1) The problem is that not every company has the resources to maintain its own fork of the code base. Some of us are one man bands, work in quite small teams of less than 3 or 4 developers. This idea that people have the resources to maintain their own fork of the code is crazy.
2) Two it creates fragmentation. Fragmentation creates defects and incompatibilities.
As I gotten older I pretty much realised that unless it is backed by a professional company I am not using it. There has been consistent stream of fiasco, drama and general unprofessional bullshit in the realm of open source I am quite happy I've mostly stuck to doing the majority of my work with .NET and SQL Server.
It doesn't work well OOTB. This is just incorrect.
I've been using Linux/Unix for about 20 years now. There are still loads of things that just do not work and I really expect them to work.
I am not talking about specialist hardware. I am talking about things like a USB headset I have (works fine on Windows and MacOSX without having to install any additional drivers). Doesn't work on Linux.
I installed Slack using the deb package (on ubuntu). Won't start, no idea why. Just segfaults. So I have to use the browser version of slack.
X will still hang with certain applications. Sometimes I close the Lid and the laptop never wakes up.I still get screen tearing when moving windows around. This stuff was fixed years ago on Windows.
Now I could fix these things. However it hours of messing around when I could use a Linux VM on my Mac of WSL on Windows these days.
> The average user can handle KDE Plasma just fine.
No they can't. My friend (who can use Windows 7 just fine), when on my Linux PC and I have it setup pretty much like Windows and he couldn't work out how to open the web-browser. He isn't a dummy either. He has a masters in Aerospace Engineering and uses Matlab regularly. We are both 36 years of age.
>I installed Slack using the deb package (on ubuntu). Won't start, no idea why. Just segfaults. So I have to use the browser version of slack.
This is a problem with Slack, not with Linux.
>X will still hang with certain applications. Sometimes I close the Lid and the laptop never wakes up.I still get screen tearing when moving windows around. This stuff was fixed years ago on Windows.
Plasma, the desktop I recommended for end-users, has solved these problems. Years ago.
>My friend (who can use Windows 7 just fine), when on my Linux PC and I have it setup pretty much like Windows and he couldn't work out how to open the web-browser
I simply don't believe that you know someone who understands how to use Windows and yet couldn't open a web browser on KDE Plasma.
This the attitude I always get and it stinks. I have sitting on my desk at home an Amiga 1200 (released in 1994). I can download a lha archive with a program in it, extract it and run it. Amiga OS was cutting edge in 1987ish. I still can't do that with a popular flavour of Linux like ubuntu.
I don't think it is unreasonable to expect to be able to download a package from the internet that is marked as "Ubuntu 18.04", use the package manager to install it and for it to work properly.
There is also about 3 or 4 different methods (that are somewhat official) to install applications. Which is crazy.
This problem only exists on Linux.
> Plasma, the desktop I recommended for end-users, has solved these problems. Years ago.
Good for you. Not everyone is running the same setup.
The whole "Works For Me" attitude. Again this attitude stinks.
> I simply don't believe that you know someone who understands how to use Windows and yet couldn't open a web browser on KDE Plasma.
I still have some usage hangups on Windows since the Windows 2000 days and I have a lot of problems with newer versions of windows because I just get confused with the interface. It isn't that uncommon tbh. In the end I've learnt enough powershell now it not an issue for me.
For a developer such as myself it is easier to just install WSL, run a VM or use something like vagrant or Docker and just put up with the odd annoyances that Windows 10 presents you with.
> I don't think it is unreasonable to expect to be able to download a package from the internet that is marked as "Ubuntu 18.04", use the package manager to install it and for it to work properly.
That's preposterous. If you downloaded a random MSI marked "Windows [your version]", installed it on Windows [your version], and it crashed, you wouldn't blame Microsoft.
> There is also about 3 or 4 different methods (that are somewhat official) to install applications. Which is crazy.
And how many are there for Windows? Unzip a Zip file? Run an EXE installer? Run an MSI installer? Download and execute a launcher that downloads and runs the actual installer, and gives up completely and deletes the partial download at the slightest hiccup? Install a whole software management platform like Steam or Windows Store or...?
> This problem only exists on Linux.
That's absolutely absurd.
> The whole "Works For Me" attitude. Again this attitude stinks.
The whole "I found a problem in a vendor's app so I'm going to blame the entire OS and platform instead" attitude. This attitude stinks.
> I still have some usage hangups on Windows since the Windows 2000 days and I have a lot of problems with newer versions of windows because I just get confused with the interface. It isn't that uncommon tbh. In the end I've learnt enough powershell now it not an issue for me.
Your buddy couldn't (or wouldn't?) click through a few menus or type "browser" into the KDE equivalent of the Start Menu, and you cite that as a problem in Plasma, and then say that you prefer PowerShell?
> That's preposterous. If you downloaded a random MSI marked "Windows [your version]", installed it on Windows [your version], and it crashed, you wouldn't blame Microsoft.
No. This is the fundamental misunderstanding of the point I was making. So I am going to make it crystal clear. The problems I've had with installing slack, I've had with Spotify, Steam, Dropbox and there are quite a few others I am sure I've forgotten.
If you create a program for MacOSX, Android, iOS etc. You can be sure that there are certain APIs available to you and you can be pretty confident that your program is going to work if built against those APIs. Your users can be confident if they download your application there is a pretty good change it is going to work.
Sure with Android there will be device specific issues, or if it is a Windows PC they may have faulty hardware or a bad installation. However the chances that the application is going to work is much higher than GNU/Linux because fragmentation in what the user base runs is much lower. That is just the reality of the situation.
Nothing remotely equivalent exists for Linux. Have the wrong distro ... there probably isn't a package. Have a slightly older distro ... There probably isn't a package for you.
