Comments by "Seegal Galguntijak" (@Seegalgalguntijak) on "Rob Braxman Tech" channel.

  1. 50
  2. 21
  3. Thanks for this comprehensible explanation! I've been using Linux on a desktop since 2006, and there were maybe two or three times when I've had to run a compiler, and none past, say, 2015. Here's my history with Desktop Linux: I've started with Debian Etch (and parallel to that, also Kubuntu 6.06 for a short time - back in KDE 3.5 times, I was a KDE fan), then Lenny when Etch became stable and Testing was "freezed" feature-wise. Then at some time, there came KDE4, so I switched to Gnome2 and with that also to Ubuntu, I think it was 9.04 at first, which I then upgraded to 10.04 LTS. Starting with 12.04 however, they introduced their new Unity desktop, which I didn't like, so I was looking around for what I wanted to use and ending up with Mint because of the Cinnamon desktop environment, which was still configurable to look and act like a modernized version of Gnome2 (MATE wasn't a thing yet back then, and later on when it existed, I found it to look somewhat out of date). Mint always had some disadvantages over Ubuntu, like not including kernel updates by default (never had a problem with doing them anyways), and also no dist-upgrades, which they later on started changing towards better solutions (although the warning about kernel updates are still unnnecessary in my opinion, and the dist-upgrade is currently still as much work or more as reinstalling the system). At the same time however, Ubuntu became worse and worse, with switching from Unity to Gnome3, which completely threw all known-to-me concepts of GUI usage over board, not offering an official Cinnamon flavour, and most recently the introduction of the proprietary SNAP package format. Oh, SNAP packages and the package manager can still be open source, but the only server that will ever distribute snap packages is run and owned by Canonical, and it is not open source software. So they want their gatekeeper role of software distribution, and I cannot accept that, therefore nowadays I always advise against Ubuntu, even for people who think their GUI is good. It's just inacceptable. Plus, I once installed a calculator app via snap on a PC (not mine), and it was somewhere around 25MB (I was like WTF is wrong here, this should be only a few kB or maybe a Meg or two), and when I clicked onto the launcher for the program to load, it took something like 30 seconds to load a zucking calculator! So it's slow, meaning resource inefficient and therefore absolutely out of the race. Hence: No Ubuntu here. Mint fortunately uses Flatpak, which at least is a truely free package format, where everybody can set up their own flatpak repository to distribute their own software... I thought about trying Arch or Manjaro, but in reality, I'm lazy, and why try something new when the thing I've got works so well for me? On my home server, I run Debian, because it has no GUI, it runs my Nextcloud to function as the backend of my phone. Although, I think I'm still on Buster there and should probably upgrade it to Bullseye...darn laziness! ;)
    20
  4. 19
  5. 19
  6. 17
  7. 10
  8. 7
  9. 5
  10. 5
  11. 4
  12. 4
  13. 4
  14. 4
  15. 4
  16. 3
  17. 3
  18. 2
  19. 2
  20. 2
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. 2
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1
  51. 1
  52. ​ @DerekDavis213  I agree with your opinion about Macs, but let me give you an example of your initial question: Windows showed the "Desktop" as the uppermost level of its file hierarchy, while in truth it was first bureid under "C:\DOKUME~1\...." etc and now it's buried under "C:\Users\....something" - it's just an utter lie, how they structure even the most basic structure of their GUI. These are things that Android is by the way also guilty of, like often making it overly difficult to find out the real path to a file, when only showing it in an app, so you can view/open the file, but can't actually use it (as in copying it or doing whatever with it), these are things that just aren't necessary and are only there in order to make it harder for the user. Hiding the concepts of basic operation so that the user doesn't learn anything, and then doesn't even know how to help themselves often with the most simple things. And then there's stuff where Windows could just be better, but it isn't being used, like the file privileges of NTFS and stuff. And no, I don't have any "bugs of day-to-day-use" in Linux. Or at least none that I didn't chose (i.e. I connect to my Synology via sshfs instead of SMB, because why use a non-native protocol, and there my file manager actually has a rare bug if reconnecting when the machine went into S3 and woke up again without properly unmounting the sshfs connection, but I know that and it's easily worked around, and it doesn't even occur daily). Also, I have set up several PCs for friends, some of which use Windows (i.e. because they need special software that only runs on Windows), and others were okay with Linux. The funny thing is: Most of the time, when one of these friends calls me because something about their computer doesn't work the way they want it to, it's those who run Windows, while those who run Linux usually don't have any problems, because their computer just works. OK, these are all people who really don't know anything about computers, so they don't even change anything about their systems or install new software, they mostly just use a browser, LibreOffice or MS Office, and that's about it. Here I can clearly see that, if Linux is set up right once, it'll run for years without ever having any problems, except clicking to install updates every couple days. With Windows, it's most of the time the case that after a certain amount of years, it'll need to be reinstalled, or "cleaned" as in removing malware/adware or other crap that has been added through their use of the internet, clicking on stuff not knowing what they do. So in a way, in order to use Windows effectively and not slowly break it along the way, you have to be much more knowledgable than with Linux.
    1
  53. ​ @DerekDavis213  I used Windows 3.0, 3.11, 95, 98SE, NT4.0 and 2K. Didn't even switch to XP, because every new version hid what was truely going on in the PC a bit better from the user. In 2006, I stopped using Windows, and I'm happy that now I have an OS that gives me all access, and which doesn't use GUI to obscure knowledge about how computers work. I think this is geared deliberately towards "dumbing down" its users, because that way, users can be more easily incapacitated from doing what they want with their machines, I reference the 2013 talk "The coming war on general computation" (or something like that) by Cory Doctorow. Granted, I have to chose which hardware I buy with regards of Linux compatibility, but that hasn't ever really limited me in what I can do. Plus, I just don't like the way of thinking you need to apply in order to operate a Windows machine - starting with small things like drive letters or mouse-wheel-scrolling not happening where the mouse cursor is located, but instead in the window which has the focus. But also that you basically learn "click orders" in order to achieve certain things (mostly administrative in nature), instead of learning how the system really works. In contrast to that, I'm really happy with a system that's totally open to me as the user in regards of its intrecate functionalities, so it's all logically comprehensible, while with Windows, it often isn't. Starting with, again, little things, like how Microsoft calls their Linux-subsystem for Windows the wrong way, thex call it Windows-Subsystem for Linux, when in fact, it's a Linux-Subsystem for Windows. They've got their thinking all twisted around somehow, and it shows in so many more places, not just what I've listed as examples here. So basically, let's say: I don't like it, I don't like using it, I don't like having to download software programs from some potentially shady website, I don't like how they all don't update through the system update functionality, I don't like how there's no shared library system, I don't like how you need antivirus stuff and how they don't even show filename extensions by default, making inept users click on a malicious file "file.pdf.exe" with an Acrobat reader icon, and how this file automatically has the right to be executed.
    1
  54. 1
  55. 1
  56. 1
  57. 1
  58. 1
  59. 1
  60. 1
  61. 1
  62. 1
  63. 1
  64. 1
  65. 1
  66. 1
  67. 1
  68. 1
  69. 1