Youtube comments of Seegal Galguntijak (@Seegalgalguntijak).

  1. 1600
  2. 89
  3. 82
  4. 77
  5. 76
  6. 71
  7. 64
  8. 55
  9. 51
  10. 51
  11. 50
  12. 50
  13. 45
  14. 38
  15. 38
  16. 33
  17. 31
  18. 30
  19. 30
  20. 29
  21. 25
  22. 22
  23. 21
  24. 21
  25. 20
  26. 20
  27. 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version of Gnome2 (MATE wasn't a thing yet back then, and later on when it existed, I found it to look somewhat out of date).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
  28. 20
  29. 19
  30. 19
  31. 18
  32. 18
  33. 17
  34. 17
  35. 17
  36. 17
  37. 17
  38. 16
  39. 16
  40. 15
  41. 15
  42. 14
  43. 14
  44. 14
  45. 12
  46. 12
  47. 12
  48. 11
  49. 11
  50. 11
  51. 11
  52. 10
  53. 10
  54. 10
  55. 10
  56. 10
  57. 9
  58. 9
  59. 9
  60. 9
  61. 9
  62. 9
  63. 8
  64. 8
  65. 8
  66. 8
  67. 8
  68. 8
  69. 8
  70. 8
  71. 7
  72. 7
  73. I love these explanations from Professor Brailsford, he has such a soothing tone in his voice! ;-) Anyhow, since you're digging into computer history, I'd really like to know where the usage of pointy brackets for doing something came from, back in the days of the FIDO net (the FIDO net may in itself be worth a whole computerphile video!). They were later, in the late 90s on the www replaced by stars. So when I got "online-socialized", you'd write something like <ROTFLOL> or <duck&run>, while later on people wrote (asterisk)ROTFLOL(asterisk) and (asterisk)duck&run(asterisk), sometimes leaving out the end asterisk, and nowadays things like <lol> are just written without any indicating characters for the special type of "chain of letters" that is not to be read as a normal word, but as something the writer is doing, or an acronym of that. How did this change come to pass, and how was it "invented" in the first place? It goes along with the first smileys ": - )" (w/o the spaces), but somehow I have never found a good explanation of how it all came to be that way, and the changes that were made to this "informal notation" over time. I'd really like to hear someone (preferrably Prof. Brailsford, if he knows anything about it) talk about this - maybe in conjuncture with the times of mailboxes and the FIDO net and so on....this is an important part of computer history, especially ("old style" asterisk usage - notation for bold text here - fortunately adopted by the youtube/G+ comment system) since it was a decentralized way of spreading information digitally, which is something we almost don't have any more today, because everyone uses a platform or at least a web host company for their data to be spread...
    7
  74. 7
  75. 7
  76. 7
  77. 7
  78. 7
  79. 7
  80. 7
  81. 7
  82. 6
  83. 6
  84. 6
  85. 6
  86. 6
  87. 6
  88. 6
  89. 6
  90. 6
  91. 6
  92. 5
  93. 5
  94. 5
  95. 5
  96. 5
  97. 5
  98. 5
  99. 5
  100. 5
  101. 5
  102. 5
  103. 5
  104. 5
  105. 5
  106. 5
  107. 5
  108. 5
  109. 5
  110. 4
  111. 4
  112. 4
  113. 4
  114. 4
  115. 4
  116. 4
  117. 4
  118. 4
  119. 4
  120. 4
  121. 4
  122. 4
  123. 4
  124. 4
  125. 4
  126. 4
  127. 4
  128. 4
  129. 4
  130. 4
  131. 4
  132. 4
  133. 4
  134. 4
  135. 4
  136. 4
  137. 4
  138. 4
  139. 4
  140. 4
  141. 4
  142. 4
  143. 4
  144. 4
  145. 3
  146. 3
  147. 3
  148. 3
  149. 3
  150. 3
  151. 3
