| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 40 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 18:13:58 |
| Calls: | 291 |
| Files: | 910 |
| Messages: | 76,593 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 09:44:59 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
I'm getting to the point where I'm not so much a Linux advocate. When
someone says they like Windows better, I just kind of shrug my shoulders >>> and say, "Okay." The only that bothers me is when I'm told that Linux is >>> hard to use, or requires constant tweaking. That's simply not the case
for me. Never has been (at least from 2007 when I started using it as my >>> main OS). There were challenges in the 90s and early 2000s. (Which is
partly why I didn't stick with it until about 2007.)
As I've mentioned I use both Windows and various Linux distros with very
much the same workload on both OSs. Unless you persistently screw yourself >> like FuddNut, I don't see any difference in usability. Sure, you can get
into Linux esoterica but it isn't a necessity like it was 25 years ago.
I see a big difference in usability, because I can completely customize Linux to my workflow. Windows? No so much.
Merry Christmas!
On 2024-12-23, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
Le 2024-12-23 à 01:04, RonB a écrit :
On 2024-12-22, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
Le 2024-12-22 à 05:09, Stéphane CARPENTIER a écrit :My kids have tried to get me interested in some of the games they play. The >>> graphics are pretty impressive sometimes, but the games, themselves, often >>> seem kind of repetitious and boring. It seems like they're doing the same >>> thing, over and over again.
Le 21-12-2024, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> a écrit :
And: All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
Agreed. Now, a computer is not mandatory to play. There are other
possibilities.
I have to agree here. I just got a new monitor yesterday and both my
computer and Xbox Series S are plugged into it. I'm sure that the same >>>> game running from the computer would look better than it does coming
from the console, but the games still look fantastic and I doubt that
some additional polygons would multiply the amount of fun one can have. >>>> Besides, there are console exclusives like NHL that make it preferable. >>>
I would tell you that the one game which might have a chance of
interesting you is Geometry Wars. It is simple, addictive, easy to
understand the first time you play and it should even work without issue
in Linux.
I never was very good at these kind of games. I haven't gotten any better as I've aged. It looks kind of like a more elaborate version of Astroids from the old arcade days.
Well, I can tell you that there are certain advanced features people
need in Microsoft Office which seem to be unavailable to LibreOffice
users. Of course, they might just be somewhere else in the open suite,
like when I received a document with forms in .DOCX and had someone here
convert it to the equivalent in .ODT. At the same time, I don't use any
of the advanced features so LibreOffice has always been more than enough
for me. The only reason I use Microsoft's suite is because I got a
license for cheap. I can also use the 365 license I get from work for
free. Since I routinely receive documents from them to fill out, I have
no proper use for Libre.
I guess I've never had any use for these advanced features. All I know is that, when we would get Word Documents at the print shop, we had a heck of a time cleaning them up for Desk Top Application. Lot of hidden code.
In my opinion M$ Office is bloated crapware that tries to "think" for you. >>> But I was only occasionally forced to use it so I never got in stuck in the >>> "inertia loop."
I would extend that to Windows itself too. The way it has implemented AI
makes it clear that they don't want you thinking. Of course, there are
certain places where I appreciate the AI like in Brave Search or Bing
Search. There, if there is a certain technological question like what is
the benefit of one monitor over another, the engine quickly scours the
web for information and summarizes the data for me. That is much easier
than navigating to a bunch of websites which cannon a series of ads at me.
I turn off AI in my searches. I don't know about Brave or Bing, but in Firefox you just add the udm14 add-on and AI results are gone in Google.
My wife uses Power Point. She originally used it because a template she
purchased only worked with Power Point. Now she's used to using it, so
she'll probably keep using it as long as she needs to prepare classes. Just >>> the way it works. People use what they're used to using. Inertia.
That's why so many still use the inferior Microsoft Windows crap OS.
I can't argue that habit plays a big part in what people choose to use.
At the same time, that's why I usually load Linux Mint for whatever user
I help: it's not that unfamiliar.
Linux Mint is often suggested for those moving from Windows because it does work similarly (at least at the Desktop level). I'm sure that design is not by accident.
