• Riker@lemmy.world
    8528·
    5 months ago

    Linux will never be a home operating system for most people. It will not even come close to windows or Mac. It is not user friendly, it is not supported by the VAST majority of home use software and it has too many distros. No one wants to get with an OS when the first question is which version. The learning curve is too steep and when stuff goes wrong it is way harder to find and solve.

    It’s nice that yall like it but the amount of forceful shoving of Linux on lemmy is hysterical knowing how no one listens.

    • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
      321·
      5 months ago

      There’s no harm in telling people about Linux though. The majority of people who can figure out the fediverse probably have the requisite technical skills to figure out Linux. Yeah I agree it’ll never be a home OS for most people, but also many homes don’t even have a PC at all anymore.

      • x4740N@lemm.eeOP
        41·
        5 months ago

        The problem is when people get militant and / or hostile about it

      • dustyData@lemmy.worldEnglish
        53·
        5 months ago

        This, today PC means laptop, that’s what almost everyone who has a PC uses, most people do with just a tablet though. 95% of the garbage people use the internet for can be done on a mid range smart phone. The people who need high powered desktop devices or use them for entertainment are already a minority in the market for computing devices. The largest chunk of OS marketshare is decided by business purchases, not individual PC owners.

      • Riker@lemmy.world
        25·
        5 months ago

        There is a large difference between telling someone and then getting mass downvoting anyone who dares oppose Linux while throwing a hissyfit and claiming that Linux is the greatest thing since oxygen. Lemmy is on the latter, not the former.

      • x4740N@lemm.eeOP
        41·
        5 months ago

        My post (on my other lemmy account before I switched this one to my main) sharing a video by a youtuber that said some open source software was badly designed in terms of UI and how it could be improved received so much hostility that I got fed up and ended up deleting it

        It wasn’t even a negative video, my post wasn’t even negative

        What was the point of sharing it if people just react hostile towards it even though you shared it in good faith

        The bad design with some open source software is why I don’t use some of them and why I haven’t installed Linux as a dual boot operating system yet

        I use blender and krita because they have good designs with the gui and its catered towards the user using the software in this case creatives

        Gimp however and other badly designed open source software don’t cater GUI towards the user demographics that would be using them

    • Donebrach@lemmy.world
      41·
      5 months ago

      Agreed, I don’t get the argument for using Linux beyond vague “windows bad” hand waving. Frankly, having to use computers probably every hour of my waking life for work and entertainment, I find nothing wrong with windows, or Mac OS. Or iOS or iPad OS beyond just the idiosyncratic annoyances each OS brings to the table. Is there any tangible reason Linux is superior to all the other OSs out there beyond it being open source? Also how is being open spurce objectively a benefit?

      • cRazi_man@lemm.ee
        51·
        5 months ago

        Privacy/no data mining is (frankly) a huge deal and a major problem in modern society is that this is not valued at all. To me, this is really analogous to the climate crisis in the sense that we’ve known about the impending climate crisis for decades and no one valued it till we got to the point of no return/crisis point. I really cannot emphasise enough what a big deal it is to value your data/information/privacy.

        Other than that, Linux really is a functional OS and there will be other benefits like multiple desktop styles to choose from, the possibility to do more advanced things if you need to (if learn how), the OS is virus-free, better performance (because the computer doesn’t need to work so hard on your OS and can spend that energy on other things), giving life to old hardware that Windows no longer supports (and saving your money as well as the planet from thr e-waste), the importance of an alternative choice so the market is not monopolised by predator corporate giants. There will be loads more benefits, but those are a few to begin with.

        It also has downsides (as mentioned above).

      • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.caEnglish
        41·
        5 months ago

        Doesn’t it use less system resources?

        When Windows 10 isn’t supported anymore, better to use Linux than have an unsecure computer or buy a new computer.