  152. Boundless Shot Also, viele Fragen die Du mir gestellt hast. Ich beantworte sie der Reihe nach: Solange westliche und östliche Geheimdienste radikale Extremisten finanzieren und somit ihre Macht aufbauen, ist alles, was wir tun, nur eine weitere Gewaltspirale. Das war mit Al Quaida so, und ist mit IS nicht anders - zuerst muss das einmal aufhören, egal aus welchem Land der diese Gewalttäter finanzierende Geheimdienst kommt. Und was man dann, nachdem diese Menschen entwaffnet wurden, dagegen tun kann, ist klassische Bildung und Entwicklungshilfe. Niemand mit einem gewissen Bildungsstand ist mehr gewillt, Gewalt auszuüben um seine Ziele zu erreichen. Man könnte sogar islamische Gelehrte hinschicken, um den entwaffneten (dann Ex-)Terroristen eine gemäßigte Form des Islam nahezulegen, der eben nicht auf der gewaltsamen Durchsetzung seiner Ziele basiert. Man bedenke, der Islam ist hier noch um einige Jahrhunderte hinter den anderen Religionen zurück, d.h. das ist eine Entwicklung, die es im globalen Vergleich aufzuholen gilt (wie wurde die Gewaltherrschaft der kath. Kirche im Mittelalter gebrochen? Durch Bildung der Massen!) An einem Strang ziehen ist natürlich immer gut (am besten wäre es, allen Menschen - auch denen vom IS - klar zu machen, dass wir alle im selben Boot sitzen), aber das würde bedingen, dass "wir" restlichen Nationen uns einig wären. Doch das sind sich nicht mal die westlichen (wenn ich jetzt mal Deine Meinung als die annehme, die Deutschland auch "offiziell" als Staat in der Angelegenheit vertritt), denn "nicht wie die Amis" ist ja genau das, was unter dieser "Zusammenarbeit" nie geschehen wird, einfach weil sie die größten Gewalttäter sind. Und nun zum Thema Staat und Bundeswehr: Die Bundeswehr ist ein ziemlich direktes Staatsorgan, gehört soweit ich weiß ebenso wie die Polizei zur Exekutive (wenn auch hauptsächlich im Auslandseinsatz - bisher). Das Problem mit der Bundeswehr ist also das Problem der Weisungsgebundenheit gegenüber den falschen Leuten (nämlich denen, die unseren Staat führen). Und das ist sogar ebenfalls wieder ein Grundlegendes Problem, denn dort, wo eine Rangordnung herrscht und Befehle zu befolgen sind (oder die Gefahr besteht, sich der Befehlsverweigerung oder schlimmerem schuldig zu machen), kann keine Initiative entstehen. Wenn ein Angehöriger eines Militärs einen Schießbefehl bekommt, muss er diesen befolgen, auch wenn er eine Möglichkeit sieht, eine Situation ohne Waffengewalt aufzulösen. Mit etwas Glück kann er diese - aus seiner Sicht womöglich sogar bessere - Alternative vortragen, aber wenn der Vorgesetzte davon nichts hält, oder trotzdem schießen will, dann muss er es tun. Damit habe ich ein gewaltiges Problem, denn es widerspricht letztendlich der Freiheit, und auch dem Gedanken der Demokratie, und vor allem der Grundidee des "an einem Strang ziehens", denn hier gibt jemand anderes die Richtung vor, in der gezogen wird, anstatt dass man sich unter allen Beteiligten auf die gemeinsam als beste angesehene Richtung einigt. Das steht dem Eigenständigen Denken so diametral entgegen, dass ich darin sogar bereits den Grenzbereich zur Verletzung der Menschenwürde, also Bruch unseres wichtigsten Verfassungsartikels nahen sehe. Und wenn eine AfD an die Macht kommt (was zum Glück hoffentlich nie passieren wird), und die dann der Bundeswehr den Befehl gibt, die Grenzen von Deutschland gegen Flüchtlinge zu verteidigen, notfalls auch mit Waffengewalt, dann muss der Bundeswehrangehörige, der da an der Grenze steht, womöglich auf schwerverletzte, Kranke, geschwächte Menschen, sowie Frauen und Kinder schießen. Nein, danke, das kann ich nicht mit meinem Gewissen vereinbaren - ehrlich gesagt schäme ich mich sogar für diese Eigenschaft meines Staates, auch wenn diese Staatsangehörigkeit natürlich sehr viele unglaublich tolle Aspekte hat, die es so sonst nirgends auf der Welt gibt. Und nein, ich bin nicht der Meinung, Gewalt in dem Maße müsste sein. Aber um das halbwegs unvoreingenommen diskutieren zu können, müssten erst mal so "deutsche" Unternehmen wie KMW, HK und Co aufgelöst werden.
