I just wish something could be done about it all.
I prefer my media from an ethical source, which means mkv on a usb stick. Even if I paid for the streaming service already.
My next PC I am making the switch.
Bonus: you add years to the useful life of the machine, because most Linuxes fly even when Windows chugs.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30585462
It is 15 minutes, if nothing goes wrong and you know what you are doing. If something goes wrong and you are not native with the terminal - good luck.
This sounds to me like it is all easy and if it takes longer than 15 minutes, it is my fault for not being focused.
Well, as a matter of fact, I did install linux on various devices, dozen of times. And with my own customized manjaro install usb stick even in less than 15 minutes, with all my needed software up and running.
But I would never, ever tell anyone that he can expect a flawless install in 15 minutes. This is not realistic. It may happen, if you are lucky - but there are too many buggy drivers and compatibility issues and even official mainstream distros getting shipped with major open bugs, that this advise is just receipt for disapointement.
The upgrader/installers are not perfect but it’s hardly so difficult that software developer would find it daunting.
Not all Steam games are available, but enough are to keep you busy.
I'm a developer. I am also exclusively a nix/BSD user for about the past decade; my machines, servers, my wife's laptop, my work laptop etc, all nix/bsd.
When I bought my personal XPS 13 I contacted DELL customer support to buy a "Developer" version, it took 3 weeks to ship because they had to build it, rather than provide an off-the-shelf box with Windows pre-installed, but I saved something like £43.
It's not about the money, but I would rather have it in my pocket than give it to Microsoft for some software I _really_ don't want (or need).
Side note, I'm planning on buying a Framework next.
Linux UX convention relies on the terminal as a matter of course. Almost everything not in the package manager requires use of the terminal. Even many of the package managed applications require tweaks and configuration via terminal. It's an open secret that package managers are largely inferior to the terminal anyway, in every distribution. The almost universal response to "I am having an issue with the package manager" is "use terminal." Bottom line: terminal is far less user friendly than an object oriented environment, and is often much slower. Until a flavour of Linux exists which never ever, for any reason ever, requires the use of the terminal, Linux will remain in the low single digits in terms of consumer market share. I don't think this will change, because if you ask the average Linux developer what they think of the terminal convention, they love it, and they think users just need to stop sucking so much.
I use it for my parents, after they got fed up with Windows warnings and pop-ups for Windows 10 upgrade.
I am not sure they full understand they are using Linux, they just assume it is a 'free' windows version.
There are some more extra bells and whistles, as well as service support, in the pro version but I haven't used those in my family computers so I can't comment on that.
I don't want to be dismissive, Zorin is a massive effort but it is mostly a DE change, but it's a DE where they actually thought of the typical non-technical user and cater brilliantly to that.
I will be honest with you: I don't expect Zorin to have solved the CLI problem. For example, Radarr is an extremely popular tool for managing movies. It connects to usenet and torrent clients, as well as indexers and movie databases. It makes maintaining a home movie collection seamless.
Radarr is not in major package managers, and requires the CLI for install (https://wiki.servarr.com/radarr/installation#linux). In Windows, I double click an .exe. On Zorin (I assume) I will have to follow a reasonably complicated and time consuming installation process, full of opportunities to misconfigure the install.
This is just one example of many. Radarr isn't a super hardcore 1337 program. It's a very common application aimed at everyone who runs Plex. Until Zorin has a .exe equivalent for all applications like this, it's just not going to be a competitor to Windows, for users who need more than just a web browser, and those who are not IT administrators.
Makes it easy to try before you commit to dual booting.
On its own that may not seem like much, but the screws are being turned (albeit slowly). We'll reach a point where the only way to access any proprietary content on the web will also require running proprietary operating systems on DRM enabled hardware using secure boot. Banking sites won't work, video playback won't work, even access to textual content will eventually be restricted. This is because the browser vendors, the OS vendors, and the content distribution platforms are all colluding to create this future.
Linux on the desktop doesn't have enough users to push back in a meaningful way against this trend at this point (and I say that as a Linux user). 10 years ago, maybe, but now it's simply too late. Sure you'll still be able to run open source software on your Linux PC, and write your own code and run it, but you'll be prevented from accessing huge chunks of the Internet.
The only way would be to either 1) revolt against capitalism or 2) try to reform copyright law.
But as we all know the US is the most worshipful of capitalist ideology.
Software coming under copyright allows companies to remove out rights because we never got any property rights for software and games. That allows them to encrypt binaries and make computers that obey them and not us.
