Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
1 
Report this post
All I did was use Proton-GE and it works out of the box.
If you read the thread you would know it works just fine lol. And you would understand what I was actually asking.
Ok, to be honest - after checking the log I am pretty sure this is not a windows thing but send me a "jester" or something else if there is a windows user checking a log.
And send yourself a "Jester" if you still use Windows 11 in 2025 with the new "feature" called "Recall", collecting screen shots and data you save on your PC! !!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you want that?
Linux code is open source, you can check the code if you want. Windows not. Mint Linux is the way to go. It looks like Windows 7, give it a try.
The number of people using Linux who can actually make sense of the source is tiny. It used to be higher but naturally the more popular it becomes the less people know about it. Mint is a fake windows version of Linux so I doubt you know anything about programming much less C. So being able to look at the code does nothing for you and it's no more secure than windows if you don't even know what "safe" is.
So many Linux users these days compile and run code through random write ups it's insane. Complaining about windows users is a joke. Your OS doesn't define you, unless you love arch.
Reading kernel‐level C isn’t a prerequisite for benefiting from open‐source software. You’ve got an entire community checking code, fixing bugs, and publishing updates. Many users pick Linux for control, freedom from forced updates, better package management, and flexibility—not because they’re all kernel hackers.
Claiming Linux is “no more secure than Windows” ignores the countless mission‐critical servers running Linux worldwide. Yes, blindly running scripts is risky on any platform, but that’s user error. Linux doesn’t require coding skills, and it’s hardly “fake.” In fact, Linux Mint isn’t “fake Windows”—it just offers a familiar interface for Windows users. Under the hood, it’s every bit a true Linux distro, with open‐source roots, community oversight, and the same rich customization options you’d find elsewhere.
Dismissing open source as pointless if you’re not auditing every file is an absolute hilarious take.
I'm not dismissing anything. The "community" has missed many issues and the USERS compiling and running anything they find on the Internet is an issue. I use Linux on laptops, desktop, and multiple robots.
Being technically literate and not still matters. Potentially more when people who don't know anything just copy paste anything they find online for any issue and most of it requires full privileges. They think Linux is perfect, no issues because it's open source, anyone can audit so it's all perfectly safe.
It also makes it easier for hackers to find issues, tell nobody, and take advantage of them. If you think it doesn't happen then you are the technically illiterate. People who parrot it's open source anyone can look at it and that makes it so much better are exactly the types who fail to understand the trade-offs especially for them, the unwashed masses who still don't know any better what they should ot should not do.
You’re mixing up two different issues: how secure or beneficial Linux is by design, and whether some users blindly copy random commands off the internet. The second can happen on any operating system—that’s just user error. Open source doesn’t mean every user reads and understands all the code; it means the code is open for the community (including experts) to inspect and fix. Yes, bugs happen, but they often get patched quickly thanks to that community. Nobody’s saying Linux is “perfect,” but it’s transparent and flexible in a way proprietary systems aren’t. Blaming Linux because some people do careless things isn’t a fair argument.
They go hand in hand. This faulty mindset of telling people it's naturally better makes people worse users. You tell them they need to be very careful because everything gets full access when they run anything. It's not entirely true but it might make them think before running random commands or building and running random software. Most people don't find random software and go through the effort to build and run it in Windows. It's not set up to make it easy like Linux.
I don't care about windows security, Those people will fall for random phishing attempts if they'll run any random program and it's on Microsoft to protect them. Linux it's every user for themselves because they don't do a good job of protecting users from themselves, windows actually does more in that respect. At least you need to click more info to run random crap.
Most Linux users aren’t out there compiling random programs from sketchy websites. They usually install software from official repositories or places like Flathub, which are curated and often digitally signed. That means the packages have been reviewed and are generally safe by default, without users having to dig through code or worry about hidden malware. Sure, you can still compile your own software if you want, but that’s not the norm.
Yes, running random scripts blindly is risky on any OS, but blaming Linux for it doesn’t make sense—Windows users can just as easily run unverified .exe files and get in trouble. Linux isn’t perfect, but saying it’s “all on the user” ignores how most people actually get their software—from the well-vetted sources their distro or community provides.
I'm not even sure what your position is at this point besides you don't like open source software for some reason lol.
I'm part of a robotics club (or a couple...) and many of them run Linux and are constantly reformatting and reinstalling because they build and run anything. They run random commands constantly. They don't do regular updates. If you think average people using Linux as a free alternative to windows are even remotely safe users I probably won't be able to convince you.
Who is saying it's safer? And safer from what?
I really am not concerned with you knowing irresponsible users... of any OS...
You yourself, in this thread, said it was more secure by design. Look at it this way, the more people who don't know what they shouldn't be doing that are told it's more secure(safe) by design the less they think about what they're doing. Official sources don't even help you because most people write garbage code and use outdated libraries. So well known exploits never go away and as a hacker it's easy to test for and exploit systems pretty quickly.
I'll just tell you you're 100% right. I'm just in a different field than you and I guess I know too many people. This is obviously far outside the original scope.
It’s less about “forced” updates and more about natural end-of-life cycles, which every OS has, including Windows. Typically, Linux distributions give you multiple update paths, like rolling releases (which don’t really expire), or LTS versions that can stay supported for five years or more. You’re not forced to upgrade on some strict schedule—your older version just eventually stops receiving official updates. That’s pretty standard software lifecycle practice, whether you’re on Linux or Windows. The difference is that with Linux, you can usually choose which support model suits your needs, and in many cases even continue using the old version if you really want to (albeit without patches). It’s not the same “forced update” model people often complain about with Windows.