> You try to justify your avoidance of Linux by complaining of extremely low-level stuff (init stuff, networking, event notification systems, etc) and now you are talking about higher level "user needs".
...? What is so difficult to understand about this? Try to pay attention: the way the computer works is fundamental to how user interaction works. That you can't seem to grasp this is mind boggling.
> I link to an article about how people using FreeBSD are also successfully using it as a daily desktop and how the shortcomings are known-yet-solvable. Your answer then is that "you do things that others don't do" (yet, people using Windows do it?)
Yes. Every day. All the time. Why do you think the vast majority of the desktop market is dominated by Windows? There are thousands of workflows, often with specialty applications, that are best served by Windows and largely ignored by everyone else. Hell, even something as simple as file sharing is a pain in the ass outside of Windows. Linux gave up and just implements SMB and pretends to be Windows for that task.
> So what is it? What is your use case that requires you to be nit-picky about the low-level and at the same frustrates you at the high-level? What are the "different things that you do" that can only work on a proprietary OS? In a world with so many different-yet-imperfect ecosystem of different desktop systems, what is it with Windows (aside from convenience and familiarity) that "works with you, instead of against you"?
So many ways, lets pick an easy one: It allows me to run multiple versions of the same software, on the same system, often at the same time, without any VM or container nonsense and without having to compile anything myself. It lets me put applications wherever I want, including removable media and network shares, without trick-fucking the filesystem to make it work. It lets me use software delivered directly from the developer without having to wait for middle men to package it, which includes alpha and hotfixed versions.
What is all this useful for? A bunch of shit, but lets go with the easy stuff: I can test software very very easily and ditch it very very easily if it doesn't work for me. I can get specialized builds from the developer or even just some hobbiest who happened to have the same needs as me without having to reconstruct a build environment. I can similarly run really old software that suits my needs and who's only modern equivalents don't work as well.
> All of my frustrating asshole preaching boils down to convenience and familiarity should never be an excuse to accept giving away your freedoms.
And mine stems from believing that I am the best one to decide what tradeoffs I want to make, not some holier-than-thou computer nerd on the internet.
> However, if I were you I'd also consider the possibility this frustration you are feeling is due to the sad realization that you are trading away your freedoms for convenience and familiarity and that some dude on the internet is making you face that.
Laughable. The fact is that a lot of my frustration is from having watched the open source community continue to make things more complicated and fragile while continuing to alienate themselves from everyone else and being evangelistic, condescending assholes for about 20 motherfucking years now.
Did you know that at one time I was president of a LUG? That I've contributed to open source projects? Built my own distribution from scratch? Used Linux on many different computers over the course of the past 20 years?
Yet you assume that because I don't like your waifu-OS that I must be some kind of scared newb, comforted by the existence of the start menu and double-click installers (note: I don't even like packages of any kind, including executable installers).
> I am the best one to decide what tradeoffs I want to make, not some holier-than-thou computer nerd on the internet.
Yeah, you are. But let's not forget the original topic and why the conversation started in the first place: Apple is charging developers $99/year to be able to have software running on their platform and making it increasingly harder for those that do not. Then someone posts something along the lines of but the alternative is also privacy invading and provided by hypercapitalistic (sic) companies. There is nothing we can do. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ This is what I was calling out for BS. This is a trade-off on moral principles that I am saying people should not accept.
Your complaints about Linux are technical trade-offs, and it just happens that you don't want to deal with the choices made by the most common systems. Totally fine. The point that I am arguing with you is that you are giving in the moral principle based on the refusal to (or being tired of to) work on technical things.
This is the part that I don't get: there are tons of other systems there work only with statically linked files. There are two OSes (NixOS and Guix) that basically allow you to run anything you want, however you want. There are Linux systems that make a point of not using systemd.
You certainly know all that. But you prefer to say "screw it, people are not doing things the way I want and I am tired of dealing with this shit. I am going to go use Windows".
Again, fine. But at least accept that you are giving in on a moral principle. No amount of technical discussion or accusations on my "identity" or trying to put this on "people from this community" is going to change that. You can call me all the cute names you want, but in the end of day you are trading your freedoms for convenience and familiarity.
> Yet you assume that because I don't like your waifu-OS that I must be some kind of scared newb.
No. The opposite. I assume that you are a very smart person! I just think you are just willing to compromise on a moral principle that I would not expect from smart and capable people and I think "others do not want the same thing that I do" is a feeble attempt at rationalization.
> There are two OSes (NixOS and Guix) that basically allow you to run anything you want, however you want
I just want to point out that these are able to cover only a small fraction of the things I listed, and you are required to learn a completely new language (each!) in order to use them.
> You can call me all the cute names you want, but in the end of day you are trading your freedoms for convenience and familiarity.
I don't deny it, that's the world we live in. At the end of the day I have to get things done. My frustration is because I wish OSS was better at supporting me in that, but 20 years of waiting for that to happen, and watching good ideas manifest only to die out practically unnoticed, have lead me to conclude it never will be.
...? What is so difficult to understand about this? Try to pay attention: the way the computer works is fundamental to how user interaction works. That you can't seem to grasp this is mind boggling.
> I link to an article about how people using FreeBSD are also successfully using it as a daily desktop and how the shortcomings are known-yet-solvable. Your answer then is that "you do things that others don't do" (yet, people using Windows do it?)
Yes. Every day. All the time. Why do you think the vast majority of the desktop market is dominated by Windows? There are thousands of workflows, often with specialty applications, that are best served by Windows and largely ignored by everyone else. Hell, even something as simple as file sharing is a pain in the ass outside of Windows. Linux gave up and just implements SMB and pretends to be Windows for that task.
> So what is it? What is your use case that requires you to be nit-picky about the low-level and at the same frustrates you at the high-level? What are the "different things that you do" that can only work on a proprietary OS? In a world with so many different-yet-imperfect ecosystem of different desktop systems, what is it with Windows (aside from convenience and familiarity) that "works with you, instead of against you"?
So many ways, lets pick an easy one: It allows me to run multiple versions of the same software, on the same system, often at the same time, without any VM or container nonsense and without having to compile anything myself. It lets me put applications wherever I want, including removable media and network shares, without trick-fucking the filesystem to make it work. It lets me use software delivered directly from the developer without having to wait for middle men to package it, which includes alpha and hotfixed versions.
What is all this useful for? A bunch of shit, but lets go with the easy stuff: I can test software very very easily and ditch it very very easily if it doesn't work for me. I can get specialized builds from the developer or even just some hobbiest who happened to have the same needs as me without having to reconstruct a build environment. I can similarly run really old software that suits my needs and who's only modern equivalents don't work as well.
> All of my frustrating asshole preaching boils down to convenience and familiarity should never be an excuse to accept giving away your freedoms.
And mine stems from believing that I am the best one to decide what tradeoffs I want to make, not some holier-than-thou computer nerd on the internet.
> However, if I were you I'd also consider the possibility this frustration you are feeling is due to the sad realization that you are trading away your freedoms for convenience and familiarity and that some dude on the internet is making you face that.
Laughable. The fact is that a lot of my frustration is from having watched the open source community continue to make things more complicated and fragile while continuing to alienate themselves from everyone else and being evangelistic, condescending assholes for about 20 motherfucking years now.
Did you know that at one time I was president of a LUG? That I've contributed to open source projects? Built my own distribution from scratch? Used Linux on many different computers over the course of the past 20 years?
Yet you assume that because I don't like your waifu-OS that I must be some kind of scared newb, comforted by the existence of the start menu and double-click installers (note: I don't even like packages of any kind, including executable installers).