So you could call the FTC and launch an anti-trust complaint. https://www.ftc.gov/
Because DRM is vendor lockin when you get down to it.
At some point the only option will be to use something like an rPi with a Linux and only interact with the culture made from the next punk movement. Or, targeted violence somewhere. But where.
I think both 1 and 2 are ripe for action. The right person can explain that the assumptions we’ve been sold about capitalism no longer resemble truth and we need to change the rules so they do.
There's no other way then private power being co-owned with the rest of society, aka there are certain things private individuals and companies can't engage in. That is the only explanation because corporations have state like powers at scale which all effect us. So capitalist ideology is still the root cause, there is no other alternative. AKA bobby kotick can say to his employee's "make games with drm" and the employee's must obey or be fired, that is the fundamnetal problem with capitalism in a nutshell. If someone who owns a powerful business is a giant dick there's no way to push back unless you give up the idea of owernship being in the hands of one or a small group of owners that can simply compel our obedience to their rules.
Wrong. Company ownership is perfectly democratic.
> need to have some ownership share over the company because it effects us politically
This happens now with share ownership.
> AKA bobby kotick can say to his employee's "make games with drm" and the employee's must obey or be fired, that is the fundamnetal problem with capitalism in a nutshell.
Every single time communism has been tried, it inevitably ends up that ultimate power rests in the hands of a few. It turns out way, way worse than capitalism, and belief that scrapping capitalism in favour of socialism (which Lenin stated is the path to communism) or jumping straight to communism, is always - always! - from either young idealistic but naive people, or believed by older people who never grew out of their earlier naive disgruntlement.
Besides which, I still believe now in my early 50's that what we have now isn't capitalism at all; it's more akin to corporatism. It's certainly not lassez-faire capitalism.
No it doesn't, you can not own shares in a company and still have it affect you. You can also own shares and have no voting rights, either.
Share ownership is, as it stands, undemocratic in the sense that there is no democratic decision making by all of those who are affected by a company. And a model where wealth decides how many votes you get isn't very democratic, either.
The issue in many cases is _corruption_ which will exist whatever you do (there's always a snake in the garden) so the trick is to implement the right legislation to control it and ensure freedom...
...which admittedly is easier said than done!
It's not because a lot of shares end up owned by one of the few large ETF/pension plan administrators: in 88% of the S&P 500 companies [1], Vanguard/BlackRock/State Street together own the majority of the shares, and at least the passive ETF-held parts usually do not participate in voting which means that tiny "activist" investors now have a lot more vote percentage than they should.
Not to mention corporates with different share classes where the ones with voting rights are to a large degree privately held and the ones traded publicly do not have vote rights, such as Tesla [2].
> Every single time communism has been tried, it inevitably ends up that ultimate power rests in the hands of a few.
So where's the difference to the current situation, where those with the "ultimate powers" in society are effectively under control of their party donors? At least in communism, everyone had a right to a home to live in and to a decent employment matching his skill (see e.g. Art 24 sec. 1 of the Constitution of the former GDR [3]).
[1]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-and-politic...
[2]: https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/how-elon-musk-con...
[3]: https://www.kas.de/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=9c5c691c...
Also, non-public companies exist.
Heck - even functioning trade unions (not crippled as they are in the UK and US) provide a form of democratic check on individual companies.
The mistake is to paint this as a black or white choice, which tendency in the US is driven by hysteria media reporting of any policy which doesn't suit the needs of big business and rich elites.
When discussed without stupid names and branding, most people are open to discussing some of the ideas you are presenting. But the moment you call it socialism you are going to lose people, especially Americans. Because a lot of people have been murdered in the name of socialism.
When we look at Germany and their universal healthcare system, it was developed in the 1880's under Otto von Bismarck and their monarchy in a direct response to the fears of a Marx-inspired socialist uprising.
A lot of what developed in Europe was inspired by Marx and socialist organizing and developments on the continent.
I'd add that we also enshrined money as equivalent to speech, effectively allowing corporations and the rich to run much of our politics [2].
[1] https://ptolemy3.medium.com/but-corporations-are-private-com...
Since (2) precludes the need for (1) and, hence, shows (1) is irrelevant to the discussion, and to do (1) would be an immense act of self harm akin to sticking one's fingers in one's eyes, repeatedly, for all time, I'll take (2), thanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act#/...
Corporations got their way every time over the last 200 years. There has never been a time where copyright was pared back in the public interest.
If only the government prevented you and I from exchanging goods and services, all our problems would be solved, says the Communist.