        • Zangoose@lemmy.world
          3·
          5 months ago

          For me windows uses 3-5gb of ram on idle just after starting up. This is pretty consistent across multiple computers for me. On the same computers (I dual-boot on both my laptop and desktop) Linux idles at about 800mb-1.2gb. This was even true on KDE which was one of the “heavier” feature-rich desktop environments. I think Gnome might have been 1.5gb ish but I haven’t used in a while. Either way, it used way less RAM than my windows installs which could noticeably impact some resource intensive programs like blender or davinci resolve

    • karashta@lemm.ee
      42·
      5 months ago

      As someone with decision paralysis and executive dysfunction issues, this is true for me. I’m probably more than capable of using it for a daily driver but there are 5000 flavors and I will likely never be able to make a solid choice until one is obviously vastly superior in some way I need.

      • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
        62·
        5 months ago

        Just use Ubuntu. It just works.

        That’s what I use if I want to just get things done.

          • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
            21·
            5 months ago

            Nah. There’s a lot of nerds on here. They are over overrepresented. Normal folks and older users who don’t have time to fuck around use Ubuntu.

        • cRazi_man@lemm.ee
          12·
          5 months ago

          Why recommend Gnome as a windows alternative? Surely KDE is a much better option if you’re trying to make a windows user feel more familiar with the interface.

          • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
            4·
            5 months ago

            I’m a KDE user right now. While I love KDE, I find that it breaks way too easily when you customize it. And there’s way,way too many customization options to a point that it becomes overwhelming. I can waste hours trying to customize something, roll back, break KDE, reset my KDE environment, try again, etc. And between KDE users, the desktop will almost never be the same which can lead to issues when they ask for support from a friend or something.

            In gnome, what you see is what you get. You can just focus on your work or your activity. And because there’s less customisation options, you get pretty much the same desktop experience across multiple users. So if I go to a friend’s place and they also it Ubuntu with Gnome, I’m almost certain to have the same desktop experience as mine

        • Codilingus@sh.itjust.works
          16·
          5 months ago

          My Ubuntu on a SBC for a workshop just killed itself on Monday. Had it for a few months, new SBC, fresh Ubuntu install, 0 customization, just using it occasionally for Chromium. It popped up a new version -Minotaur or something- was out, so I said sure upgrade. It gave an error for bash near the end, then bricked itself. Now i gotta dig out SD cards and find a new distro.

          Fuck Ubuntu. Ends in misery every single time.

          And no I don’t want any recommendations.

          • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
            51·
            5 months ago

            Well that’s like a single anecdotal experience out of hundreds of thousands who had no problem. And it’s more probable to run into problems when using non-LTS versions.

    • iamtrashman1312@lemmy.world
      11·
      5 months ago

      To lump my own personal bitch onto this: liking a thing and bringing it up regardless of conversation or context isn’t a personality

    • RachelRodent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      33·
      5 months ago

      You are wrong. The reason that linux isn’t popularvis that windows comes preinstalled in computers and most people don’t know how to install an operating system pet along what an operating system is. Linux is dead easy nowadays, ao.much that my tech illiterate parents can use it, spread misinformation elsewhere

    • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.caEnglish
      22·
      5 months ago

      not supported by the VAST majority of home use software

      Just want to say most people only need a browser, and it’s only going to continue on that path. That’s why ChromeOS works.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      12·
      5 months ago

      I’ve seen more criticism of Lemmy’s Linux Problem, than I actually have seen LLP in action

  • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.orgEnglish
    311·
    5 months ago

    Considering a lot of us are here from the Rexodus and have cake days coming up (or recently passed): Happy cake day.

  • spittingimage@lemmy.world
    211·
    5 months ago

    If you’ve ever said “cowabunga dude” unironically, it’s high time to schedule that prostate check.

  • Mango@lemmy.world
    152·
    5 months ago

    Stop with the echo chamber. Dissenting views aren’t trolls by default.

  • Binette@lemmy.ml
    10·
    5 months ago

    I really like you guys ❤️

    I’m learning rust and going to contribute one day.

  • KISSmyOSFeddit@lemmy.world
    159·
    5 months ago

    Nuclear power plants won’t help solve the climate crisis.

