Did Windows or macOS ever have a bug where installing and uninstalling an app deletes the entire GUI? Genuinely curious.
>>106730250that's only possible on GNU/Linux. be grateful for your freedom, chud.
I suppose you could theoretically build one, but why would you be that fucking stupid? Windows and macOS tend not to have their software deployment and update systems built and maintained by basement-dwelling troons.
>>106730250I'm pretty sure you can ignore the recommended procedures and use a terminal to do that on both Windows and MacOS.
>>106730378I don't know about macOS, but you're wrong about Windows. The GUI is deeply ingrained into it - even Server Core, Windows PE etc. still have the GUI.As I said, while it could theoretically be done, it wouldn't be by some freetard who can't even disable pride flags or Windows updates. You'd break something else system-critical long before you removed the GUI.
>>106730250Hehe, this just happened to me.Stupid apt partially uninstalled gnome before I ^Ced out of it.Installed xorg and a window manager, ran xinit and I was up and running again.Xsetroot to get my desktop background back.Now everything is faster and I have more free memory.
>>106730405One thing that I do all the time is start a command window and taskkill /im: explorer.exeSaves memory and makes everything faster.Windows and everything still works fine.
>>106730431>autostart programs are "the gui"
Package managers randomly uninstalling important shit because the maintainers went full retard is the reason I set up snapshots on my / directory.
>>106730250>Did Windows or macOS ever have a bug where installing and uninstalling an app deletes the entire GUI? Genuinely curious.No, because system and apps are much more separate.And it's advised to never write in system32 or the windows folder you can make calls to libraries in there but not modify anything this has caused issues in the past where programs would put themselves there and then something goes wrong and the wrong file gets deleted or modified and bricks windows, also the GUI is part of the system as well so a scenario like in Linux cannot happen.I don't get it why they haven't fixed it, like it's simple put application in a folder named prog or programs inside the filesystem root and keep programs/apps separated form the Desktop and system components.
>>106730405you can't on macos because the base system is immutable by default
>>106730512Cool, so it's literally and exclusively a Linux problem.Imagine my shock.
>>106730512>you can't on macos because the base system is immutable by defaultAh so that's why Linux is going immutable?It's not the first thing copied as far as I know systemd is a clone of launchd.
>>106730250If you remove the GUI on Windows you practically remove Windows itself. Windows 11 does NOT like it. Previous versions were happier to let you tear it apart.
>>106730535I'd say Linux going immutable is more because the median Linux machine's function is "hand out default.html once a month".Don't need to keep a lot of state for a workload like that.
>>106730548>Previous versions were happier to let you tear it apart.Eh, to what extend are you talking about windows 10 is when they did the UWP thing and that requires explorer.exe to exist and launch the windows shell or UWP apps won't launch at all, yes you cannot use settings.
>>106730535>It's not the first thing [linux] copiedthere is not a single thing original about linux. not even its name.
>uninstall me, will you?
>>106730868That bug was removed before they shipped the game and only could occur if you were dumb enough to install the game loosely to your root folder.
>>106730250What bug? He told the package manager to delete the entire GUI, it did as he said.
>>106730250It's just a byproduct of the way Linux is. No distro is a coherent OS, it's a collection of 3rd party software cobbled together. You have the freedom to remove the stock software because it's not really stock, it's bundled replaceable 3rd party stuff.
>>106732379Also, this >>106731882
>>106732379Linux is the Libyan MiG-23 of operating systems.
>>106730250even with the steam package bug the system did have protections against removing the gui accidentally... which he went out of his way to circumvent.nothing can stop a determined retard
>>106730250Yeah Windows doesnt. You can even safely delete System32 with no consequences.
>>106732379this is technically true, yet somehow people still manage to blame linux for any issue in or surrounding these 3rd party components.like oh a packager for pop_os make a mistake in the package for steam? that's linux's fault apparently. if a steam update on windows had a bug, do people blame windows? not usually. why is it different for linux? people know it's a collection of parts yet still treat it like it's one thing
>>106730250The Windows GUI stems from dwm.exeIf you delete that the whole system is basically nuked and you can't even get a recovery environment.The DE is explorer.exe, which can be nuked safely. i actually have a AHK script to do exactly that (only kill the process at runtime though) + provide some keybinds to launch Run(Calling the Subroutine using rundll)/Cygwin/CMD/Powershell/WSL/Snipping Tool/Total Commander, because there's no native way to launch a program from dwm.exe besides CtrlAltDel>Task Manager>Run.
>>106732807>completely wrong>delusional fantasy>heres the freetard-tier shit i did instead of replacing my busted gpu [driver]Don't ever change, /g/.
>>106732807DWM is windows' compositor, not the graphical subsystem. the gui in windows is similar to that in linux where parts are in the kernel and parts are in userspace. you can run a windows gui and gui applications without DWM, just without compositing features like transparency. DWM was introduced with Vista
>>106730250Delete system 32
>>106732807>The Windows GUI stems from dwm.exeNo, wrong.It's the compositor (even though they named it Desktop Window manager used to be called Desktop Compositing Engine in longhorn), the thing that handles the GUI part of win32k.sys and GDI. explorer.exe is both for loading shell components and is the file manager.
>>106730250I don't know exactly what you mean, but on Windows you could use a custom shell to replace explorer. I guess if something went wrong it would remove the entire shell, but it would still be within a graphical interface. I don't think Windows has supported pure DOS mode since like, Windows 98.
>>106734580>you can run a windows gui and gui applications without DWMNot really. A lot of modern software doesn't cope well with that, this was much the case in Windows 7 because the classic theme still existed and to have the classic theme a it would disable DWM, so you would have to support that.