Even with attempts such as Flatpack, SnapStore etc. The same situation is present. This is because of the nature of any GNU/Linux distro is that they are all fragmented in terms of underlying libraries, kernel versions, UI versions, package managers etc.
It is a mess. It will always be a mess as long as people don't recognise it as a real problem. I doubt it will get solved in our lifetimes.
If you want to make smart ass remarks about it while ignoring the real issue so be it.
> The whole "I found a problem in a vendor's app so I'm going to blame the entire OS and platform instead" attitude. This attitude stinks.
Thanks for taking me out of context. I was specifically talking about user environments which are supplied by those who control the distro. Please don't be disingenuous.
> Your buddy couldn't (or wouldn't?) click through a few menus or type "browser" into the KDE equivalent of the Start Menu, and you cite that as a problem in Plasma, and then say that you prefer PowerShell? Bizarre.
People become familiar with certain user interfaces. Saying that everyone should just understand how to use a new interface even if it mimicks (btw poorly) another OS which is ubiquitous really shows that their lack of touch with the majority of users.
Lots of users can have real problems moving between versions of one application. That why user interface guidelines, best practices, user testing and user interface design are its whole own field in this industry. Pretending because something looks superficially the same means that someone should be able to use it is ridiculous. Also KDE Plasma it doesn't really look like Windows or works like it, KDE plasma UI is what happens when a teenager that has just learnt how to use Photoshop effects tool has gone mad with gradients and bloom effects, the whole thing is a mess visually.
In response to powershell comment. It is normally easier to just learn a shell like bash on a *nix system and just use that then try using the absolutely awful UIs they normally provide you with. The same is true with Modern Windows. Each time there is a update to Windows 10 they have changed the location of some control panel option for the umpteeth time. So I already know how to use powershell and install the management tools, it is normally easier FOR ME to use that rather than try to navigate the labyrinth of control panel options.
> No. This is the fundamental misunderstanding of the point I was making. So I am going to make it crystal clear. The problems I've had with installing slack, I've had with Spotify, Steam, Dropbox and there are quite a few others I am sure I've forgotten.
It's not a misunderstanding at all--you're explicitly blaming the platform, and your subsequent comment does just that:
> Even with attempts such as Flatpack, SnapStore etc. The same situation is present. This is because of the nature of any GNU/Linux distro is that they are all fragmented in terms of underlying libraries, kernel versions, UI versions, package managers etc.
Meanwhile, millions of Linux users have no problems with Steam or Dropbox. But you have unspecified problems, and therefore Linux is bad.
> Nothing remotely equivalent exists for Linux.
That's simply false. If you are being honest, then you don't know what you're talking about.
> Have the wrong distro ... there probably isn't a package.
So then use a popular, supported one. Packages for RHEL/CentOS, Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, and even SuSe are nearly ubiquitous. If you freely choose to use obscure, forked-3-levels-deep Bob's Linux 2018, don't complain that there's no bespoke package for arbitrary software you want. That's silly.
> Have a slightly older distro ... There probably isn't a package for you.
Also false. Most vendor packages are for years-old LTS releases. If you've actually tried this, you should know this.
> Even with attempts such as Flatpack, SnapStore etc. The same situation is present. This is because of the nature of any GNU/Linux distro is that they are all fragmented in terms of underlying libraries, kernel versions, UI versions, package managers etc.
Bizarre. Flatpack and Snap are specifically designed to solve that problem, but you claim that they have that problem. Why are you saying these things that are patently untrue?
> It is a mess. It will always be a mess as long as people don't recognise it as a real problem.
It's just weird that you say "as long as people don't recognize it as a real problem" immediately after mentioning attempts to explicitly solve the problem. Are you writing these words seriously?
> I doubt it will get solved in our lifetimes.
Meanwhile, millions of people happily continue using their Linux desktops. And millions of people continue using Windows, suffering all of its problems, such as not actually being in control of their own machines anymore (it's amazing how far Microsoft has fallen just since Windows 7).
> If you want to make smart ass remarks about it while ignoring the real issue so be it.
Your words agree with neither my comments nor your own. Bizarre.
> Thanks for taking me out of context. I was specifically talking about user environments which are supplied by those who control the distro.
Not out of context at all. You're blaming the platform instead of the app vendor.
> Please don't be disingenuous.
Please don't project. You say A in one sentence and not-A in the next. You don't even seem to agree with yourself.
> People become familiar with certain user interfaces. Saying that everyone should just understand how to use a new interface even if it mimicks (btw poorly) another OS which is ubiquitous really shows that their lack of touch with the majority of users.
You're saying that an aerospace engineer can't, in a few seconds, click what appears to be a Start Menu-like menu in the Start Menu place, type "browser" into the box labeled "search", and find "Firefox Web Browser"? I don't believe you. If he can figure out how to make an aircraft fly, and use complicated fluid dynamics modeling software, he can figure out how to launch Firefox. Going from Windows to Plasma is no more complicated than going from Windows 7 to Windows 8 and 10--in fact, probably much simpler, considering the enormous UI changes Microsoft made. And it's claims like this that suggest it's you being disingenuous.
> Lots of users can have real problems moving between versions of one application. That why user interface guidelines, best practices, user testing and user interface design are its whole own field in this industry.
Then you ought to be heaping criticism on Microsoft for Windows 8 and 10. How many times have I seen someone move from Windows 7 to 8/10 and say, "I can't use this UI, it's awful!" Instead you act as if Linux UIs are uniquely problematic.
> Pretending because something looks superficially the same means that someone should be able to use it is ridiculous.
"A imitates B, but you can't expect people who are accustomed to B to be able to actually use A." Bizarre.
