this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024
280 points (92.9% liked)

Linux

48315 readers
715 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
nooter692@lemmy.ml
MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz
280
Is Linux As Good As We Think It Is? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 months ago by wuphysics87@lemmy.ml to c/linux@lemmy.ml
161 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Obviously, a bit of clickbait. Sorry.

I just got to work and plugged my surface pro into my external monitor. It didn't switch inputs immediately, and I thought "Linux would have done that". But would it?

I find myself far more patient using Linux and De-googled Android than I do with windows or anything else. After all, Linux is mine. I care for it. Grow it like a garden.

And that's a good thing; I get less frustrated with my tech, and I have something that is important to me outside its technical utility. Unlike windows, which I'm perpetually pissed at. (Very often with good reason)

But that aside, do we give Linux too much benefit of the doubt relative to the "things that just work". Often they do "just work", and well, with a broad feature set by default.

Most of us are willing to forgo that for the privacy and shear customizability of Linux, but do we assume too much of the tech we use and the tech we don't?

Thoughts?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Or... Read what I said. Spend the $300 on the enterprise license. No ads. No forced notifications. A single computer with multiple users at one time in a home environment is not a use case that would get any thought. Those that want it, can do it. And it's easy, and free. Hyper-V is free and the licenses for the virtual machines are free too because the container host is windows. Lock an instance per output and voila. Recall won't be coming to enterprise or server and if it does, it will be disablable. Just like forced updates are disabled in enterprise. Forced reboots disabled. Etc.

If you want that experience you buy that experience.

[–] oong3Eepa1ae1tahJozoosuu@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Sorry, but no. 300 USD for an OS is absolutely absurd. Just to be "on the safer side" from MS and its shitty tactics?

"Recall won’t be coming to enterprise or server and if it does, it will be disablable"

Sweet summer child, I pity you. How anyone can still have any trust in MS is beyond me, but so be it.

[–] TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

$300 for the most important piece of software on the hardware that you interact with every day, sometimes all day, for years? That's a steal.

And again, as an OS, Windows just works and Linux doesn't. Even if you wanted to set things manually in the registry to disable the bad consumer "features", you'd still spend less time than configuring a standard Linux install and it would be more stable.

It's like Apple fan bois nowadays. Ridiculous.

[–] oong3Eepa1ae1tahJozoosuu@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Yeah, keep paying ransom to a company that does not even manage to get the basic security right, it's your money after all. I'm happy without Microsoft and with an OS that works and works for me, not some greedy CEO.