[UK-AL]

Can't be multiuser

[vidarh]

And that's a reasonable tradeoff - In 30 years of using Linux, I've only used machines that were actually treated as multi-user on the server side.

There's space for both - some people do need password protected separate users, but not all of us do.

[alias_neo]

Also not ideal for security if you like to sleep/hibernate on a laptop.

Who am I kidding, how many laptops actually sleep or hibernate properly when running Linux anyway...

[prmoustache]

My desktop box is running bazzite and is only used for gaming. I treat it has a console really, it isn't even connected to the internet and doesn't even receive updates unless I want to download a new game. It doesn't have any private data, the only secret I might have is that steam is already logged on but I don't have any payment account/card setup on my steam account.

Appart from the internet connection that might be useful for those gaming online I would expect most gamer machines would be like that.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

> Also not ideal for security if you like to sleep/hibernate on a laptop.

Why not? I presume you're still running a lockscreen that will trigger on sleep/hibernate via whatever the equivalent of swayidle+swaylock is.

> Who am I kidding, how many laptops actually sleep or hibernate properly when running Linux anyway...

More than you think, though it does depend on hardware. I have no use for hibernation, but I couldn't tell you the last laptop I owned that didn't sleep fine on Linux.

[neutronicus]

> Who am I kidding, how many laptops actually sleep or hibernate properly when running Linux anyway...

Or period?

My 2015-ish Macbook Air was unreliable at waking up from sleep, and so is my Windows ASUS ROG Zephyrus from ~2021.

[temp0826]

Unix systems are inherently very multi-user (check how many lines are in your /etc/passwd!). Other login users would just need to log into via other means (ssh/etc..).*