Interesting given that he is actually preparing for an apocalypse scenario where he hides out in a bunker only to emerge a leader of men.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/doomsday-prep-for-the-super-rich

Yes, but the masterminds behind levelling Gaza are still at large.

You’d think it would be a blow to Bethesda that their sole programmer quit, but fortunately the creation engine is so cutting edge that I’m sure they’ll lean on it just as it is for years to come.

The only reason we’re not hitting them is because people like him hold all the sway.

That’s a pretty neat way to encapsulate that concept.

That’s true but as long as his political opponent has a more supportive stance on Israel, the Democratic Party knows that there’s a lot more room to support Israel without haemorrhaging too many voters who don’t align with that value.

You’re talking as if political donors and lobbies don’t exist.

Pretty much just that Arch Linux will be more secure, stable and reliable.

That’s a number you just made up.

Either way, use a blacklist then. If you really care about what sites they access, use a whitelist.

Exactly. It’s like a tacit admission that the only reason to have this stuff is for people like Joe.

This is what I did. If you generally know what you’re doing around computers it just requires patience and a willingness to “Read the (Friendly) Manual.”

If you’re running intel, nVidia, dual GPU setup, and some other things, your installation will be more involved.

But the great part is that once you’ve set all that up, things just generally work and the Arch wiki is an amazing resource.

They don’t need to know what a distro is, the same way they don’t know the difference between Windows Enterprise, Professional, LTSC, etc.

If it’s not OEM, people like us are going to be the ones installing it for them anyway.

I don’t think Linux will displace Windows meaningfully any time soon, but I do think people underestimate the fact that most people don’t install their own OSs. They get people like you to do it for them.

It’s easy to forget that Windows’ success doesn’t come from people seeking it out and installing it as an OS intentionally. They’re buying machines that come preloaded with it. Linux’s success, however big or small, lies in how its methods of distribution compare to Windows OEM dominance.

Let’s be real: when it comes to the actual installation of an OS, regular users ask people like us to do it for them. I don’t think Linux is going to outpace Windows anytime soon, but the last few times I’ve been asked for that kind of help, I’ve installed Linux for them, because it is absolutely ready to be used by regular people.

I fully believe PC gaming’s future is on Linux. Valve are pushing compatibility heavily enough to the point where Proton runs virtually all my games as smoothly as Windows would and as hard as it would have been to believe a few years ago, most my library has native support anyway. Combined with the fact that Linux has a smaller runtime overhead than Windows, most of my games run better.

Ease of use is the harder metric to gauge. Most people seem to forget that Windows isn’t built for ease of use; not like MacOS anyway. Things break on Windows all the time; most people are just more familiar with the common workarounds. Even installing things are easier (once the user learns the singular command they need to do this) and flatpak installations align more with how people are used to installing apps on their phones and tablets.

I’m responding to the more general sentiment you and BearOfaTime expressed, which is that one is ‘always trying to solve strange problems on Linux.’ KDE is being offered as a solution in this instance, but it’s also just a default in its own right. Contrary to how you’re characterising it, it’s not a distro, it’s not difficult to install, and it absolutely is not obscure.

Agreed. His experience might be useful if he were there to engage, but he’s clearly not. It seems like he just wanted to shout down the project and it seems like he was somewhat successful.

It’s Ted Ts’o, the maintainer of the ext4 filesystem amongst other things.

little shit

Though you’re still accurate despite his seniority.

And that’s just bizarre. That Windows needs 4GB of RAM and can’t have a low idle processor is trivial to you, but the app launcher icon being in a slightly different place in a Linux DE provokes your bewilderment is actually just lunacy.

Again in trying to make your point, you’re giving your reaction to examples you don’t provide. I get that you find Linux irritating, but you’re not really attempting to qualify why that is. When I provided examples of how Windows wastes my time, you just dismissed them as trivial. So all I can conclude is that the problems you’re coming up with Linux’s design are so trivial that you can’t even think of them.

I actually move the taskbar to the side of the screen in any OS that will let me. Why? Because screens are wide and documents are vertical. Makes sense to me. Just because you can’t fathom a design reason for it, doesn’t mean there isn’t one. Does it being on the left really necessitate research or a learning process on your part? No, so why are you pretending it does?

A unified position for every program toolbar doesn’t objectively increase functionality, but it has the downside of forcing the user to focus the window before they can access the toolbar. In my opinion it’s a slight net decrease in UX. It seems like it’s mostly done to be different.

It just really isn’t an example that ‘will do’, though. I’m not saying it’s a trivial problem; I’m saying it’s not a problem by any stretch of the imagination. If the app launcher being on a different fixed part of the screen is a problem to you, then you should just stay away from computing in general. I know, however, that it’s not a problem, which is why I’m calling out your example.

Okay and on the note of different for the sake of being different: back to the MacOS examples I provided: why do MacOS dock the program toolbar at the top of the screen and only show it for one focused program at a time? Is this not in contrast to how everyone else does it? It doesn’t offer any meaningful improvement and is slightly less functional (when multiple windows are open simultaneously). Why is this the best desktop OS and not just ‘hipster design’?

Random mandatory updates which steal my computer’s focus, force reboots and often reset user settings aren’t trivial to me. They waste time and they happen with predictable regularity. Any given workaround might be randomly undone at the next update. Using a tonne of RAM and processing power in system idle is also not trivial. Encrypting my hdd and locking me out over minor occurrences as designed implementation is not trivial. Whatever is coming in copilot is not trivial.

These are just examples off the top of my head. KDE could programme their app launcher to dodge my cursor every time I tried to click on it, and I’d still take it over Windows for ease of use.

That’s it? It’s not any easier to use, but is it any harder to use? The app launcher is to the right instead of the left? Or the bottom instead of the top?

Sorry for the follow up question but what makes that such a difficult obstacle to surmount for new users? It’s not like it’s hidden away behind other menus, it’s literally just on a different part of the screen.

That seems like such a minor difference that I’m genuinely baffled you brought it up. Are you similarly bewildered by the minimise/maximise/close buttons being on the other side of a window in MacOS? Or how MacOS docks the program toolbar at the top of the screen instead of in the program window?

Why not just use a KDE distro? Then MacOS would be the outlier for weird design decisions against Windows and Linux.