How many times I've heard someone say, "I installed Ubuntu on my 80-year-old grandma's computer and haven't heard her ask for help since. She barely even noticed a difference. She uses the Web and everything." But your hypothetical aerospace engineer can't launch Firefox. Ah, anecdotes.
> KDE plasma UI is what happens when a teenager that has just learnt how to use Photoshop effects tool has gone mad with gradients and bloom effects, the whole thing is a mess visually.
Now this is where I agree with you. I don't like the default Plasma themes. That's been a problem since KDE 4. But that's superficial. You can change all that. With Windows and Mac, you can't--you can take it or leave it. "But that's complicated, users won't want to do that"--beside the point: they can. Windows has an ugly mess of a UI, and you can't fix it. That's where you ought to be complaining.
> Each time there is a update to Windows 10 they have changed the location of some control panel option for the umpteeth time. So I already know how to use powershell and install the management tools, it is normally easier FOR ME to use that rather than try to navigate the labyrinth of control panel options.
Understandable. A few scripts can make life a lot easier on Windows.
> In response to powershell comment. It is normally easier to just learn a shell like bash on a *nix system and just use that then try using the absolutely awful UIs they normally provide you with.
I'm not a fan of the default UIs, but for an average user, they're certainly more usable and discoverable than looking up shell commands. This is another example of the inconsistency of your complaints. You seem to be complaining about 5 different problems at the same time, mixing them all together.
BTW that problem still exists (last time I checked was 18.04).
Yes Linux is bad because simple problems that have been solved even on obscure platforms such as Amiga OS have less compatibility problems than Linux based operating systems between versions of the OS. I have an Amiga 1200 running version 3.9 of the OS which was released over 20 years ago probably and I have no problems installing things like web browsers, games, network stacks (Amiga OS didn't have one at the time) and all sorts of other software.
> Please don't project. You say A in one sentence and not-A in the next. You don't even seem to agree with yourself.
It is called nuance. I am trying to convey an idea. You are trying to be right. The former is being an adult, the latter is childish.
> So then use a popular, supported one. Packages for RHEL/CentOS, Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, and even SuSe are nearly ubiquitous. If you freely choose to use obscure, forked-3-levels-deep Bob's Linux 2018, don't complain that there's no bespoke package for arbitrary software you want. That's silly.
I almost exclusively use Debian based (Ubuntu normally) or Redhat based (CentOS / Fedora). So again you are mis-representing what I was saying.
> Not out of context at all. You're blaming the platform instead of the app vendor.
Yes it was as I was clearly responding to what I quoted which was about hardware support not software support. This is clearly disingenuous.
As we are on the subject now. I am blaming the platform because there is massive amounts of fragmentation caused by lack of standardisation. You will have better luck herding cats. Compare that to something like Windows, iOS, Amiga OS, Android etc. Which have well documented APIs that are supported for years, so applications just tend to work between versions.
Also Apple and Microsoft don't throw away a whole desktop environment's code every 5 or 6 years. I remember the Gnome 2 -> 3 mess. I also remember the KDE 3 to 4 mess and I just use XFCE when forced to use a Linux machine now as they don't seem to lose their collective minds every few years.
I've been using Linux now for 15 years. I've given up with it. They could fix every complaint I have tomorrow and I won't give a damn, I am done with it.
> You're saying that an aerospace engineer can't, in a few seconds, click what appears to be a Start Menu-like menu in the Start Menu place, type "browser" into the box labeled "search", and find "Firefox Web Browser"? I don't believe you. If he can figure out how to make an aircraft fly, and use complicated fluid dynamics modeling software, he can figure out how to launch Firefox. Going from Windows to Plasma is no more complicated than going from Windows 7 to Windows 8 and 10--in fact, probably much simpler, considering the enormous UI changes Microsoft made. And it's claims like this that suggest it's you being disingenuous.
I sure he could if given the time. However the vast majority of people wanna get on with their life and not have to relearn where to find things in a UI. I have problems using Visual Studio on someone else machine running the same version of Visual Studio because I have the 2005 key bindings enabled, I can struggle along using the newer keybindings, but I am using the interface at about 30-40% of the speed I can normally use it at.
Comments like this demonstrates how out of touch Linux users are with the regular computer user. It reminds me of the time when Richard Stallman said on a mailing list he emailed web pages to himself using some cron job or something equally as ridiculous, then on the FSF page he writes a long lecture about the evils JavaScript Minification when he doesn't even use a web browser.
> Then you ought to be heaping criticism on Microsoft for Windows 8 and 10. How many times have I seen someone move from Windows 7 to 8/10 and say, "I can't use this UI, it's awful!" Instead you act as if Linux UIs are uniquely problematic.
"There are more murders over there so the murders over here don't matter".
This is the last time I will respond to you. You have mis-represented me several times now and the number of fallacies present here is hurting my brain. Bye.
> BTW that problem still exists (last time I checked was 18.04).
Another example of blaming the platform instead of the app vendor. I also suffer from this problem with Dropbox. It's entirely Dropbox's fault for being lazy, ripping out working code, and refusing to fix it despite users begging for years. Dropbox hasn't been a user-focused (at least, non-enterprise-user-focused) company for a long time now. I hope a good alternative becomes available soon.
> Also Apple and Microsoft don't throw away a whole desktop environment's code every 5 or 6 years. I remember the Gnome 2 -> 3 mess. I also remember the KDE 3 to 4 mess and I just use XFCE when forced to use a Linux machine now as they don't seem to lose their collective minds every few years.
I agree with you completely here. The KDE 3-to-4 transition was awful. GNOME is even worse. This is known as the CADT problem. This is why I advocate for software stewardship, doing what's best for the community and the users rather than reinventing the wheel over and over. The TDE project (forked from KDE 3.5) is very interesting and inspiring here.
