3 ms·

I didn't state anything to the contrary. I just said it depends on the hardware and is not a problem of linux. Your choice is limited with linux but if buy har

I didn't state anything to the contrary. I just said it depends on the hardware and is not a problem of linux. Your choice is limited with linux but if buy hardware that's good for Linux, then everything works quite well.

layer8 2y ago
Hardware choice being limited is a problem Linux has. You are defensive about it not being Linux’ fault, but the point is that users generally don’t care whose fault it is. I’m a Linux user, by the way; but only on my servers.
- trueismywork 2y ago
  Definitely it is a problem linux has, and users do not care and sometimes shouldn't care whose fault it is. But if someone asks, then it's okay to give this perspective in my opinion. There are other reasons not to like linux. Like needless fragmentation due to dynamic libraries versions, like unstable desktop environments for years, like lack of commercially supprted desktop clients for basic office stuff like email and calendar (I have used KDE, Evolution and Thunderbird and all of them feel just slightly underpolished). So, :shrug:
dventimi 2y ago
In a bit of sleight of hand you just substituted "good hardware for Linux" where earlier you had the unqualified "good hardware."
- trueismywork 2y ago
  It can be the same thing. :-P I'm being facetious here, but I did edit it and I'm sorry for not making the edit obvious.
  - dventimi 2y ago
    It's ok, but what I'm reacting to is any implication that it's simply a matter of the hardware being "bad" and a figurative shrugging of the shoulders with the further implication that the fault, if there is one, lies squarely with the hardware manufacturers for making "bad" hardware and the users for choosing "bad" hardware. Let's set aside value judgments and the assignment of blame and agree that if Linux had better hardware support, probably more people would use it, shall we?
    - trueismywork 2y ago
      Yes

layer8 2y ago

Hardware choice being limited is a problem Linux has. You are defensive about it not being Linux’ fault, but the point is that users generally don’t care whose fault it is. I’m a Linux user, by the way; but only on my servers.

trueismywork 2y ago
Definitely it is a problem linux has, and users do not care and sometimes shouldn't care whose fault it is. But if someone asks, then it's okay to give this perspective in my opinion. There are other reasons not to like linux. Like needless fragmentation due to dynamic libraries versions, like unstable desktop environments for years, like lack of commercially supprted desktop clients for basic office stuff like email and calendar (I have used KDE, Evolution and Thunderbird and all of them feel just slightly underpolished). So, :shrug:

dventimi 2y ago

In a bit of sleight of hand you just substituted "good hardware for Linux" where earlier you had the unqualified "good hardware."

trueismywork 2y ago
It can be the same thing. :-P I'm being facetious here, but I did edit it and I'm sorry for not making the edit obvious.
- dventimi 2y ago
  It's ok, but what I'm reacting to is any implication that it's simply a matter of the hardware being "bad" and a figurative shrugging of the shoulders with the further implication that the fault, if there is one, lies squarely with the hardware manufacturers for making "bad" hardware and the users for choosing "bad" hardware. Let's set aside value judgments and the assignment of blame and agree that if Linux had better hardware support, probably more people would use it, shall we?
  - trueismywork 2y ago
    Yes