    3
  153. 3
  154. 3
  155. 3
  156. 3
  157. 3
  158. 3
  159. 3
  160. 3
  161. 3
  162. 3
  163. 3
  164. 3
  165. 3
  166. 3
  167. 3
  168. 3
  169. 3
  170. 3
  171. 3
  172. 3
  173. 3
  174. 3
  175. 3
  176. 3
  177. 3
  178. 3
  179. 3
  180. 3
  181. 3
  182. 3
  183. 3
  184. 3
  185. 3
  186. 3
  187. 3
  188. 2
  189. 2
  190. 2
  191. 2
  192. 2
  193. 2
  194. 2
  195. 2
  196. 2
  197. 2
  198. 2
  199. 2
  200. 2
  201. 2
  202. 2
  203. 2
  204. 2
  205. 2
  206. 2
  207. 2
  208. 2
  209. 2
  210. 2
  211. 2
  212. 2
  213. 2
  214. 2
  215. 2
  216. 2
  217. 2
  218. 2
  219. 2
  220. 2
  221. 2
  222. 2
  223. 2
  224. 2
  225. 2
  226. 2
  227. 2
  228. 2
  229. 2
  230. 2
  231. 2
  232. 2
  233. 2
  234. 2
  235. 2
  236. 2
  237. 2
  238. 2
  239. 2
  240. 2
  241. 2
  242. 2
  243. 2
  244. 2
  245. 2
  246. 2
  247. 2
  248. 2
  249. 2
  250. 2
  251. 2
  252. 2
  253. 2
  254. 2
  255. 2
  256. 2
  257. 2
  258. 2
  259. 2
  260. 2
  261. 2
  262. 2
  263. 2
  264. 2
  265. 2
  266. 2
  267. 2
  268. 2
  269. 2
  270. 2
  271. 2
  272. 2
  273. 2
  274. 2
  275. 2
  276. 2
  277. 2
  278. 2
  279. 2
  280. 2
  281. 2
  282. 2
  283. 2
  284. 2
  285. 2
  286. 2
  287. 2
  288. 2
  289. 2
  290. 2
  291. 2
  292. 2
  293. 2
  294. 2
  295. 2
  296. 2
  297. 2
  298. 2
  299. 2
  300. 2
  301. 2
  302. 2
  303. 2
  304. 2
  305. 2
  306. 2
  307. 2
  308. 2
  309. 2
  310. 2
  311. 2
  312. 2
  313. 2
  314. 2
  315. 2
  316. 2
  317. 2
  318. 2
  319. 2
  320. 2
  321. 2
  322. 2
  323. 2
  324. 2
  325. 2
  326. 2
  327. 2
  328. 2
  329. 2
  330. 2
  331. 2
  332. 2
  333. 2
  334. 2
  335. 2
  336. 2
  337. 2
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344. 1
  345. 1
  346. 1
  347. 1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. Robo9400 I don't know exactly how it is with OSX, since I am a Linux user and thus I know Linux. The ease of becoming root is basically the ease of typing "su -" (without the quotation marks) and the appropriate password. In OSX, I think there is a checkbox somewhere which is needed to enable this function first. And yes, of course you have to know how a computer system works if you want to administrate it or go "deeper under the hood" in any way. Still, the fact that Windows does it make appear to be so easy is part of the problem why so many Windows users without a clue do stuff and break their systems and need it reinstalled. As for "doing as much", if you are referring to the variety of apps, then you may be right, of course, since Windows unfortunately still is the most used desktop system. If you are referring to "power over the system", then you are wrong. With an Administrator's account on Windows, there are still certain limitations to what you can do and what you can't. On a Unix-like system, with root privileges, there are no limitations whatsoever, you could even physically break your machine if you were determined enough to do so. Which of course makes it necessary to know what you're doing, but then again, it's the same with any technology, you have to know what you're doing if you want to be a responsible user. Although, of course, the American focus on convenience, has diluted that fact to a mere minimum, it still stays a fact. You can get away with lots in a convenience oriented environment, but if you overdo it, you're really screwed, as in comparison to an environment that requires more responsibility, but in turn grants more freedoms as well.