> I sure he could if given the time. However the vast majority of people wanna get on with their life and not have to relearn where to find things in a UI. I have problems using Visual Studio on someone else machine running the same version of Visual Studio because I have the 2005 key bindings enabled, I can struggle along using the newer keybindings, but I am using the interface at about 30-40% of the speed I can normally use it at.
Of course, I don't like pointless churn either. But here again you're conflating problems: a new version of Visual Studio, made by the same company, and different desktop environments made by completely different groups. I don't think it's reasonable for you to expect KDE or GNOME or whoever to exactly reproduce Windows or any other UI. Even Microsoft isn't being consistent from one version to the next. So, again, you seem to be holding Linux (the wider Linux-based software world) to a different standard than proprietary software. That's not fair.
> Comments like this demonstrates how out of touch Linux users are with the regular computer user. It reminds me of the time when Richard Stallman said on a mailing list he emailed web pages to himself using some cron job or something equally as ridiculous, then on the FSF page he writes a long lecture about the evils JavaScript Minification when he doesn't even use a web browser.
RMS is quite eccentric, yes. I disagree with him on a lot of things. At the same time, I respect and appreciate what he has done for the FOSS world. I suspect that, without him, we wouldn't have as much "Free Software" as we do now.
I'm not so out-of-touch as you think. I'm well aware of how things work in the Windows-using world, and how non-techie users use computers and what they expect.
My point is that you can't have everything. You can't expect projects like GNOME or KDE to be like Windows just to satisfy potential former Windows users. No one's paying them (generally) to do so. And you seem to be holding FOSS projects to a certain standard, but allowing companies like Microsoft to violate it, just because they have more users. That's not reasonable.
> "There are more murders over there so the murders over here don't matter".
But don't you see: that's just what you're doing from the other direction. You complain about problem X on Linux, but ignore the same problem on Windows. You're being unreasonable.
> I've been using Linux now for 15 years. I've given up with it. They could fix every complaint I have tomorrow and I won't give a damn, I am done with it.
Since you seem very emotional about it, I guess it's not surprising that you're being unreasonable about it.
BTW, saw some of your comments about capitalism and Marxism. They were good. Keep speaking the truth (serious, not sarcastic).
The problem is not whether YOU use the advanced features. It is whether someone else does.
I generally don't require any better than Markdown and for larger documents I just LaTeX.
However I am normally sent work documents with all sorts of macros from other companies (embedded forms) to fill out for things like payments, right to work etc. These require Microsoft Office. Originally when I started I thought I could get away with Libre Office. It worked at best 50% and these weren't complex macros (I inspected them myself).
None of these forms are outside the norm of what a HR department, University faculty office or most medium to large companies use.
It's mostly _ME_ who uses the advanced features, not people around me. In cca last 10 years, I've seen exactly one Excel with macros that someone wanted other people to use. (No, you can't use VBA with LibreOffice, just like you cannot use Python UNO scripts with MS Office).
The reason is mostly security: nobody wants to run random macros on their machines (where nobody means their IT departments, the users wouldn't care) and for the uses that you mention, for random forms, web-based forms are used and links to them are getting send.
None of the parties that are involved in Linux actually care one iota about the desktop. At best it is a side project. It is phones, servers and embedded,
Only a very small percentage of what is a shrinking market uses it uses it on the desktop.
It will never happen. The only company that has really invested into anything close to Desktop Linux is Google and it is Chrome books which are pretty much a walled garden.
While it was better than it was 15 years ago, there are still dumb problems like "Why doesn't by usb headset work?" or "Oh X shat itself again with my GPU". Whereas with Windows I can reinstall the GPU drivers while playing a youtube video. The only thing I haven't had work is some cheapo chinese Serial PCI card from fleabay.
>The only thing I haven't had work is some cheapo chinese Serial PCI card from fleabay.
You are contradicting yourself here. Besides, linux hardware support is incredible nowadays, and most of the time if you have problems with linux, you would have them with windows as well (aka, oem drivers for crappy nonstandard custom hardware).
Nowadays most of the soundcards, gamepads, headsets would just work, at least their standard functionality.
Also, RedHat cares about desktop, and canonical cared a lot. Nowadays RedHat is involved in a proper hybrid graphics support, gnome desktop etc. In some areas linux is lagging behind, for example accessability is still not the best, though gnome people are very concerned about it (that was one of the major reason for using a full gnome shell for login).
No I am not. I was just saying that the only thing I've hadn't have work out of the box was some dodgy PCI card from China. It is literally the only thing in the last ten years that wasn't a video card that didn't work out of the box for me.
> Besides, linux hardware support is incredible nowadays, and most of the time if you have problems with linux, you would have them with windows as well (aka, oem drivers for crappy nonstandard custom hardware).
I've been using *nix now for about 20 years. I still have the same problems with plugging in things like headsets that I had 10 years ago. The headset I am using is a £30 headset that you can buy in almost any supermarket and that is just an example of the problems that you will face on a daily basis.
I have a bog standard Dell Latitude laptop (refurb business model). Everything is intel. Yet I still have problems with Power management on popular distros like Ubuntu and Fedora. Everything works fine in Windows Vista and Above. I get screen tearing on my desktop machine because X is utter crap. Also any application can completely kill X, I had it happen the other day.
I am sure I could fix some of these issues. But I just don't care enough anymore.
> Also, RedHat cares about desktop, and canonical cared a lot. Nowadays RedHat is involved in a proper hybrid graphics support, gnome desktop etc. In some areas linux is lagging behind, for example accessability is still not the best, though gnome people are very concerned about it (that was one of the major reason for using a full gnome shell for login).