On 2024-12-23, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
Le 2024-12-23 à 01:30, RonB a écrit :
On 2024-12-22, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
Le 2024-12-22 à 01:06, rbowman a écrit :
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 05:25:09 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
On 2024-12-21, Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:
RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
The reason they use Windows is because it runs Microsoft Office (and >>>>>>>> businesses are "married" to this crap) and Microsoft's has leverage >>>>>>>> with the computer manufacturers. Monopolies have a lot of inertia >>>>>>>> that's hard to overcome. But you'll note that, for development >>>>>>>> purposes, Microsoft is now including Linux in Windows. There's a >>>>>>>> reason for that. And, as software moves to the "rental" phase and more >>>>>>>> and more of the applications move to the "Cloud", there will be less >>>>>>>> and less necessity to use Windows.No purchasing manager was ever fired for specifying Microsoft.
I wouldn't bet on it.
Leaving out the cloud I have to agree. Microsoft and the availability of >>>>> Microsoft Certified Whatevers makes pointy headed bosses sleep better at >>>>> night.
It's the same argument as the one that was made as to why IBM won over >>>> superior platforms in the 1980s. At the very least, anyone who suggests >>>> Microsoft can't be reprimanded because the boss knows that they will be >>>> able to find a ton of people who can use the well-known software as well >>>> as a ton of techs who can troubleshoot it. Even if they can't afford
that staff, there is lots of help online for most problems if they
search for it. That doesn't mean that the operating system is
necessarily better; it simply means that businesses take a lot less risk >>>> in choosing one over the other.
I've always mentioned that I believe that in fields like education and >>>> finance, everyone would be better off using open-source though. For
finance, you need a robust kernel and a filesystem which resists bit-rot >>>> to keep those records. There shouldn't be a need to back up data daily >>>> for fear that your records will corrupt (even though it is still clearly >>>> smart to do so). Similarly, in education, if the public system desires >>>> removing all financial barriers to learning, doesn't it make sense to
run an operating system which can be deployed to even the most
affordable hardware at no performance penalty and prioritize the use of >>>> software which can be downloaded at no charge? I've actually asked this >>>> many times in the past and the answer has always been that maintaining >>>> the Linux servers is more costly and time-consuming to the technicians. >>>> I imagine that it is because the slightest change in configuration
causes chaos across the board.
First off, what happened to all those people who kept suggesting IBM was a >>> "no brainer" when it sank?
By the time IBM sank, all of the standards they have introduced except
for PS/2 (for mice and keyboards) had already been abandoned.
Third-parties were already making better PCs than IBM was so suggesting
that company was no longer necessary. However, even if people chose to
suggest IBM anyway, they would have gotten ThinkPads which were
spectacular computers. Only the IBM hard disks became notoriously awful
by the end.
I just brought up IBM because they used to say the same thing about them. "You can't go wrong suggesting IBM."
Second, do you really think important databases run on MicroSlop? Windows >>> might be the front-end, but I'm willing to bet that most corporations run >>> SQL under Linux servers for their important records. You've heard of Oracle,
right? (Not endorsing them, but they're the world's largest database
company, I believe. They have their own "flavor" of Red Hat.)
I'm becoming increasingly aware of how ubiquitous Linux is. Clearly, it
has made inroads in areas where failure is not an option. I'm not
against using it again, especially if sticking to Windows introduces new
issues like the fTPM stuttering I mentioned before (I don't think Linux
necessarily resolves this issue as much as offers ways to circumvent it
which are not available to Windows users).
I'm getting to the point where I'm not so much a Linux advocate. When
someone says they like Windows better, I just kind of shrug my shoulders and say, "Okay." The only that bothers me is when I'm told that Linux is hard to use, or requires constant tweaking. That's simply not the case for me. Never has been (at least from 2007 when I started using it as my main OS). There were challenges in the 90s and early 2000s. (Which is partly why I didn't stick with it until about 2007.)
