Youtube comments of Charlie Kahn (@charliekahn4205).
-
1900
-
385
-
220
-
111
-
100
-
81
-
67
-
57
-
56
-
55
-
53
-
51
-
50
-
@p4trickb4tem4n Linux, being UNIX, treats everything like a text file or a folder. Every action in Linux is done by moving, copying, creating, deleting, writing, reading, or executing these files and folders. Windows treats your computer like a desk, and programs are seen as tools. They are a separate thing which has its own file type, treated completely differently from all other files. Theoretically on Linux you could make any file executable (it's not a good idea but you could). Windows requires a lot of formatting to do it.
49
-
47
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
41
-
40
-
39
-
37
-
36
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
27
-
26
-
25
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
I partially agree with what you said in this video. However, I do have a counterargument arguing as to why these channels should continue to exist and be watched.
Every one of these types of channels has a place in the Linux/Unix/Darwin community. Those who speak about the technical and productive benefits of these operating systems only, in addition to reviewing entire distributions and more general topics, appeal to new users and those thinking of switching. They help newbies to decide their level of involvement and whether or not they wish to switch, when these people would normally not even be thinking about the FOSS community.
Those who do not take sides at any costs, instead opting to explain everything in depth, appeal to users with small amounts of experience in computers, who need unbiased reviews and tutorials. Some users actually do have compelling reasons to choose proprietary software as well as their open-source equivalents, and need to know which choice is best for them.
Finally, provocateurs act as countermeasures against arguments generally accepted by most people, allowing users to know why they might not make certain choices. Their videos provide compelling concerns about topics no one else argues against. Users with higher experience with computers could be attracted to some of this content, due to the fact that they posses the expertise to be able to look critically at every aspect of their device.
Sure, this content can be annoying to someone who is set in their ways, but for someone who is starting out, or is still building their opinion and their workflow, or wishes to know what they are sacrificing and could gain from an alternative, these channels can be invaluable. At least, these channels are invaluable when done well; I have nothing to argue for those who create subpar content.
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This does not just apply to window managers that exclusively tile. Yes, I can admit that dwm and i3 can get a little gatekeeper-y/elitist about the API and customizing the workflow itself, respectively. But many of these criticisms are also leveraged against floating window managers and compositors, such as Openbox and the box derivatives, FVWM, SOWM, Awesome, Compiz without CCSM, KWin, and others I can't remember. Some people just can't be bothered to edit config.ini, or learn how to not use a panel for everything, or press the super key a lot, or, the horror, enabling and disabling the animations and transparencies. I think it's time that not only more people get acquainted with the power of the text file, Lua, Perl, and XML, but also that more people write graphical applications for basic configuration in order to increase accessibility. If there's only a few options, you might as well make them easy to change.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think there should be a sixth category of distributions, since so many of these have sprung up in recent years and they don't really fit in any other category: crazy distros.
Crazy distros are distros like Guix System, NixOS, GoboLinux, Qubes OS, and Damn Small Linux, which are often worked on by a dedicated team which is sometimes international and aren't usually forks of things (like the core distros), but are much lesser known and market themselves based on one key innovation that you don't see in any other distribution. This can be a different hierarchy, a new system utility, a complete redesign of the system paradigm around a certain philosophy, et cetera. Usually these distributions acquire a cult following who can help maintain and extend the operating system, and the distribution is almost never user-friendly, as they aim to fix one problem and they devote all their time to that.
Some crazy distros can become meme distros which in turn become core distros, like Arch and NixOS, but usually these distros fade into obscurity aside from their forums, where they will be maintained probably forever, or at least until another distro adopts their technology.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@subspacesausage5918 The thing about Linux is that practically every separate program is nearly guaranteed to work perfectly with any other program it needs to work with. So even though you'd have to have Audacity, OBS, GIMP, Inkscape, a file manager, a 3D editor, etc open all the time, there's never a compatibility issue and files will always open with the correct program, and even editing parts of files with a different program will nearly always work. For example, if you're using Kdenlive to animate pictures in a video, and need to edit one of them, it will always open Gimp. Such is the advantage of a library-based ecosystem.