    1
  351. 1
  352. 1
  353. 1
  354. 1
  355. 1
  356. 1
  357. 1
  358. 1
  359. 1
  360. 1
  361. 1
  362. 1
  363. 1
  364. 1
  365. 1
  366. 1
  367. 1
  368. 1
  369. 1
  370. 1
  371. 1
  372. pH7oslo I see now that the P-series models have doubled the volume keys, once on F1-F4 and once above the num pad. But where the heck is the PrintScreen key?!? And I also miss the back/forward keys that are above the left/right arrow keys where there's PgUp/PgDn on the newer models, these keys are just missing, like PrintScreen. And the annoyance starts already by the printing on the keyboard being the "Fn-function" as big huge symbols in the center of the F1-F12 keys, and the actual key function only very tiny and in the corner. That's also the dysfunctional default setting, which you have to change in the BIOS in order to get the proper functionality back (but still keep the bad key markings). Yeah, I'm not liking the new keyboard layout one bit. It may be that the chicklet keyboards are better to type on, I can't judge that from experience (or due to lack thereof), but with that layout, I really am missing some keys there. As for the touchpad, I completely agree, but since I am using Thinkpads (first IBM then Lenovo, I got my first one in 2008, which was an IBM T23 from 2002 back then, ancient but awesome build quality compared to Lenovos nowadays), I use the Trackpoint and am just loving it. Move the mouse with the index finger of your dominant hand, and click the buttons with the thumb of that same hand, all while not changing the position of your palms one bit - to me, that's a real feature I miss on every laptop that has no trackpoint. As for the keyboard being off-center, I am not sure if I could live with that. I am using a T520, so it's got a 15" screen like the P50 has, but my keyboard is exactly centered. If anything, it's something you have to get used to, but I'm not sure if my spinal column wouldn't twist even more due to that.
    1
  373. 1
  374. 1
  375. 1
  376. 1
  377. 1
  378. 1
  379. 1
  380. 1
  381. 1
  382. 1
  383. 1
  384. 1
  385. 1
  386. 1
  387. 1
  388. 1
  389. 1
  390. 1
  391. 1
  392. 1
  393. 1
  394. 1
  395. 1
  396. 1
  397. 1
  398. 1
  399. 1
  400. 1
  401. 1
  402. 1
  403. 1
  404. 1
  405. 1
  406. 1
  407. 1
  408. 1
  409. 1
  410. 1
  411. 1
  412. 1
  413. 1
  414. 1
  415. 1
  416. 1
  417. 1
  418. 1
  419. 1
  420. 1
  421. 1
  422. 1
  423. 1
  424. 1
  425. 1
  426. 1
  427. 1
  428. 1
  429. 1
  430. 1
  431. 1
  432. 1
  433. 1
  434. 1
  435. 1
  436. 1
  437. 1
  438. 1
  439. 1
  440. 1
  441. 1
  442. 1
  443. 1
  444. 1
  445. 1
  446. 1
  447. 1
  448. 1
  449. 1
  450. 1
  451. 1
  452. 1
  453. 1
  454. 1
  455. 1
  456. 1
  457. 1
  458. 1
  459. 1
  460. 1
  461. 1
  462. 1
  463. 1
  464. 1
  465. 1
  466. 1
  467. 1
  468. 1
  469. 1
  470. 1
  471. 1
  472. 1
  473. 1
  474. 1
  475. 1
  476. 1
  477. 1
  478. 1
  479. 1
  480. 1
  481. 1
  482. 1
  483. 1
  484. 1
  485. 1
  486. 1
  487. 1
  488. 1
  489. 1
  490. 1
  491. 1
  492. 1
  493. 1
  494. 1
