Coriza @ coriza @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

110

Joined

2 yr. ago

I wouldn't know if this is still a thing. You are right about the integration problem of snaps/flatpak, it is specifically bad on Ubuntu because Ubuntu goes out of their way to shove snaps on you and hide the fact. Case in point Firefox, if you want a non snap version you have to jump through a lot of hoops, or at least was like this when a last installed Ubuntu for my wife laptop, it was the 22.04 I think.

In any case that is Ubuntu specific, but a shame none of the least because like you said, Ubuntu and derivatives are the more popular beginner friendly distros. but if I recall correctly some derivatives do remove snap so you don't have to deal with it and its problems.

I think part of that perception is a general confusion of OS releases and distros, specially if comparing with windows.

I think that is only the case of the 10+ years of a windows install because it is the same windows version. Windows until I think "recently" didn't even have OS upgrade, I know that now people can upgrade from win10 to win11 (and maybe that was also the case for win8) but even that is because MS wants to force a new version on people and there is a lot of complaints of the upgrade breaking the OS .

On Linux a lot of distros do try to upgrade to a new version and it a very complicated problem. Some distros support this better than others.

But if you are saying that you have like a win7 install rock solid for 10 years, the equivalent is a Linux distro with LTS support centOS, and these distros are rock solid and different than windows it will not get slow over time.

Linux has problems but he is not wrong that a lot of it is not being used to the OS. Finding solutions on the Internet is like a popularity context, of course there is much more of it for windows but even on Linux there is much more for big distros line Ubuntu than other smaller ones.

Now reinstalling windows is not a solution or a good argument, it is saying the problem cannot be fixed. When I used windows that was also my go to solution and very feel things I solved by googling, but I guess in part because I was not as tech savvy as I am now. But I tell you, when I started with Linux I could find solution for all problems that I have that had solutions, now a lot have changed so you do get that some things are outdated but it is just a matter of paying attention if the solution is old or new (side not rant, sites that do not put date on the articles are the worst).

Oh yeah, I naver had to reinstall a Linux machine, maybe I lucked out and didn't royally fucked anything, but I could always solve problems with the OS without a reinstall. I guess because more easily you can find and know where things changed, like what config files you changed and you can always make a copy. The works case is like booting a live USB and rolling back the changes if the OS does not boot anymore.

Your second example is a newish problem and Ubuntu specific. I had never had a problem with drag-and-drop and I migrated from Ubuntu before the snap thing.

You will always find an example of something that works "better" in one OS than other. Linux is not trying to be a windows drop-in replacement, some thing are gonna behave differently. Linux have some problems for an average user but a lot is just different UX design and others, especially hardware compatibility is because companies don't care for it to work on Linux so the OS is always playing catch up.

Oh the irony, they are almost there. Trying to appeal to empathy and humanity of a corporation in the same breath that they acknowledge the lack of it.

There is no humane nature intrinsic in corporations. People need to stop humanizing it. Treat it like It is, know that you are being taken advantage of, you are being squeased, extracted of every value you can give and then discarted.

I mean, if you notice that you had and lost 700 millions you have to have a really strong mind to not go crazy. If it was me I think I would go crazy.

To read comics for one.

You see, your mistake was thinking that they want to make things better and are just misguided. The point is to gut the government and make it bad.

I disagree, in my opinion it is the opposite, IP and copyright laws of today do more harm than good, they stiffness innovation and creativity. The reason I think is at least two fold, one it incentivizes companies to stop innovating once they get a leadership in the market, since no one can use the innovation they can "camp out"on it and just pluck competition when they are at infancy, using their size and dominant position they can just buy any starting company that tries to innovate further. There is many examples of that, like kodak killing its own development in digital camera so to not jeopardize their camera film business. Same with electric cars, there was companies in the 70s that started doing it, they were just bought and the development interrupted, and because they have the IP on said innovations they can just not do it since no one else can either.

The second is that I argue that if a innovation is so easily replicated only by seen the end result or cursory explanation it really is like impeding people to do basic stuff, you see that a lot in software patents and video game mechanics. And last not forget that scientific advancements don´t happen in a vacuum, they build on top of previous innovations, and when just the author can build on top of its innovation it really slows it down. You can see it in how research and scientific achievements are done since the enlightenment, one research does something and share with the community and all over the worlds other researchers tries to build on top of it, otherwise everyone would be starting from scratch and would take so much more time. On the topic of researchers, must of the innovations and scientific advancements are done buy researchers that do not see any benefit of IP laws, be it in universities or companies, their IP are owned by the companies and universities, and universities are the more important ones because a lot of basic research are not immediately profitable, it is a slow climb of steps, each new paper, each new small improvements until it gets to a point that it can be applied.

