Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)BO
Posts
0
Comments
966
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Maybe you don't know what empirically means? Your ignorance is not a proof for anything. I know what I can do with libreoffice, and I am very mediocre with it. I've never seen an excel document that couldn't be done with libreoffice.

    And I wrote most things that can be done with excel. Now, if you want something that can be debated, I posit that anything that can't be done in libreoffice calc but can be in excel is not worth doing in excel.

  • This is wrong about excel. Most thing excel do can be done with libreoffice. People are lazy to learn and convert their documents, and Microsoft does everything possible to make this harder.

  • If excel is keeping you on Linux, you're doing it wrong. The problem here is undoubtedly ignorance and nothing else.

    If it's another program, wine made immense progresses these last years. You want to check about it.

    Now, if you're saying Linux is not ready out of the box, that's true, but neither is Windows. Not if you have any important need. Windows is good for a customer, not for a company.

    BTW Linux changed in the last ten years. It's not the neckbeard system it used to be.

  • That's where we disagree : anybody sane would use Linux rather than windows. Windows usage is based on ignorance.

    You have zero idea about Windows system integration if you think it comes out of the box. Or you live in America. In Europe, data safety is a concern, and it raises many, many problems with Windows "out of the box".

  • Let's be honest, they don't need AI to increase profits and put people in misery. This argument is a stupid hope at best. Like let's hope that if there is no AI we will live decently one day. It won't happen.

    AI is an opportunity to change the system, and it cannot be worse.

  • I think the opposite. Working on windows is a pain in the ass. Like the system is not made for working and barely support it for actual computer work.

    If you only use office or play video games, it's good, certainly, and it's good for the security team to have everyone with it because the system is built to only allow specific actions to be done. It's completely inapt for actual engineering and technical work.

  • I've been a sysadmin for years and I worked longer on Linux than I did on Windows.

    Many of your points are management bullshit. The proof? In France the gendarmerie (country police) moved to Linux about a decade ago.

    The thing with windows is usually that management want a whole solution out of the box, from a renowned editor, so basically Microsoft. The key point is that they want a contract with a company so they can discard the responsability of failures on someone out of their own company. The second feature is that they are boomers or anti-nerds, so they are never going to be seen using something on a computer that's not mainstream.

    The last problem is from Microsoft that worked hard these last years to remove any compatibility between office and other softwares of this kind. They also enshitified office365 very hard so that is doesn't work well on Linux.

    The question of the price is a fraud. Large companies need an it service for Windows on top of the licences and infrastructure. It's way cheaper with Linux. The biggest work with an enterprise Linux is to make it compatible with the shitty Windows environment, and the compliance with the useless security thought for windows.

  • I meant 2 things: first, companies don't have complete free reign in Europe, that's just wrong, and you're mistaken if you think rgpd has no effect. Second, Internet cannot be killed, and companies only take over it because liberal states ask them to do so.

    Liberalism is highly contested everywhere. I would argue that it is actually collapsing. Even in the US, as Trump shows, it's showing cracks and weaknesses. In Europe, most parliaments have 30 to 60% of the representation against liberalism (although fascists tend to be elected to be against liberals, but actually l'y with them when they take decisions).

    Things are changing. Things will change. When it comes to Internet and computers, no innovation comes from companies anymore. Innovation comes from free softwares. Linux usage is rising. Iot will further push this. That's my bet at least. You could say I'm optimistic.

  • This is a very pessimistic view, and with a fallacy. The fallacy is to consider that greed will always win and yadayada. The fact is that it is a product of liberalism, it makes states resign from doing things to the profit of companies. Even in liberal countries liberalism is being contested though, and power countries are opposing it (for better or worse).

    Internet is still there. And in some places, it won true victories against liberalism, like in Europe where net neutrality did won some battles and big Internet companies are being contained, if only to fight US espionage.

    My opinion is that Internet companies are incapable of sustaining their tools, because they're too greedy to provide a good service long term. Free solutions will appear, and ultimately they will prevail. Lemmy is a example that is at a baby stage yet. Most of the innovation and infrastructure relies on free softwares today. It's just in the background. Computer and Internet technologies are still in their infancy, it will evolve.

  • Ukraine shows that in time of war conscription is necessary.

    But indeed in peaceful and powerful countries it's usually requested by conservative for the worst reasons possible, and I think it mostly feeds fascism. Community service is mostly the same. It's forced labour which is akin to slavery. Conservative like those things because they want to teach obedience and respect, but they are idiots.

    Still, conscription is necessary in some conditions, and I wouldn't oppose it on principle. In France it was stopped because it was expensive and no war was in sight. Time changed and we still have atomic bombs, so in this case I guess it's quite useless.

    But then it asks the question of who the army is defending. With conservative, racists and other fascist friends making most of the police and the army I feel like it's becoming dangerous. Maybe the army should be more representative of all people. But how can you do it without forcing people? And how do you prevent the army from being a corporation with its own interests and views otherwise?