  495. 1
  496. 1
  497. 1
  498. 1
  499. 1
  500. 1
  501. 1
  502. 1
  503. 1
  504. 1
  505. 1
  506. 1
  507. 1
  508. 1
  509. 1
  510. 1
  511. 1
  512. 1
  513. 1
  514. 1
  515. 1
  516. 1
  517. 1
  518. 1
  519. 1
  520. 1
  521. 1
  522. 1
  523. 1
  524. 1
  525. 1
  526. 1
  527. 1
  528. 1
  529. 1
  530. 1
  531. 1
  532. 1
  533. Nowadays, this question "Mac or PC" doesn't go far enough. This duality of those two doesn't fully cover today's situation in the desktop computing world. First of all, a Mac is also a PC as in it is the same hardware. Then, it comes down to the operating system, but when I'm asked which machine I use, I would have to say PC and would be offended by people thinking I'm a Windows user, because I am not. But you can install Windows, Linux and MacOS both on a Mac or on a PC (although with MacOS, it's quite a bit more of a hassle, since it was never designed to work with non-Apple hardware). So basically, while a Mac is still the combination of Apple hardware and the Apple OS, it does not necessarily need to be. There are people running Windows or Linux on their Macs, just because they like the hardware. And on the other hand, the equation of PC = Windows is a thing of the 80s, maybe the 90s as well. But at least since 10 years or so, I consider it outrageous to associate PCs with the Windows (operation-preventing) system (since Windows is not really to be considered an OS, but more of an OPS). So this duality is at least a trinity of which Software you use: Windows(yuck!), Linux or MacOS. And then there is another dimension to it, because now you'd have to ask which hardware people use: Apple PCs, or other PCs. Then again, reducing the "everything but Apple" to "other" also doesn't go far enough. Yes, I use PCs, but I despise Windows, so I would never use it. And of the PCs I use, 100% are IBM/Lenovo Thinkpads, because there is nothing better than that. But do you ask "Mac, Thinkpad or other PC?" - no you don't. And it wouldn't be right, because then you'd have to ask "Mac, Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer, Asus, or other PC?", which doesn't go far enough either, since there are so many more makes of PCs out there, although not many quite as distinguished as a Dell, HP, Lenovo or Apple machine. And for the desktop users, there is a great number of people who build their machine from scratch, buying every single component and assembling it themselves. Also, what about multi boot users? If I were playing computer games with sophisticated graphics, I would probably use Windows as a Game loader, but I would never even think of daring to dream about using Windows for anything critical, like going on the internet, buying stuff online or do banking over the internet, and so on, so I would certainly have at least one Linux OS on my PC even if I were a gamer and thus unfortunately needed Windows. And so on, and so forth...I think you get my point. Please, put those questions in a more realistic way so they are appropriate to today's situation in the personal computing world!
