Yes, you can. But the usual setup is to have a file system root that is nothing but subvolumes, which you can then use and mount basically as if they were independent partitions. But when you don't create a root subvolume for your system root first, you install the system directly on the file system root alongside created subvolumes. This tends to get messy as strictly speaking the file system root is a subvolume, too. So now you have that with your system installed and all other subvolumes nested inside it.
No, it's not the user catching Linux in trying to pretend user friendliness witht the terminal.
It's Linux catching the user in still hating it when he gets the wanted user friendliness, for the sole reason of being conditioned to hate the terminal.
Of course not. There is a market for investing very little for some cheap malware and then putting it out there, waiting for the small amount of people (out of a billion of desptop users) falling for it. Also you go for the weakest link in defense, so scamming random desktop users is rarely a technical feat. It usually exploits the human, not the system.
But we also all know how money is actually distributed. So millions of random users being scammed for some money is still not the high reward scenario a server is. Much more work is invested there because the rewards are so much higher. And yet even then you often target people as the weak link. System security for a company is mainly user security. Teaching them to not fall for for scams as an entry way to the system. And there are a lot of professionals that basically made this their own social science of how I convey those things the best, how I enforce and regularly refresh those lessons, how to make people stick to best practices.
Are you trying to tell me this all happens in parallel to a technical server structure that actually isn't that safe but rarely exploited because nobody could be bothered to check for vulnerabilities as it's just Linux and the adoption rate is low?
The cruder the malware, the better your chances of running successfully in Wine.
Because throwing together some simple executable using inbuild windows functions is much easier than programming something well-build and hidden based on deeper system layers. So your random "I just encrypted all your files because you clicked this .exe, now send me bitcoin to get it back"-bullshit might work well on wine (which is why wine should be run as it's own user with no priviledges to access anything but your Windows programs).
Also there is no incentive for companies to fix an exploit quickly. They will only release the fix with some scheduled update anyway or else people might notice that there was something worth fixing and that's bad for your stock price.
Distrowatch's source for popularity is how often the different distros are clicked on on their own homepage... which has the toplist featured prominantly on the start page.
So their ranking completely and utterly worthless, as it's prone to manipulation and once you basically pushed your distro to the high spots it's guaranteed to stay there as a rarely used but highly rated distro is of course attracting more clicks from people wanting to know what it's actually about... see: MX Linux being on their #1 spot forever.
I know they officially don't. And I didn't try to say that Sway was bad in any way or that it is their fault. I was just stating facts about state of it with NVIDIA graphics (that kept me -as a long-term i3 user- from switching to Wayland).
The Sway implementation (not Wayland as some DEs seem to run really smoothly) sadly is still completely hit or miss depending on your exact hardware setup. I have two device (both even with nvidia grphics sigh) and one of them is just a buggy and flickering mess.