3 ms·

> I am not going to be debating what exact problems you had, but I must be extremely lucky if all those years I never had any kind of showstopper critical issue

> I am not going to be debating what exact problems you had, but I must be extremely lucky if all those years I never had any kind of showstopper critical issue that made me think "Ok, I can't deal with this and I have to go back to a proprietary desktop". Ugh. Thing is, it isn't about luck. It's about use cases and yours must just match how Linux works better. I'm going to take a wild guess that most of what you use a computer for is browsing the internet and either web or unix development. > So forgive me for sounding condescending, but you went with probably the most obscure and least popular Ubuntu flavor - the one that has probably almost to no funding from Canonical and maybe a handful of developers interested on it. What were you expecting, exactly? If Ubuntu was bad for you, maybe try Fedora? If you wanted a more knowledgeable community, maybe try Arch? If you had been paying attention instead of being a typically dismissive Linux evangelist, you'd have noted that the vast majority of my problems had to do with the Ubuntu part of Lubuntu. You know, the part that's common to all Ubuntu derivatives? Not to mention, as I said, I've tried many distros, popular distros, unpopular distros, wildly divergent distros, etc, they all have pretty much the same problems because the problems are inherent to how Linux userspace is constructed! But whatever, you are just like the rest of the Linux Destkop community. You have made using Linux a part of your identity and cannot stand criticism, so you just become insulting, condescending, and generally dismissive of any issues anyone is experiencing. > Why instead of sticking with your preconceptions of how things should work, you ask what are the others doing that let them be productive on a FOSS Desktop? Because they are doing different things than I do! And when you want to do something different than what the Linux Desktop community does, their only advice is to not want to do that. > We must have very different thresholds for defining "remotely viable". Clearly. Which is pretty much exactly my point: Linux works for you because it fits your needs well, and it doesn't work for a lot of others, like myself, because it doesn't fit those needs well. If you're going to run around telling everyone how great your desktop is and that they should all use it, but refuse to recognize where it falls short, then you shouldn't be surprised when people don't want anything to do with your community. Frankly, you are some of the most frustrating assholes I've ever had to deal with in computing.

rglullis 6y ago
> everyone how great your desktop is and that they should all use it I don't know which part I am telling you to use what I am using it. The point I tried to make the whole time is (a) there are so many different alternatives that are free and open source that it is increasingly hard to believe that going to a proprietary OS is the only viable solution and (b) those people that are still not being fulfilled by free alternatives should contribute to the development of a free alternative, or they will be SOL when the company screws them over or denies them freedoms. > it doesn't work for a lot of others, like myself, because it doesn't fit those needs well. You try to justify your avoidance of Linux by complaining of extremely low-level stuff (init stuff, networking, event notification systems, etc) and now you are talking about higher level "user needs". I link to an article about how people using FreeBSD are also successfully using it as a daily desktop and how the shortcomings are known-yet-solvable. Your answer then is that "you do things that others don't do" (yet, people using Windows do it?) So what is it? What is your use case that requires you to be nit-picky about the low-level and at the same frustrates you at the high-level? What are the "different things that you do" that can only work on a proprietary OS? In a world with so many different-yet-imperfect ecosystem of different desktop systems, what is it with Windows (aside from convenience and familiarity) that "works with you, instead of against you"? > most frustrating assholes I've ever had to deal with in computing. All of my frustrating asshole preaching boils down to convenience and familiarity should never be an excuse to accept giving away your freedoms. I put the FreeBSD link as way of saying "Ok, if you really don't like the Linux userland and if you still want to support Free alternatives go take a look at FreeBSD". Your reaction is to double down on the idea that I am here to defend "the Linux community" or that this is "my identity". If me saying convenience and familiarity should never be an excuse to accept giving away your freedoms while refusing to accept your justifications and rationalizations to keep using a proprietary OS makes me a frustrating asshole, then tough luck. However, if I were you I'd also consider the possibility this frustration you are feeling is due to the sad realization that you are trading away your freedoms for convenience and familiarity and that some dude on the internet is making you face that.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  > You try to justify your avoidance of Linux by complaining of extremely low-level stuff (init stuff, networking, event notification systems, etc) and now you are talking about higher level "user needs". ...? What is so difficult to understand about this? Try to pay attention: the way the computer works is fundamental to how user interaction works. That you can't seem to grasp this is mind boggling. > I link to an article about how people using FreeBSD are also successfully using it as a daily desktop and how the shortcomings are known-yet-solvable. Your answer then is that "you do things that others don't do" (yet, people using Windows do it?) Yes. Every day. All the time. Why do you think the vast majority of the desktop market is dominated by Windows? There are thousands of workflows, often with specialty applications, that are best served by Windows and largely ignored by everyone else. Hell, even something as simple as file sharing is a pain in the ass outside of Windows. Linux gave up and just implements SMB and pretends to be Windows for that task. > So what is it? What is your use case that requires you to be nit-picky about the low-level and at the same frustrates you at the high-level? What are the "different things that you do" that can only work on a proprietary OS? In a world with so many different-yet-imperfect ecosystem of different desktop systems, what is it with Windows (aside from convenience and familiarity) that "works with you, instead of against you"? So many ways, lets pick an easy one: It allows me to run multiple versions of the same software, on the same system, often at the same time, without any VM or container nonsense and without having to compile anything myself. It lets me put applications wherever I want, including removable media and network shares, without trick-fucking the filesystem to make it work. It lets me use software delivered directly from the developer without having to wait for middle men to package it, which includes alpha and hotfixed versions. What is all this useful for? A bunch of shit, but lets go with the easy stuff: I can test software very very easily and ditch it very very easily if it doesn't work for me. I can get specialized builds from the developer or even just some hobbiest who happened to have the same needs as me without having to reconstruct a build environment. I can similarly run really old software that suits my needs and who's only modern equivalents don't work as well. > All of my frustrating asshole preaching boils down to convenience and familiarity should never be an excuse to accept giving away your freedoms. And mine stems from believing that I am the best one to decide what tradeoffs I want to make, not some holier-than-thou computer nerd on the internet. > However, if I were you I'd also consider the possibility this frustration you are feeling is due to the sad realization that you are trading away your freedoms for convenience and familiarity and that some dude on the internet is making you face that. Laughable. The fact is that a lot of my frustration is from having watched the open source community continue to make things more complicated and fragile while continuing to alienate themselves from everyone else and being evangelistic, condescending assholes for about 20 motherfucking years now. Did you know that at one time I was president of a LUG? That I've contributed to open source projects? Built my own distribution from scratch? Used Linux on many different computers over the course of the past 20 years? Yet you assume that because I don't like your waifu-OS that I must be some kind of scared newb, comforted by the existence of the start menu and double-click installers (note: I don't even like packages of any kind, including executable installers).