On 2024-12-27, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
On 2024-12-24 04:39, RonB wrote:
< snip >
Well, I can tell you that there are certain advanced features people
need in Microsoft Office which seem to be unavailable to LibreOffice
users. Of course, they might just be somewhere else in the open suite, >>>> like when I received a document with forms in .DOCX and had someone here >>>> convert it to the equivalent in .ODT. At the same time, I don't use any >>>> of the advanced features so LibreOffice has always been more than enough >>>> for me. The only reason I use Microsoft's suite is because I got a
license for cheap. I can also use the 365 license I get from work for
free. Since I routinely receive documents from them to fill out, I have >>>> no proper use for Libre.
I guess I've never had any use for these advanced features. All I know is >>> that, when we would get Word Documents at the print shop, we had a heck of a
time cleaning them up for Desk Top Application. Lot of hidden code.
I believe that is part of the reason why legal offices still prefer
WordPerfect Office over Microsoft's software.
I think WordPerfect also has special templates for lawyers. And, I'm guessing, it's inertia thing again. WordPerfect got popular for lawyers, so they keep using it.
I turn off AI in my searches. I don't know about Brave or Bing, but inIn my opinion M$ Office is bloated crapware that tries to "think" for you.
But I was only occasionally forced to use it so I never got in stuck in the
"inertia loop."
I would extend that to Windows itself too. The way it has implemented AI >>>> makes it clear that they don't want you thinking. Of course, there are >>>> certain places where I appreciate the AI like in Brave Search or Bing
Search. There, if there is a certain technological question like what is >>>> the benefit of one monitor over another, the engine quickly scours the >>>> web for information and summarizes the data for me. That is much easier >>>> than navigating to a bunch of websites which cannon a series of ads at me. >>>
Firefox you just add the udm14 add-on and AI results are gone in Google.
I'm a big fan of Brave's AI, to be honest. When I was looking up the
fTPM problem I mentioned in a previous post, it saved me a lot of time
by telling me what people were saying, how to fix it, whether or not
Linux is affected and so on. Had I been forced to read all that content
on my own, I'd probably get discouraged. In fact, I might never have
learned that the Linux kernel actually addresses the problem and allows
you to circumvent the issue entirely.
I've been using Firefox for so long that I don't think I would want to move away from it. I can customize so it's very minimal and that's something I _do_ do on new installs, get Firefox working the way I like it.
My impression of AI is just not very good. It always sounds like an informercial to me. And it pisses me off that these AI server farms use as much power as whole cities and not a damn peep (or very muted whining) about it from the climate screechers — who keep trying to get us (personally) to use less and less power. I guess the AI server farms are more important than people.
My wife uses Power Point. She originally used it because a template she >>>>> purchased only worked with Power Point. Now she's used to using it, so >>>>> she'll probably keep using it as long as she needs to prepare classes. Just
the way it works. People use what they're used to using. Inertia.
That's why so many still use the inferior Microsoft Windows crap OS.
I can't argue that habit plays a big part in what people choose to use. >>>> At the same time, that's why I usually load Linux Mint for whatever user >>>> I help: it's not that unfamiliar.
Linux Mint is often suggested for those moving from Windows because it does >>> work similarly (at least at the Desktop level). I'm sure that design is not >>> by accident.
I chose Fedora this time around because www.asus-linux.org offers a
comprehensive guide for the distribution to make sure that everything
you want works as it should on your hardware. I chose the KDE flavour
and it more or less behaves like a snappier Windows.
I could use Fedora (especially with the Cinnamon spin) without much trouble. Synaptic is better than Fedora's install application and Linux Mint has nice little utilities built-in, but (for when it matters) you're trading "cutting edge" for a little more convenience. (A trade I don't mind making.) In
Linux Mint, if I install EasyEffects (for example), I'll have to use FlatPak instead of the repository (at least in version 21). So there's pros and
cons.
On 2024-12-27, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
On 2024-12-24 04:44, RonB wrote:
On 2024-12-23, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
Le 2024-12-23 à 01:30, RonB a écrit :
On 2024-12-22, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
Le 2024-12-22 à 01:06, rbowman a écrit :
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 05:25:09 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
On 2024-12-21, Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:
RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:I wouldn't bet on it.