And lastly I just wanna point out that Linux (and other FLOSS OSs) have being the leader in innovation on the operation system topic, and in fact Linux is the one pushing Microsoft to do more than just stagnating.

People like to make stuff for themselves, to do things, to share, and feel useful. I believe it is the default state of people, you see that in families and close friends. You see people simply doing stuff for themselves and sharing the results. You can build a pool and invite over your friends and such. It is nice when you do something for yourself but that other people also enjoy.

So I think the primary reason is that people like to do things to benefit themselves, things that they want the result or that they enjoy doing the process, and then why not share, even better if other people enjoy the result. It is like cooking for your family or friends

But that is not the point the other comment was making. It said that there is no incentive to create something and innovate if anyone can just copy it, and the whole FLOSS movement is a prove that is not the case. Same thing with the argument against UBI that would remove the insentive for people to work.

You can have other justification for IP, but that was the one the commenter gave and it is empirically false.

Did I said that? I am just pointing out about the companies origin because I don't understand how this misinformation keep spreading still and with so many resources about it. I guess it is true that "A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes".

But in any case I will answer your loaded question. No I don't think his companies would be where they are today, because Elon has one thing that he was good at, and it is hyping, marketing, creating a narrative, a lore, and creating a fan base. An example is this lore that he created about his companies origins, it was always known but he kept it from the public discourse for many years and created his persona of nerdy genius that everything he touches turns to gold. And in a way that is true, because it was his performance and hype that keep his companies invested whilst many other would have investments puled off, even with constant mised deadlines, with his wild claims that "X will be a reality in N months" that never come to reality, this would tank the trust, public perception and capital of maybe any other company but for him, the personality cult he so careful cultivated kept people invested, kept the mantra "trust Elon". And that was what kept his companies, especially Tesla in the green.

And I think part of this success is his image of kinda awkward nerd genius, which makes it easy for people to trust him and keep listening to him even after his promises failing to materialize, I guess because Elon is "Not like others CEO", "he is smart, he know what he is doing", "he is an engineer guy, not a business CEO, so he is not lying through his teeth, there is a reason" and so forth.

And he lost his magic, his ability to keep this image was lost some point before he bought Twitter but I guess that does not matter anymore, because this amount of money just perpetuates itself at some point and now he also has a new source of fan base in the political right that is not based on the old image of the nerdy genius and instead on the old and tried conservative grift of inflammatory and tribalistic discourse.

He didn't start any of his companies, he just bought all of them (maybe the exception is the boring company)

Yes, they are pretty neat, at least the ones that pop up on the Internet

And if you wanna save money on too many sinks and such there is already a solution for that. Many places have the sink and mirror outside the bathroom and shared between both gendered bathrooms.

Yet, not the article nor proton GitHub readme explain which version proton-hotfix is based of. I suppose based on proton-experimental, but then again it also makes sense to be based on proton-stable.

Quake was released in 1996 and if I recall correctly at the time the arrow keys were the standard but one famous Quake pro player used WASD and it helped launch it to today default.

My point is, I don't think it was ever OK to not have customizable keyboard controls, and having it also give you permission no be perfect in your chosen default. I understand not including the option to have multiple keys assigned to the same control (although I don't excuse it because it is not rocket science), but not have configurable controls at all? It was unforgivable in the 2000 and it is exponentially more unforgivable today.

Waterworld is Mad Max on a boat

The pitch was probably something like "What if Mad Max but instead of sand we have water?" And the producer guy would be something like "Will the people still be dirty even with all that water?" And the screen writer guy: "Wouldn't be an post apocalyptic world if the people is not dirty"

If the government is paying for the company to have profit why don't the government just do it themselves?

I feel like if the intent is that a private company provide the insurance, they could like force that if they want to do business they need to cover some portion of high risk area, a proportion that does balance things out.

In my country the lottery is taxed at the collection step, so the money divided and advertised is already after taxes. I think that makes more sense, you collect the money and the law specifically distributes this taxed money for specific budgets and the winnings advertised are the real one.