Redhat used to sell the distro as a desktop Linux that you could buy in a store like PC world, so did Suse and quite a lot of other distros (Mandrake, Lindows, Corel). Very few people bought them, they didn't make any money and they vanished in about 2004/2005ish IIRC. The vast majority of income that Redhat makes is support contacts.
As for the gnome team, they threw away years of work when they moved to Gnome 3. That must be 10,000s of man hours. That is nuts. I don't trust a team that throws away years worth of code, user testing and bug reports. I know it been forked into Mate, but that is besides the point.
You confuse your subjective experience with the overall picture. The list of devices which kernel does support is not only incredible, but higher than that of any other OS safe Windows maybe. And even in windows you will have pretty the same hardware problems, just with the different set of hardware, which you were lucky to avoid. Shit like this [1] [2] is pretty common in windows world as well.
>The touchpad and touchscreen don't work during install, so you'll need to plug in a mouse or fuss with keyboard-only navigation. After installation you'll only have 2.4GHz wifi, so you'll need to install the Lenovo driver. There are probably other Lenovo drivers that will be required - but I haven't taken the experiment any farther yet.
>Intel GMA 910 and 915 series released in 2004 and 2005 respectively didn't get WDDM driver which means they only work with Windows XP, Vista and 7
Most of the time you just have an OEM preinstalled for you or even an OS preinstalled on a very particular hardware (macos).
> You confuse your subjective experience with the overall picture.
No it is a common complaint that has been happening for years (over a decade) with all manner of consumer laptops.
> The list of devices which kernel does support is not only incredible, but higher than that of any other OS safe Windows maybe.
Yes and I would wager quite a lot of these devices are for ancient hardware, embedded devices, servers, micro-controller etc and other stuff THAT IS NOT ANYTHING TO DO WITH BUSINESS LAPTOPS and a reasonably priced consumer usb headsets from well known manufacturers.
It is a fallacy that just because there is a large number of devices it also means:
1) They are supported well.
2) They are my devices.
3) That there are other parts of the distro (Pulse Audio, ALSA or whatever the nonsense they are using for an audio stack these days) will interfere with how the device works.
The situation will never change. It will never change because
1) Device manufacturers don't care about Linux. They will care about MacOS, Windows, Android and iOS.
2) None of the large corps that basically contribute to the kernel really care about Linux on the desktop. They don't make a lot of money if any from it. Redhat kinda bother, but they've been bought by IBM now so that won't last much longer.
3) As demonstrated in this very discussion on this topic. Most Linux users will trot out the same tired old excuses why shite doesn't work. They will blame it on Microsoft, the User, the hardware anything other than the accepting the fact that because everyone has their own idea what a distro looks like, the whole community is fragmented. Fragmentation causes problems, instability and compatibility issues.
I've heard it for 15 years now. If I have to use Linux (I do unfortunately), it is whatever the latest LTS of Ubuntu is because it mostly works (it is still shite though).
> And even in windows you will have pretty the same hardware problems, just with the different set of hardware, which you were lucky to avoid. Shit like this [1] [2] is pretty common in windows world as well.
Cherry picking nonsense. The only driver I've needed to install in the last 5 years is my video card driver (I am rocking a 1080Ti, which is rather nice) and a wireless driver in my laptop which took all of 5 minutes to install.
Windows will download the drivers from the internet if it can find them.
> Most of the time you just have an OEM preinstalled for you or even an OS preinstalled on a very particular hardware (macos).
No I installed Windows myself. I always wipe and do a clean install. I've done my own install of MacOS in the past as well (not much point though as they don't fill the OS full of shit).
I've heard all of these arguments before. They are all deflecting blame away from what is the Desktop Linux community. I'd heard these arguments back in 2003. Nothing has changed much in 15 years.
Maybe in 15 years time when Desktop Linux still doesn't work correctly you might get wise to the myriad of reasons why it will never work.
Hopefully I will have retired to somewhere like Cambodia by then.
> Maybe in 15 years time when Desktop Linux still doesn't work correctly you might get wise to the myriad of reasons why it will never work.
Yet, here I am, having used Linux on the desktop for over 15 years. Unlike all the years I used Windows, I've never had to reinstall Linux. No BSODs, booting into safe mode, restoring registry backups, manually installing cryptic INF files, anti-virus software, etc. Works For Me. Sorry that you didn't enjoy it. Hope you have fun back in Windows land.
Lies. BSODs are Kernel panics. These happen in every OS. They can be caused by failing hardware, iffy drivers etc. Are you going to claim that you never had hardware fail? never had a dodgy capacitor on a video card? I don't believe that. Also the last time I had a BSOD on Windows is because one of the SSDs in RAID 0 failed.
Dependant on Linux distro there maybe no safe upgrade path between version of the distro (Fedora recommends a full reinstall last time I checked).
I haven't backed up a registry ever. I haven't installed 3rd party anti-virus software since the Windows XP days which was 15 years ago. Windows has improved quite a lot in some ways (and in other ways it has got worse).
> Works For Me.
Which is exactly the attitude problem with most Linux users when discussing the topic. It is whataboutery at its finest.
> Sorry that you didn't enjoy it. Hope you have fun back in Windows land.
Linux works absolutely fine on my Phone, VPS (Digital Ocean) and as a XBMC machine. It just doesn't work properly as a Desktop Operating system.
I am just not a zealot when it comes my Operating System Choice and I don't pretend things that are real problems aren't.
Firstly Be above the politics. Do your job and just be yourself and be nice and polite to your work mates.
You lack communication.
When you get a crap spec like the ones you have obviously got. You should reject it with the exact reasons why the spec was insufficient.
