Post #1665443

2026-01-15 02:02 UTC

In my experience it is more the reverse is true. If a program truly craps out on me in windows i could at least get the task manager to show / use it to terminate the offender or reboot, at least back when i still used it. Meanwhile my bazzite task manager is notably not a native part of the OS and takes a few seconds to load, and if the system is in some sort of frozen screen state my only real recourse is hitting the physical force reboot button. The windows manager could sometimes recover from those. Overall it is of course a much better experience compared to Windows regardless, but still. Everything being essentially modular pieces compiled into a system can evidently also have minor downsides.

Replies (3)

@Allero@lemmy.today 2026-01-15 08:30

Honestly, yes. Linux lacks a native Task manager, and this is one of the "death by a thousand cuts" roadblocks that prevent its adoption. A user must be able to launch a graphical tool to manage processes even if everything else froze. That's just basic usability. Can it be currently resolved with a terminal? Yes. Should it be resolved with a terminal? No.

Open ##1665475
@folekaule@lemmy.world 2026-01-15 04:03

I have recovered many times from a broken window session in Linux by switching to a console with ctrl-alt-fN, logging in, and either killing the offending program or just rebooting gracefully. In Windows my last resort before the nuclear power button is Task Manager with ctrl-esc or ctrl-alt-delete.

Open ##1665476
@cows_are_underrated@feddit.org 2026-01-15 09:56

While it is 100% understandable, that the lack of a graphical task manager is annoying, you are not completely without options. If you want to terminate a process you can easily type pkill -f process_name into your console. The process name doesn't even have to be exact with the process name (as example the process name is signasignal_desktop, providing signal to the command would be enough to kill it).

Open ##1665477