Comments by "Anony Mousse" (@anon_y_mousse) on "Fedora Broke H264 GPU Acceleration For "Legal Reasons"" video.

As a long time Linux user, I remember the days of having to install mp3 codecs on pretty much every distro, and back then Windows required separate installation of a bunch of video codecs too, so while it was kind of annoying, it was still less frustrating for me than Windows. When I first started using Linux I had a soft modem and it required special drivers that worked perfectly on Red Hat and actually gave me twice the speed compared to Windows. Hopefully, someone thinking of switching to Linux from Windows reads this and understands that computers suck, software sucks, all of it, but Linux sucks less than Windows and if you put in the time and effort to cope with Windows, why not put in the same time to cope with Linux and wind up with a better experience in the end and free yourself from the tyranny of Microsoft.
8
Unless you're on a laptop or your computer is over 10 years old, it really shouldn't be a problem. And it may not be a problem even if you update as long as you don't wipe your install and start from scratch with the next version. Of course, if you have to enable them later, it's not going to be any less stable than it is now, it'll just require extra steps.
2
I disagree with your statement on free speech. If a private company is fully visible to the viewing public and requires no remuneration for the use of their services, they're essentially a public platform and should be held to the same laws and standards as the government. If they really are intent on censoring people, then they should be held to the same standards as a publisher and be held liable every single time that a user posts illegal content and prosecuted as any other publisher would be. They can't have it both ways, either they're a platform, or they're a publisher, but they can't be both.
2
@robonator2945 That's an invalid point. The process is almost entirely automated and there's no restrictions on who can acquire an ID and start posting. It's a public platform the same way the street corner is, you're merely vying for someone's attention. What makes it more invalid is that they collude with government officials which makes them an extension of the government and thus the same rules 100% should apply to them as it does to the government. Thirdly, taxes don't make the government beholden to you any more than anything else. People 150 years ago didn't have to pay federal income taxes, in fact most taxes were non-existent then, and the percentages have just ballooned the past 100 years. Free speech wasn't any less free back then, and if anything it was far more respected then when people paid a lot less in taxes.
2
@dstinnettmusic Incorrect, and not what I said. A government contractor is not the government. What I said was colluding with, as in directly taking instructions from. If the government says we need this done and you do it, that's one thing, but if they say we need this done and here's how you do it, that's completely different. It's a distinction that you would only understand if you're not a black and white absolutist.
2
@robonator2945 On the pretense that you are stupid enough to need a position explained, it's more akin to them funding a public park and then telling you that you can't speak there unless you believe what they believe. And they don't "give" their users money. They provide a platform with which they can speak on top of and advertisers fund the platform's continued existence so that the weight of every speaker doesn't collapse it. Also, the public infrastructure is only paid for when it's built and each time it's maintained. That doesn't require a continual influx of cash yet we pay taxes every year. Most of our tax money gets wasted on projects that benefit no one.
2
@dstinnettmusic You're confusing platform with publisher. They didn't allow just anyone to write for them, so for them to censor was their choice. If the government asked them to do it then they should have refused as it is unconstitutional for the government to even ask them to censor themselves. And I don't know why you think I should want you to respect me as a person when I have no respect for anyone who thinks censorship is okay, left or right. As for convictions, I don't know how you think you can judge whether I have any about anything from mere text on a screen other than to say that I'll probably hate everything you say but fight to the death for your right to say it.
2
@robonator2945 First, their servers are paid for by advertisers that only advertise with them because of content. Content creators earn them money, so their business model is one that they have created a public platform so that can happen. Second, I'm not in any way suggesting that the government control what they do, but rather prevent them from doing things that are wrong. Certainly you wouldn't say it's government overreach to prevent people from murdering. So why would you consider it government overreach to prevent people from suppressing others' rights in other ways? Third, does a person actually have the right to suppress others' rights when they're on private land? I would argue no. If you invite someone on to your property and decide you don't want them there, you ask them to leave, you don't shoot them in the head and yell at their corpse that you no longer want them there. If a guest says something you don't like, the same rule applies, you ask them to leave, you don't shoot them dead and say you hated what they were saying.
2
@robonator2945 Your reading comprehension sucks. You absolutely didn't get the analogy and are looking at it still in the wrong way. Also, a government official asking you to do something is different from the government making a law backed up by a police force. If you don't understand the difference then you're also stupid on top of not being able to read.
2
Right, because it's the average user that controls the legislation. All they have to do is vote, but for who? Oh right, both sides want this so the average person is screwed. Third party? Doesn't exist in the US.
1
@SkyFly19853 and @jahinzee If by 100% you mean every single Windows app, then no, it'll never happen, but it isn't the case on Windows either. They don't have perfect backwards compatibility with their own apps, so don't expect Linux to either. Although I have had tons of games run better under WINE than they ever did on Windows as well as other people telling me they've had the same experience. If you want *.exe files to run automatically when you double click them, just set a file association to have it execute WINE. If you want it in the start menu and use KDE, right click the start icon and select "Edit Applications...", navigate to where you want it and add a new item. You'll have to find where it is path-wise on your own, but it's easy to select the program and just add "wine " in front of it.
1
@SkyFly19853 I don't know what GOG does differently, I would've thought a bare executable file, possibly as an installer, but I've never bought anything through them. As for *.iso's, I'm assuming we're talking about after it's mounted running a setup program off of the disc and it failing with CD checks after it's installed? If so, then you'll have to find a crack online for such games. I have one that has a weird quirk where I can run the game from the disc by opening the setup program and then running the main program from there instead, but that was the only time that trick worked for me. If you knew how to program you could crack it yourself, but that requires some specialized experience.
1
There's an actor named Andrew Airlie who pronounces it that way. If you watch anything filmed in Vancouver you've probably seen him but just didn't know who he was. He's apparently Scottish, though I've never once heard him use a brogue.
1
@alessandromercier Then switch distros. Don't go to Windows unless you like having your data stolen and your life controlled.
1
@Zaydan Naufal Because they're evil?
1
@Zaydan Naufal A few dollars per license that most will ignore and be too poor to make suing worthwhile and that those who would be worthwhile targets pay to make themselves not targets? No. These companies have all the money they could possibly need, it's about control.
1