Tell them politely and clearly what is insufficient about it. If you have a direct superior approach them first with your concerns about each spec and get them to help you to setup a meeting where you hash out the specifics.
There is no magical answer to getting this right. You just need to learn when to be assertive and just be clear, concise, logical and polite and ask for clarification if something is unclear.
I work in the US with engineers, techs, and business side people who obviously aren't programmers as well as software people. What I find is those people's culture is much less toxic than software[1].
However my experience with a couple of UK programmers was they were alright.
Speaking personally, I was a bit surprised at the culture I experienced the first time I worked alongside younger American programmers, as opposed to my prior experiences with remote offshore teammembers, onshore H1B programmers, and the American greybeards from the earlier IT era.
In my general experience. I think with younger men in their twenties it can be a little difficult if management lets them get away with being a bit too unprofessional. They wanna prove themselves so sometimes a bit too much testorone in the room can cause a few arguments. Once everyone is past 30 that normally stops.
Indian developers in the UK have essentially got won the Willy Wonka Gold ticket as the salaries in the UK are much higher and they just work 12+ hours a day and keep their heads down. There is a higher number of female developers in my experience come over. But that could be just my impressions.
Personally I can't stand these tests either. I normally complete them fine.
However I've been to job interviews where they force me to code live in front of several people and I couldn't get half a line of code out before one of them will chip in with a "suggestion" breaking my train of thought. The code they want me to write is some algorithm that they have expected you to memorise.
I normally leave the interview frustrated and even when offered the job I turned them down because the hiring process has given me a bad taste.
Lack of controlling for anxiety is probably the biggest contributor to false negatives... At least you got the offer though.
On the interviewer side of the table, I had a candidate and there was a stretch of silence after they confirmed they understood the problem which I interrupted with "Is there anything I can help clarify?" (I can't observe internal state!) They asked me if I could be quiet for 5 minutes while they thought about the problem. That's fine, I did so. Maybe you can ask the same thing next time if interruptions come too frequently? If they don't respect the request to shut up, that's a useful signal to not work there too.
Lack of interviewer experience can also account for some of it. Unless everyone in a room with more than one interviewer has their turn at questions, I'd expect the silent ones to either be shadowing so they can interviewer, or be overseeing a former shadow take the reigns. I think an interviewer needs to do as little as 10 of them to run the style range of people who need some quiet time to silently think, to people who ask lots of questions, type some, ask more, type, to people who easily vocalize all their thought processes while typing things; the interviewer may also importantly see that despite the style differences the time to get to the same place (if they get there at all) doesn't vary by much...
I normally just wanna hack out a problem first, work out for myself what the short comings is with my first approach and then make all the relative changes.
However I've been to job interviews where they force me to code live in front of several people and I couldn't get half a line of code out before one of them will chip in with a "suggestion" breaking my train of thought. The code they want me to write is some algorithm that they have expected you to memorise.
This could actually be the test in itself. There seems to be a substantial contigent who believe that this is what a collaborative programming environment looks like, and they might actively want to select against people with a more shut-the-door-and-work-through-the-problem mindset. I'd argue that a pair programming exercise is probably better than whiteboarding-with-interruptions, but setting that up well is more work for the interviewer.
Edit: completely messed up the quoting in original!
Great point on this possibility... A big source of brokenness with tech interviews is that so many interviewers want to setup an interview (often adversarial, where the interviewer holds more cards) where candidates get ranked primarily on subjective hidden variables. If the real test isn't the given test, the interviewer sucks. Measure as directly as you can what you care about, whether it's technical criteria or softer criteria, and if the answer is on one candidate's resume but not another's, ask about it rather than assume the other doesn't have it. Want to know how the candidate collaborates? Prime them with that expectation, that the problem solving is a joint effort. Want to know how someone functions in the face of conflict? Ask about their experience with conflict and resolving it, rather than try to setup some conflict and seeing how they respond (or don't). Want to see if they can write a good unit test? Ask them to write some tests rather than saying something vague like "develop as you normally would". Whatever it is, the important part is making clear to the candidate as much as possible what is the hidden state in your head that you're using to evaluate them.
My own dream as candidate/interviewer is to spend some hours trying to solve an interesting problem together that neither of us has solved before. Unfortunately it's not repeatable for the interviewer (at least once it gets solved, until then there might be a way with a big problem to bootstrap a candidate to build on past candidate+interviewer's efforts), and even then its main use is judging "works with the interviewer well" when there are probably better things you should be measuring in most cases.
A slight aside. I had a really good coding assignment once.
It simply said "Make a working clone of this webpage, zip it up and file it to us".
I could have just nicked the jQuery code (this was before a lot of the frameworks have taken off and everyone abused jQuery and I worked at a place that used vanilla js for performance).
If the test is like that I have zero interest in working there.
This is for two reasons
1. I don't like silly games in interviews. You aren't respecting me or my time before I am working for you, you aren't likely to while I am working for you.
2. I personally like to be left alone while working on something. Then again I find scrum calls etc a total waste of time.
Also as I previously replied to your original statement capitalism != corporatism.
The large tech companies should have been broken up about 5 years ago.
The only reason that any of us have job is because capitalists in the 70s and 80s popularised computers so they were small enough and low enough in price for anyone to own. It really pains me that most are completely ignorant of anything that happened in computing before the mid-90s.
Regulation and Unions help corporations because it makes it raises the bar of difficultly for startups to enter any market.
As for working environment. I work from home and I freelance. I run a high end modern workstation with dual 4k screens, a nice sound system for music and my choice of caffeinated beverages. If you don't want to be a slave to the man, work for yourself.
> We have a problem with corporatism not capitalism.
