Comments by "Seegal Galguntijak" (@Seegalgalguntijak) on "Rob Braxman Tech"
channel.
-
1
-
@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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@crimestoppers1877 I know about LFS, but I've never seen the necessity to go throuh with it - it would be an intense learning experience, I'm sure, but on the other hand, I'm also certain that it wouldn't really serve me all that much. As for the rest, I already stated that I'm happy with the distro I use, and while I could run virtual machines to try others out, I don't see any use in that either - the computer has become more and more a tool for me, and as long as it works as I want it to, I don't need any changes, so I'll stick with what I have and what serves me best. Thanks for the encouragement anyways.
1
-
1
-
Also, the naming conventions are different in different countries. In Europe, we've had GSM which was 2G (later enhanced for data rates above 9600baud with GPRS first and then EDGE). Previously, so the "1G" were basically national solutions that weren't commercialized, since telephone networks were state-owned until the 80s/90s. So in Germany, we've had three networks before "2G": A-, B- and C-Netz. The first one (from the 60s) was with a manual operator to patch you through, the second one (from the 70s) already used normal dialing, but the caller had to know the prefix of the cell tower to which the car you wanted to call was connected. Because they were all car phones, they took up to half the trunk space of a full-size sedan like a Mercedes S-Class, and if the phone didn't turn off 30 minutes after the engine was off, the car battery was drained on the next day. Anyways, the 3rd network from the 80s was still analog, but it actually implemented cell handover for the first time, so this was a huge advantage. And then, GSM started in 1991 (and would later be called "2G"), while the CDMA-based UMTS network (with totally different frequencies as the CDMA networks in the US) started around 2000, and was used until 4G or LTE had come in some time in the early 2010s. Now, they're talking 5G, but they don't call it LTE any more, so only the tech-savvy know that it's basically the same technology, just with a few enhancements and different frequencies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1