The reason they use Windows is because it runs Microsoft Office (and >>>>>>>>>> businesses are "married" to this crap) and Microsoft's has leverage >>>>>>>>>> with the computer manufacturers. Monopolies have a lot of inertia >>>>>>>>>> that's hard to overcome. But you'll note that, for development >>>>>>>>>> purposes, Microsoft is now including Linux in Windows. There's a >>>>>>>>>> reason for that. And, as software moves to the "rental" phase and moreNo purchasing manager was ever fired for specifying Microsoft. >>>>>>>>
and more of the applications move to the "Cloud", there will be less >>>>>>>>>> and less necessity to use Windows.
Leaving out the cloud I have to agree. Microsoft and the availability of
Microsoft Certified Whatevers makes pointy headed bosses sleep better at
night.
It's the same argument as the one that was made as to why IBM won over >>>>>> superior platforms in the 1980s. At the very least, anyone who suggests >>>>>> Microsoft can't be reprimanded because the boss knows that they will be >>>>>> able to find a ton of people who can use the well-known software as well >>>>>> as a ton of techs who can troubleshoot it. Even if they can't afford >>>>>> that staff, there is lots of help online for most problems if they >>>>>> search for it. That doesn't mean that the operating system is
necessarily better; it simply means that businesses take a lot less risk >>>>>> in choosing one over the other.
I've always mentioned that I believe that in fields like education and >>>>>> finance, everyone would be better off using open-source though. For >>>>>> finance, you need a robust kernel and a filesystem which resists bit-rot >>>>>> to keep those records. There shouldn't be a need to back up data daily >>>>>> for fear that your records will corrupt (even though it is still clearly >>>>>> smart to do so). Similarly, in education, if the public system desires >>>>>> removing all financial barriers to learning, doesn't it make sense to >>>>>> run an operating system which can be deployed to even the most
affordable hardware at no performance penalty and prioritize the use of >>>>>> software which can be downloaded at no charge? I've actually asked this >>>>>> many times in the past and the answer has always been that maintaining >>>>>> the Linux servers is more costly and time-consuming to the technicians. >>>>>> I imagine that it is because the slightest change in configuration >>>>>> causes chaos across the board.
First off, what happened to all those people who kept suggesting IBM was a
"no brainer" when it sank?
By the time IBM sank, all of the standards they have introduced except >>>> for PS/2 (for mice and keyboards) had already been abandoned.
Third-parties were already making better PCs than IBM was so suggesting >>>> that company was no longer necessary. However, even if people chose to >>>> suggest IBM anyway, they would have gotten ThinkPads which were
spectacular computers. Only the IBM hard disks became notoriously awful >>>> by the end.
I just brought up IBM because they used to say the same thing about them. >>> "You can't go wrong suggesting IBM."
Second, do you really think important databases run on MicroSlop? Windows >>>>> might be the front-end, but I'm willing to bet that most corporations run >>>>> SQL under Linux servers for their important records. You've heard of Oracle,
right? (Not endorsing them, but they're the world's largest database >>>>> company, I believe. They have their own "flavor" of Red Hat.)
I'm becoming increasingly aware of how ubiquitous Linux is. Clearly, it >>>> has made inroads in areas where failure is not an option. I'm not
against using it again, especially if sticking to Windows introduces new >>>> issues like the fTPM stuttering I mentioned before (I don't think Linux >>>> necessarily resolves this issue as much as offers ways to circumvent it >>>> which are not available to Windows users).
I'm getting to the point where I'm not so much a Linux advocate. When
someone says they like Windows better, I just kind of shrug my shoulders and
say, "Okay." The only that bothers me is when I'm told that Linux is hard to
use, or requires constant tweaking. That's simply not the case for me. Never
has been (at least from 2007 when I started using it as my main OS). There >>> were challenges in the 90s and early 2000s. (Which is partly why I didn't >>> stick with it until about 2007.)
I'll be honest: Linux is easier to set up on hardware than Windows. In
fact, even hardware encryption is easier to set up on Linux than it is
on Windows. I just wish I hadn't already gone through the process with
Microsoft's OS because I'm at a loss as to how to "take ownership" of my
nvme to complete the encryption process in Linux. Despite the fact that
the nvme's PSID was reverted and the drive was erased securely, it still
seems to have a tie to Windows. No matter.
I stay away from encryption, so can't be any help here.