In the U.S., we have a problem with something much closer to capitalism. (People occasionally indicate that it is a problem with “crony capitalism”, but cronyism has always been a feature or capitalism, it is not an aberration or alien feature.)
In China (and even maybe Mexico, though much moreso during the PRI one-party era) there is a problem with corporatism, which is not th same thing as (even crony) capitalism.
> Crony capitalism is an economy in which businesses thrive not as a result of risk, but rather as a return on money amassed through a nexus between a business class and the political class.
No crony capitalism is not a feature of capitalism. Crony capitalism is a feature of corporatism. You clearly don't understand the terms you are using.
China is a totalitarian state that as long as those businesses keep in line and bring enough benefit to the state (which is run by wealthy elites). Businesses are allowed to exist if they don't challenge this status quo. In China an individual has no property rights unlike most of the Anglo-sphere. This is because property rights are an important pre-requisite to many of the other rights we enjoy in the western world.
> No crony capitalism is not a feature of capitalism.
Yes, it's a feature of the real world system for which the term capitalism was coined by it's 19th Century critics, and it's been a prominent feature of every real example (including, to a varying extent, the modern mixed economies that have completely replaced the original system named “capitalism”, but retain significant elements of its structure, and are often referred to as “capitalism”.)
It may not be a feature of the incoherent and unworkable “ideal” capitalism dreamed up as a defense after the criticism in which “capitalism” was named, but that fantasy has little relevance to anything.
> Crony capitalism is a feature of corporatism.
No, it's not. Capitalism, crony or otherwise, isn't an essential feature or corporatism, though some versions of corporatism have encompassed elements of capitalism though sometimes at a fairly superficial level.
It's true that corporatism provides strong opportunities for cronyism, though.
> Yes, it's a feature of the real world system for which the term capitalism was coined by it's 19th Century critics, and it's been a prominent feature of every real example (including, to a varying extent, the modern mixed economies that have completely replaced the original system named “capitalism”, but retain significant elements of its structure,
and are often referred to as “capitalism”.)
Capitalism isn't really a system. It is just what comes about if people are allowed to trade freely and property rights are protected by the government/law enforcement. It is now recognised as an economic system.
I am not really wanting to get into a debate about Marxism. However the ideas that have spawed from Marxism probably killed 100 million people last century. So I don't really give much credence to them and you aren't going to convince me otherwise.
The mixed economies we have in Europe are frankly shite if you want to create your own business. In the UK I get taxed 4 times. I get have:
1. Corporation tax
2. Tax on withdrawing dividends
3. VAT Tax
4. Income tax.
Then if I employ other people full time. I have to setup a pension scheme because the Government (through collusion) bailed out the banking system and made everyone's state pensions worthless, which requires me employing more people I can't afford (as I am a one man band) to manage that. This has created the rise of more evil things like zero day contracts and the gig economy in the UK.
This means it is impossible in some circumstances to enter the market and grow if you are a smaller business because simply the overheads are too high. So there really isn't an open or competitive market.
So they aren't really capitalism either.
> It may not be a feature of the incoherent and unworkable “ideal” capitalism dreamed up as a defense after the criticism in which “capitalism” was named, but that fantasy has little relevance to anything.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Please be specific.
>No, it's not. Capitalism, crony or otherwise, isn't an essential feature or corporatism, though some versions of corporatism have encompassed elements of capitalism though sometimes at a fairly superficial level.
Err. I never said that. I originally said that capitalism wasn't corporatism. Crony capitalism isn't really capitalism because capitalism requires competitive markets.
"Crony capitalism is an economy in which businesses thrive not as a result of risk, but rather as a return on money amassed through a nexus between a business class and the political class."
This implies there isn't a competitive market. Therefore it isn't capitalism.
> I am not really wanting to get into a debate about Marxism. However the ideas that have spawed from Marxism probably killed 100 million people last century. So I don't really give much credence to them and you aren't going to convince me otherwise.
I don't believe anyone mentioned Marxism or Communism anywhere in this thread. But no matter...
I'd love to hear an analysis of all deaths that capitalism has caused. And yes, I'm counting wars over resources, starvation, lack of medical care.. You know, the same way capitalists count against communists. Lets compare apples to apples.
And for a statement: I don't believe communism is a way forward. It's a 200 year old idea, that when it was implemented multiple times, has ugly failure modes. And.. the citizens end up trading one master (capitalist) for another (communist overseer).
The rest of this "Crony" vs "Corporate" seems like a word definition war. How about some good definitions before we move on.
Critiques of Capitalism was specifically mentioned, Marx is pretty much the most influential one.
Capitalism has brought a huge population of the world out of poverty in the last century.
Wars over resources isn't capitalism, most starvation last century was caused by communism. Lack of medical care, I have no idea what this has to do with free trade and property rights. On the subject of healthcare, I live in the UK and the NHS fails to deliver adequate care and constantly doesn't meet targets, even though there is an ever increasing amount of tax payers money invested in it. So social healthcare doesn't work and the NHS is probably one of the better examples in the world.
Capitalism is just the results of free trade and property rights.
> And.. the citizens end up trading one master (capitalist) for another (communist overseer).
What are you talking about? If you live in a capitalist system in the west you have individual rights and property rights. Nobody is your master, anyone can start their own business and be their own boss.
If you wanna work for a large megacorp so be it. Not for me, I started my own small IT business. I make enough monthly to pay myself a decent pension (funded by myself), my own healthcare and buy myself property next year (just a regular house nothing fancy but it is mine, I won't be renting anymore if all goes well).
> The rest of this "Crony" vs Corporate" seems like a word definition war. How about some good definitions before we move on
I have given the correct definitions and have linked or quoted them in my replies. You can look them up, I have used the common definitions. Our other friend I have no idea what definitions he was using.