    1
  534. 1
  535. 1
  536. 1
  537. 1
  538. 1
  539. 1
  540. 1
  541. 1
  542. 1
  543. 1
  544. 1
  545. 1
  546. 1
  547. 1
  548. 1
  549. 1
  550. 1
  551. 1
  552. 1
  553. 1
  554. 1
  555. 1
  556. 1
  557. 1
  558. 1
  559. 1
  560. 1
  561. 1
  562. 1
  563. 1
  564. 1
  565. 1
  566. 1
  567. 1
  568. 1
  569. 1
  570. 1
  571. 1
  572. 1
  573. 1
  574. 1
  575. 1
  576. 1
  577. 1
  578. 1
  579. 1
  580. 1
  581. 1
  582. 1
  583. 1
  584. 1
  585. 1
  586. 1
  587. 1
  588. 1
  589. 1
  590. 1
  591. 1
  592. 1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. 1
  596. 1
  597. 1
  598. 1
  599. 1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. 1
  603. 1
  604. 1
  605. 1
  606. 1
  607. 1
  608. 1
  609. 1
  610. 1
  611. 1
  612. 1
  613. 1
  614. 1
  615. 1
  616. 1
  617. 1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. 1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623. 1
  624. 1
  625. 1
  626. 1
  627. 1
  628. 1
  629. 1
  630. 1
  631. 1
  632. 1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641. 1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. 1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. 1
  651. 1
  652. 1
  653. 1
  654. 1
  655. 1
  656. 1
  657. 1
  658. 1
  659. 1
  660. 1
  661. 1
  662. 1
  663. 1
  664. 1
  665. 1
  666. 1
  667. 1
  668. 1
  669. 1
  670. 1
  671. 1
  672. 1
  673. 1
  674. 1
  675. 1
  676. 1
  677. 1
  678. 1
  679. 1
  680. 1
  681. 1
  682. 1
  683. 1
  684. 1
  685. 1
  686. 1
  687. 1
  688. 1
  689. 1
  690. 1
  691. 1
  692. 1
  693. 1
  694. 1
  695. 1
  696. 1
  697. 1
  698. 1
  699. 1
  700. 1
  701. 1
  702. 1
  703. 1
  704. 1
  705. 1
  706. 1
  707. 1
  708. 1
  709. 1
  710. 1
  711. 1
  712. 1
  713. 1
  714. 1
  715. 1
  716. 1
  717. 1
  718. 1
  719. 1
  720. 1
  721. 1
  722. 1
  723. 1
  724. 1
  725. 1
  726. 1
  727. 1
  728. 1
  729. 1
  730. 1
  731. 1
  732. 1
  733. 1
  734. 1
  735. 1
  736. 1
  737. 1
  738. 1
  739. 1
  740. 1
  741. 1
  742. 1
  743. 1
  744. 1
  745. 1
  746. 1
  747. 1
  748. 1
  749. 1
  750. 1
  751. 1
  752. 1
  753. 1
  754. 1
  755. 1
  756. 1
  757. 1
  758. 1
  759. 1
  760. 1
  761. 1
  762. 1
  763. 1
  764. 1
  765. 1
  766. 1
  767. 1
  768. 1
  769. 1
  770. 1
  771. 1
  772. 1
  773. 1
  774. 1
  775. 1
  776. 1
  777. 1
  778. 1
  779. 1
  780. 1
  781. 1
  782. 1
  783. 1
  784. 1
  785. 1
  786. 1
  787. 1
  788. 1
  789. 1
  790. 1
  791. 1
  792. 1
  793. 1
  794. 1
  795. 1
  796. 1
  797. 1
  798. 1
  799. 1
  800. 1
  801. 1
  802. 1
  803. 1
  804. 1
  805. 1
  806. 1
  807. 1
  808. 1
  809. 1
  810. 1
  811. 1
  812. 1
  813. 1
  814. 1
  815. 1
  816. 1
  817. 1
  818. 1
  819. 1
  820. 1
  821. 1
  822. 1
  823. 1
  824. 1
  825. 1
  826. 1
  827. 1
  828. 1
  829. 1
  830. 1
  831. 1
  832. 1
  833. 1
  834. 1
  835. 1
  836. 1
  837. 1
  838. 1
  839. 1
  840. ​ @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
  841. ​ @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
  842. 1
  843. 1
  844. 1
  845. 1
  846. 1
  847. 1
  848. 1
  849. 1
  850. 1
  851. 1
  852. 1
  853. 1
  854. 1