rglullis 6y ago

> everyone how great your desktop is and that they should all use it I don't know which part I am telling you to use what I am using it. The point I tried to make the whole time is (a) there are so many different alternatives that are free and open source that it is increasingly hard to believe that going to a proprietary OS is the only viable solution and (b) those people that are still not being fulfilled by free alternatives should contribute to the development of a free alternative, or they will be SOL when the company screws them over or denies them freedoms. > it doesn't work for a lot of others, like myself, because it doesn't fit those needs well. You try to justify your avoidance of Linux by complaining of extremely low-level stuff (init stuff, networking, event notification systems, etc) and now you are talking about higher level "user needs". I link to an article about how people using FreeBSD are also successfully using it as a daily desktop and how the shortcomings are known-yet-solvable. Your answer then is that "you do things that others don't do" (yet, people using Windows do it?) So what is it? What is your use case that requires you to be nit-picky about the low-level and at the same frustrates you at the high-level? What are the "different things that you do" that can only work on a proprietary OS? In a world with so many different-yet-imperfect ecosystem of different desktop systems, what is it with Windows (aside from convenience and familiarity) that "works with you, instead of against you"? > most frustrating assholes I've ever had to deal with in computing. All of my frustrating asshole preaching boils down to convenience and familiarity should never be an excuse to accept giving away your freedoms. I put the FreeBSD link as way of saying "Ok, if you really don't like the Linux userland and if you still want to support Free alternatives go take a look at FreeBSD". Your reaction is to double down on the idea that I am here to defend "the Linux community" or that this is "my identity". If me saying convenience and familiarity should never be an excuse to accept giving away your freedoms while refusing to accept your justifications and rationalizations to keep using a proprietary OS makes me a frustrating asshole, then tough luck. However, if I were you I'd also consider the possibility this frustration you are feeling is due to the sad realization that you are trading away your freedoms for convenience and familiarity and that some dude on the internet is making you face that.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
> You try to justify your avoidance of Linux by complaining of extremely low-level stuff (init stuff, networking, event notification systems, etc) and now you are talking about higher level "user needs". ...? What is so difficult to understand about this? Try to pay attention: the way the computer works is fundamental to how user interaction works. That you can't seem to grasp this is mind boggling. > I link to an article about how people using FreeBSD are also successfully using it as a daily desktop and how the shortcomings are known-yet-solvable. Your answer then is that "you do things that others don't do" (yet, people using Windows do it?) Yes. Every day. All the time. Why do you think the vast majority of the desktop market is dominated by Windows? There are thousands of workflows, often with specialty applications, that are best served by Windows and largely ignored by everyone else. Hell, even something as simple as file sharing is a pain in the ass outside of Windows. Linux gave up and just implements SMB and pretends to be Windows for that task. > So what is it? What is your use case that requires you to be nit-picky about the low-level and at the same frustrates you at the high-level? What are the "different things that you do" that can only work on a proprietary OS? In a world with so many different-yet-imperfect ecosystem of different desktop systems, what is it with Windows (aside from convenience and familiarity) that "works with you, instead of against you"? So many ways, lets pick an easy one: It allows me to run multiple versions of the same software, on the same system, often at the same time, without any VM or container nonsense and without having to compile anything myself. It lets me put applications wherever I want, including removable media and network shares, without trick-fucking the filesystem to make it work. It lets me use software delivered directly from the developer without having to wait for middle men to package it, which includes alpha and hotfixed versions. What is all this useful for? A bunch of shit, but lets go with the easy stuff: I can test software very very easily and ditch it very very easily if it doesn't work for me. I can get specialized builds from the developer or even just some hobbiest who happened to have the same needs as me without having to reconstruct a build environment. I can similarly run really old software that suits my needs and who's only modern equivalents don't work as well. > All of my frustrating asshole preaching boils down to convenience and familiarity should never be an excuse to accept giving away your freedoms. And mine stems from believing that I am the best one to decide what tradeoffs I want to make, not some holier-than-thou computer nerd on the internet. > However, if I were you I'd also consider the possibility this frustration you are feeling is due to the sad realization that you are trading away your freedoms for convenience and familiarity and that some dude on the internet is making you face that. Laughable. The fact is that a lot of my frustration is from having watched the open source community continue to make things more complicated and fragile while continuing to alienate themselves from everyone else and being evangelistic, condescending assholes for about 20 motherfucking years now. Did you know that at one time I was president of a LUG? That I've contributed to open source projects? Built my own distribution from scratch? Used Linux on many different computers over the course of the past 20 years? Yet you assume that because I don't like your waifu-OS that I must be some kind of scared newb, comforted by the existence of the start menu and double-click installers (note: I don't even like packages of any kind, including executable installers).