll tell you, when I dug through the registry to turn off all the background indexing nonsense, it became damn near usable.

          • baropithecus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            13 hours ago

            I haven’t used a mac for over a decade, but for the decade or so before that it never happened to me once, either on an iBook or MBP. Perhaps something changed in the meantime.

            • merc@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 hours ago

              Apple laptops are typically extremely good when it comes to sleep and suspend.

              A major advantage of having a very small range of hardware you have to support is that it’s pretty easy to test all possible combinations and make sure they work well together. As far as I’m concerned, Apple has been, and probably always will be the undisputed champion of doing this right.

      • xav@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Nope. Go read about the “modern suspend” a.k.a. S0ix horror stories. Totally the fault of Microsoft+manufacturers, happens in Linux and Windows.

  • 1984@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    20 hours ago

    I mean, also look at how windows installs programs. Its like a 100 step process taking several minutes, because just putting the files where they need to be is just too simple.

    Or the uninstall program, cant just remove the files, no… Need to run full installer backwards to remove all the registry entries and even reboot the system to get rid of it all.

    • Victor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      20 hours ago

      One of the actual (many) reasons that drove me from Windows. Over the years it became so dirty to have so many old files and registry entries that were abandoned by their respective uninstallers that I became wary of installing anything at all, and that’s not the feeling I want with my personal computer.

    • FishFace@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Uninstallation on Linux needs to do the equivalent of removing registry entries (settings) as well. Neither prices typically takes long. Windows does require more reboots, but you can typically get away without rebooting still.

      • Natanael@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        17 hours ago

        The main difference is Linux package managers with their package metadata is better at cleaning up than corresponding Windows installers.

        Especially antivirus programs, they are the worst

        • FishFace@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          17 hours ago

          Some of them, but not all of them. Uninstalling things on windows also often leaves registry entries. It’s just not that different