> Critiques of Capitalism was specifically mentioned, Marx is pretty much the most influential one.
Again, one can critique a system (Capitalism) without forwarding some other system (Communism).
> Capitalism has brought a huge population of the world out of poverty in the last century.
And we can't even AB test this. We don't know how it would have fared with strong constitutional monarchies, or more democracy, or what-have-you.
This statement is a tautology. It sounds good to capitalists, but is effectively unprovable against other systems we have.
> Wars over resources isn't capitalism, most starvation last century was caused by communism. Lack of medical care, I have no idea what this has to do with free trade and property rights. On the subject of healthcare, I live in the UK and the NHS fails to deliver adequate care and constantly doesn't meet targets, even though there is an ever increasing amount of tax payers money invested in it. So social healthcare doesn't work and the NHS is probably one of the better examples in the world.
Again, when capitalists compare deaths, its deflected and obfuscated with other justifications that it isn't indeed capitalism that causes it. But as you ask, what does this have to do with "free trade and property rights"? Its because free trade and property rights are the initial conditions. Yet when we look at first and second derivatives of where those rules lead, it leads to the abuses and horrific uses of power. Communists have no corner on violence, btw. The US military was moved in multiple times to bust up worker protests and strikes... And they usually killed quite a few people. Again, 2nd derivative action.
And about NHS, "So social healthcare doesn't work and the NHS is probably one of the better examples in the world." Let me get this straight - -because 1 system has "failed" (your definition of failure, undefined), that NO social healthcare can work? Pretty sure there's a problem with that logic.
> Capitalism is just the results of free trade and property rights.
As initial conditions, sure. I'm talking about how those base rules expand and lead to logical rules from them. You've seen Conway's Game of Life? They are simple rules as well, but contain all sorts of emergent behavior. I'm only saying that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and further derived rules of capitalism are not healthy and good for society.
I'm not positing communism. If anything, I would put forth worker cooperatives as a possible interim solution. That would change the dynamic of work from a dictatorship to that of democracy. Democracies aren't always better, but dictatorships are usually regarded as terrible things.
> If you wanna work for a large megacorp so be it. Not for me, I started my own small IT business. I make enough monthly to pay myself a decent pension (funded by myself), my own healthcare and buy myself property next year (just a regular house nothing fancy but it is mine, I won't be renting anymore if all goes well).
Maybe we aren't clear. When I talk about capitalists, I'm not taking of an IT worker, retail worker, or even a middle manager. I'm talking of the people/organizations that own the bulk of property and/or own most the money or resources. I'm talking "banking crisis, 2008" type of people/orgs. Those are the capitalists.
In the end, you may do better or worse than other IT workers. I hope you do well. But, the ugly truth is that you are (in the UK) fighting against others in your same boat, for the few scraps. And that fighting is what fractures us. We see the same with Uber (cab), that pits driver against driver, for the same few scraps.
TBH mate. It seems you are incapable of having a sensible discussion about any of this. You seem to use your own definitions to words that don't match up with any sensible term that can be found online anywhere and then claim I haven't defined a success criteria when I did. This will be my last post to you.
1. The deaths under communism (of which there were millions were directly caused by communism). In the Soviet Union, Land was taken from the peasants that had finally got themselves some property and those that protested were killed. The land was then given to those that didn't know how to farm it. Millions died.
In Maoist china there was "The great leap forward" again there was a massive famine because of Agricultural collectivisation. Part of this was the four pests campaign. Millions died, we are talking 25-40 million people.
I am not even counting things like the holodomore yet.
All of these were a direct consequences of the collectivisation and tyrannical communist system.
Your complaints about the negatives of capitalism are simply vagaries about secondary effects and the odd time that Western powers have been tyrannical. It is neither convincing or provides a base for sensible discussion. it is simply what-aboutery when you consider the number of people that perished. Also you are using the term capitalist incorrectly yet again.
As for the claim am obfuscating issues away. I can point directly to policies/order made by tyrants that led to the death or millions. In response I get vagaries back about secondary effects.
This sort of comparison is a complete nonsense.
2 Regarding the NHS and to quote you "your definition of failure, undefined". I had defined it. They had consistently missed targets for a number of years despite cash injections. Almost anyone sensible would say that was a failure.
3. Again more vagaries about secondary effects. This is how you fix those secondary effects, you put in sensible legislation / regulation. BTW the un-intended consequence of the "Four pest campaign" is that many well known insects that destroyed crops had no natural predators (in this case I believe it was sparrows IIRC). So the unintended consequence of a policy I can directly point that killed 25-40 million people, yet you present to be vagaries about health care and wars which maybe tangentially related to the economics of capitalism.
Read some history, read some philosophy and get your terminology correct please.
4.
> I'm talking of the people/organizations that own the bulk of property and/or own most the money or resources. I'm talking "banking crisis, 2008" type of people/orgs. Those are the capitalists.
You are using the term capitalists incorrectly yet again. A capitalist is some that simply believes in free trade, wage labour and the pre-requisites like individual rights and property rights. You mean a social political elite and banking cartels. BTW your views align more with Steve Bannon btw.
5. Thank you for the well wishes. I have taken my destiny into my own hands. I work freelance and my fortunes are wholly up to me. If it doesn't work out well there is a whole world of opportunities out there I am a fairly smart person.
2) Two it creates fragmentation. Fragmentation creates defects and incompatibilities.
As I gotten older I pretty much realised that unless it is backed by a professional company I am not using it. There has been consistent stream of fiasco, drama and general unprofessional bullshit in the realm of open source I am quite happy I've mostly stuck to doing the majority of my work with .NET and SQL Server.