  855. 1
  856. 1
  857. 1
  858. 1
  859. 1
  860. 1
  861. 1
  862. 1
  863. 1
  864. 1
  865. 1
  866. 1
  867. 1
  868. 1
  869. 1
  870. 1
  871. 1
  872. 1
  873. 1
  874. 1
  875. 1
  876. 1
  877. 1
  878. 1
  879. 1
  880. 1
  881. 1
  882. 1
  883. 1
  884. 1
  885. 1
  886. 1
  887. 1
  888. 1
  889. 1
  890. 1
  891. 1
  892. 1
  893. 1
  894. 1
  895. 1
  896. 1
  897. 1
  898. 1
  899. 1
  900. 1
  901. 1
  902. 1
  903. 1
  904. 1
  905. 1
  906. 1
  907. 1
  908. 1
  909. 1
  910. 1
  911. 1
  912. 1
  913. 1
  914. 1
  915. 1
  916. 1
  917. 1
  918. 1
  919. 1
  920. 1
  921. 1
  922. 1
  923. 1
  924. 1
  925. 1
  926. 1
  927. 1
  928. 1
  929. 1
  930. 1
  931. 1
  932. 1
  933. 1
  934. 1
  935. Wenn wir von heute auf morgen die Erdölproduktion reduzieren würden, würden ganze Wirtschaftszweige und ganze Gesellschaften einfach aufhören zu existieren, das wäre ziemlich fatal und würde (gerade in unseren technologisch fortgeschritteneren Ländern) viel Leid erzeugen. Es ist richtig, dass wir angefangen haben, auf erneuerbare Energien umzustellen, und diesen Weg auch weitergehen müssen. Zugleich ist es aber auch so, dass die erneuerbaren Energien momentan bisher noch nur wenige Prozent des gesamten Energieverbrauchs abdecken können, d.h. je mehr erneuerbare Energien ausgebaut werden, desto mehr können wir auf fossile Energieträger verzichten. Das Erdöl dürfte aber, bei der derzeitigen Ausbau- und Innovationsgeschwindigkeit, schon weit vorher arg knapp werden, das kann man einerseits positiv sehen, weil so der Ausbau der Erneuerbaren stärker gefordert ist, aber andererseits soll es ja auch nicht dazu kommen, dass wir sagen: "So, jetzt ist Strom nur noch von 5 Uhr morgens bis 22 Uhr abends verfügbar, bis wir genügend Solarzellen und Windräder inkl. Speicherkapazitäten gebaut haben, um wie gewohnt versorgen und nutzen zu können.", denn darauf würde es sonst hinauslaufen, natürlich auch bei allem anderen, was fossile Energien benutzt. Folglich ist das schon verständlich. Ob dieser Umschwung weg von den fossilen hin zu erneuerbaren Energien nicht insgesamt schon 20-30 (oder mehr) Jahre zu spät kommt, um unser Klima noch zu retten, steht auf einem anderen Blatt Papier, das kann durchaus möglich sein, aber ändert halt nichts daran, dass wir uns jetzt in diese Situation reingefahren haben, und da eben auch irgendwie mit umgehen müssen.
    1
  936. 1
  937. 1
  938. 1
  939. 1
  940. 1
  941. 1
  942. 1
  943. 1
  944. 1
  945. 1
  946. 1
  947. 1
  948. 1
  949. 1
  950. 1
  951. 1
  952. 1
  953. 1
  954. 1
  955. 1
  956. 1
  957. 1
  958. 1
  959. 1
  960. 1
  961. 1
  962. 1
  963. 1
  964. 1
  965. 1
  966. 1
  967. 1
  968. 1
  969. 1
  970. 1
  971. 1
  972. 1
  973. 1
  974. 1
  975. 1
  976. 1
  977. 1
  978. 1
  979. 1
  980. 1
  981. 1
  982. 1
  983. 1
  984. 1
  985. 1
  986. 1
  987. 1
  988. 1
  989. 1
  990. 1
  991. 1
  992. 1
  993. 1
  994. 1
  995. 1
  996. 1
  997. 1
  998. 1
  999. 1
  1000. 1
  1001. 1
  1002. 1
  1003. 1
  1004. 1
  1005. 1
  1006. 1
  1007. 1
  1008. 1
  1009. 1
  1010. 1
  1011. 1
  1012. 1
  1013. 1
  1014. 1
  1015. 1
  1016. 1