    They take too long to build.
    While the risk of a catastrophic failure is very low, its effects are so bad they can’t be included in any sensible risk assessment.
    They prolong the dependence on energy companies that are too big to fail and can therefore blackmail the government.
    They depend on enormous amounts of water for cooling, at a time when rivers frequently get too warm for that due to climate change.
    They run on a non-renewable fuel source that is imported from politically instable countries.
    And when you include the cost of building them, insuring them, dismantling them and dealing with their waste, they’re simply not economical.
    The only way to run them is with massive subsidies and unconditional securities from the state. I.e. tax money being funnelled to big corporations.

    • x4740N@lemm.eeOP
      21·
      5 months ago

      This highlights issues with using capitalism and some human mindsets

    • Num10ck@lemmy.worldEnglish
      44·
      5 months ago

      nuclear power plants are way too vulnerable and dangerous of a terrorist target.

      • Thorry84@feddit.nl
        6·
        5 months ago

        Wtf are you talking about? Nuclear power facilities are freaking huge and have top notch security. You ain’t getting anywhere near any place you could ever do any damage. And since everybody who’s supposed to be there needs clearance, it’s easy to have strict security protocols in place. Anybody who isn’t supposed to be there or takes anything in or out they aren’t supposed to is identified easily and taken care of.

        Any nuclear facility is more worried about espionage than any kind of attack. Even if you are able to bomb a part of it, worst case it will be shutdown for repairs for a while and maybe kill a dozen or so people who are near the bomb as it goes off. Something like a crowded square in a city centre is a much easier target for terrorism and probably has more impact in the causing fear department than bombing some energy facility.

        So no, denying nuclear power based on fear of terrorism isn’t only unfounded, it’s also exactly what the terrorists want. Fuck them guys, don’t give in to fear.

        And in case you don’t know: a nuclear power plant is not a nuclear bomb, it can’t become a nuclear bomb and it doesn’t contain any materials to create a nuclear bomb. Just because they both contain the word nuclear and work on a fission principle, doesn’t mean they are the same thing.

        (I blame the recent Chernobyl series for fueling the fear of nuclear once again. You should know that whilst it is a good series, it is not a documentary and they dropped the ball hard on all the science parts)

        • nicerdicer@sh.itjust.works
          11·
          5 months ago

          These all are valid points. From the technological point of view nuclear technology is pretty safe and the margin of error is rather low. There are many redundant fail-save measurements to retain a save operation. But if something will happen, it will be devestating. Most famous incident is Chernobyl. Also, nuclear waste management is a huge issue. Not many (if any) locations for waste storage have the capability for eternal storage. The Asse II mine for instance is a former salt mine which has been re-purposed as a deep geological repository. It was supposed to last alt least several thousand years. After only 30 years of usage it has been detected that water seeps into the vault which leads to corrosion of the barrels filled with nuclear waste which will result already resulted in a release of radioactive elements. This is how the barrels were handled and stored. I am no expert but thirty years into almost eternity is a pretty bad figure.

          And there is another thing - and in my opinion this is a really serious one: Nucular power plants are operated by corporations within the private sector. This means that such a power plant is conducted with an economical focus (= profit). The incentive to make profit will result in skipping maintenance, bribing inspectors and downplaying any technical difficulties. Even when assumed that all the other issues (waste management etc.) are solved, every technical malfunction that resulted in the leakage of radioactive material woult be not be made public voluntarily. There were many incidents that have been made public, because the law required them to do so.. The hidden number of incidents that were not required to be made public is probably much higher.

          • Thorry84@feddit.nl
            2·
            5 months ago

            Yes military targets, as are most energy production facilities. Any part of critical infrastructure is a prime military target. Just ask the people of Taiwan.

            This has nothing to do with terrorism and certainly isn’t a reason not to build them. Whatever replacement you have for them, would then become the target. This is common sense.

            I would also say that being energy independent is a deterrent to all out war, as it removes leverage one party may have over another. With a balanced field of power, total war becomes less likely.

            Also by the time Western Europe / Mainland US is under military assault and our allies can’t protect our critical infrastructure, we have much bigger concerns.

      • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        5 months ago

        Honestly if the UK can spend a couple of decades with half a hiroshimas worth of high explosives sitting unguarded within sight of London I think a nuclear facility with actual security will be fine.