>>106734766>so you would have to support that.*As a software developer, that develops for windows.
>>106730250No, but do either of them offer a million options for the GUI or even allow to erase it completely?
>>106730250hi shill, kys
>>106734754>I don't know exactly what you mean, but on Windows you could use a custom shell to replace explorer. I guess if something went wrong it would remove the entire shell, but it would still be within a graphical interface. I don't think Windows has supported pure DOS mode since like, Windows 98.Much less the case with UWP still existing they are sunsetting it so there is hope for this not to be an issue in the future because UWP software can only launch with explorer.exe, you cannot launch it by double click {Without it running in the background}. So something like cairo shell then cannot open something like windows settings without explorer running that's why it says when setting up if you want explorer to still be around or always run without it.
>>106730250It's not possible to know that because Windows and macOS don't work without a GUI. However both Windows and macOS had similar upgrade bugs where parts of the GUI are deleted. The only difference is the case you speak of directly told on screen that if you do that you're going to delete a lot more than you want while in Windows/macOS it really was bug in updates and you aren't warned about it.
>>106734782>No, but do either of them offer a million options for the GUI or even allow to erase it completely?They don't allow you to remove the environment entirely but you can use a different shell.
>>106734766sure, there's likely modern windows applications which /expect/ dwm to be running, but it's still not the graphics subsystem or even really a critical component of it. like you can make and use completely standard graphical windows applications that don't require it. i would call that non-critical and certainly not defining
>>106730250No OS does as far as i know.
>>106730250Btw that would be possible in windows 95 until millennium. Windows was just an application like any other running on top of MS-DOS at the time. Can windows run without a GUI? No it can't. That's why nobody uses Windows in servers anymore.
>>106734929>Btw that would be possible in windows 95 until millennium. Windows was just an application like any other running on top of MS-DOS at the time. Can windows run without a GUI? No it can't. That's why nobody uses Windows in servers anymore.Completely false, do you actually search up what say online.only Windows 1 to 3 were like that. 95 was pretty much mostly a full os, DOS was a recovery and for booting windows more or less what grub does today but more powerful as it also has the ability to run dos applications.Windows 95 didn't rely as much on DOS as freefags think it did.
>>106734966i don't blame him for that, people have been saying this for a long time. considering that it literally was before 95, and 95 was also still fully capable of running dos applications, and was tightly integrated with dos, it is a bit more complicated than "it runs on top of dos".it was close to it's own thing just with enough dos in it to be compatible with dos programs. it's difficult to explain, so most people when comparing it to NT just say it's "dos based"
>>106734966Retard, I've used Windows 95 at the time and it was launched as any other application. You could exit Windows to MSDOS and launch it again. The internals don't really matter, you could kill windows if you wanted and have just MSDOS.
>>106735027>>106734966People were right. You can't launch Windows 95 without MSDOS. It was not fully capable as it relied on MSDOS boot and low level systems. You're both wrong, it is an application running on top of MS-DOS that happens to also manage hardware and processes. Some people call it hybrid, but that's cope imo. It's not difficult to explain if you tell exactly what it is. And yes you could totally kill Windows and only have MSDOS with a Windows 95 installation. Sure it's not like a DE, it's more than that, but a DE is not just a GUI either, so same thing imo.No I don't want to discuss semantics.
>>106730250I remember when the Windows 10 workstation running heavy physics simulations for over 2 months, which were necessary for my friend's (then PhD student) dissertation updated and forcefully restarted on day 70-something, deleting EVERYTHING.Granted, what they were doing was not smart, but they did have a UPS. It didn't help.I was called over to try to recover data. I didn't recover any data, it was all in RAM.
>>106734966Unfortunately, /g/ is a land of fucking contrarians so ideologically blinded, they always come across as tards.Try reminding them that Linux runs on DOS if you use LOADLIN - all of a sudden they magically understand that no, its a bootloader.Such understanding about 9x escapes them however, because a vaxxtard pedophile jew told them not to.
>>106736919ms-dos isn't /just/ a bootloader in windows 95. while windows 95 takes over most of ms-dos's functionality, it remains fully compatible with it. it can run ms-dos programs and /drivers/. it does a combination of letting ms-dos code run and faking it by pretending to let 'dos' do something but actually handling it in 32bit code and just keeping the ms-dos state in sync so dos programs are none-the-wiser.it's not like NT where dos is entirely out of the picture and any dos compatibility like ntvdm is completely emulated and never touches any actual hardware
>>106737161-- and to be clear, i am saying windows 95 is it's own operating system, separate to dos, just that it's designed basically to pretend like it's running on top of dos, so dos programs work properly, even if they do weird shit, to the point it will run dos code where necessary (usually with a performance and stability hit, like while you /can/ use dos filesystem drivers, it'll suck balls performance-wise compared to 32bit, multi-threaded windows 95 filesystem drivers)
>>106737254MSDOS is doing a bit more than that. Windows 95 does override many of MSDOS functionality, but it doesn't avoid low level functions. It's a mess of an OS running over another OS. Regardless, it is possible to remove all of Windows in a Windows 95 installation and pretend it's standalone MSDOS 7.0. That is the topic but it got derailed into silly what is an OS semantics. If the Windows 95 defenders want so badly to say it's very awesomely awesome, they can call it an hybrid OS like the lords of OS decided.
>>106730250windows had a bug where installing updates deleted a bunch of user's files
>>106737344>retards trashed their registries with a memescript because theyre fucking stupid>this caused windows to believe their user files were in a different place, because thats what the memescript trashedfify
>>106730250freedom of choicenot freedom of consequences