But if you want to collaborate, you either need to use a common editing protocol or all use the same central application.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Legate-Jon3s My one problem with the K Desktop Environment, and the Plasma shell it uses, it that it relies on the Qt framework, which is very rigid when it comes to theming and customization, and thus relies on external tools which in themselves are limiting by nature. Instead of having every aspect of the framework be themable by virtue of allowing every object to be changed, Qt's theming is programmatic. Because of this, any prospective themer must either learn the language and risk framework failure, or rely on a theming engine which often provides heavy overhead and may also be very limiting in its options. QtCurve, DeKorator, Kvantum, and Aurorae are good products, but they shouldn't really be needed, and each of these engines provide limits to what a theme can do. Not to mention the notorious lag of Aurorae and QtCurve. Meanwhile, GTK+3 relies on stylesheets and styles for each possible element, with engines only supplementing the capabilities of the toolkit. The only problem is that GTK+ is designed around a gris-based layout, which is not going to prove beneficial in a future based on a vector-based display protocol. If I could have an ideal, though, it would be Qt's flexible placement, and GTK+'s easy, open theming, and all it would take is a redesign of Qt's theming system. Once they do that, I will switch to KDE, but until then, and perhaps until the KDE Foundation and the Qt Compay resolve their differences, whether or not it ends in KDE forking Qt, GTK+ is my go-to, and it is the one reason I don't use KDE.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Motion #1: We base it off of the old ideal, since it already takes men's physical advantages and disadvantages into account.
Motion #2: We axe any and all norms in terms of personal preferences. Anything can and will be manly, including but not limited to dresses, makeup, lawnmowers, chainsaws, football, bridge, architecture, art, writing, engineering, research, and teaching.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
My idea for a better hierarchy:
Considering everything is a file in Unix, this concept integrates that idea into a systemd/SELinux system. Thus, every main folder/partition represents a user.
The root directory would be organized as such:
/root
/share
/boot
/usr1
/usr2
/usr3
etc.
Each standard user has complete access to their own folder, but cannot read or write any other standard user's folder or root's folder. Every user has read access to /share and /boot, but root has complete access to them.
Each folder contains:
/pkg - contains libraries, executables, and their desktop files and master configs. Executing a binary just executes whatever binary is specified in the desktop file. If there is none, nothing happens.
/pkgdata - contains program-specific data, including dotfiles, gamesaves, and custom icons.
/usrdata - contains all other data, including data shared by everything, for example backgrounds, documents, downloads, etc.
/mnt - contains all new drives mounted by the user
I've used Gobolinux before, which creates its own hierarchy and uses symlinks to enforce it, thus not requiring a real package manager. I'd figured this would be something similar, only made to follow the way user permissions work. What do you think of this design?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dylanlinzer6734 Co-ops exist within capitalism. Given they can have a much higher income than other forms of organization, wages can potentially be higher, attracting more workers and because the pay is tied to revenue, there's an incentive to do well. In addition, worker co-ops tend to survive economic crashes. This makes them particularly viable models for capitalist entities. The only people who wouldn't be happy are the stockholders, who are out of the picture anyway. The company makes more money, the profit goes to the workers, who innovate to make more profit and thus more wages. Eventually, this would take over the markets. I think it would be overall more stable for society, much less violent, and much more poetic, if capitalism made its own demise via itself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Looking at it, this car almost seems like a transition car for the brand. It has a very high cargo floor, lots of unique styling cues, an only slightly updated engine, and an interior lifted from a car with very different controls. I predict that in the next five years, the Prius will either become a pure EV, or will be replaced with a new EV based on this model. Considering all the Easter eggs, the concept-like styling, and the extra power, plus the declining sales numbers of the model, this Prius looks like it was designed to be the very last of its name, or at least the last with a gas engine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Personally I feel like there's another component here, which was essentially glossed over in this video as societal/psychosomatic. I hereby propose Supplementary Postulate 2a: The Real Component.
It is a well-known fact that (Postulate 2a-i) any sort of hurtful stereotype, expectation, or assumption that gains a large following is able to gain that following because some see in it a kernel of truth, and in fact, the targets of this hateful thinking may in themselves find some modicum of the claims these judgements make. This is especially evident in cases where the "othered" group is significantly biologically different from the "main" group, to the point that it could affect behavioral patterns. This pattern of thinking has been explored in countless works of fiction and nonfiction, to the point where it is even emphasized in content which young children can understand, such as the 2001 feature film Shrek.
It would therefore logically make sense that the assumption of virulence that accompanies the male form would incidentally be compounded within the mind of a man by the results of said man's personal introspection of his subconscious, as a result of the, due to our current circumstances, rightful, problematicization of heterosexual masculine thinking. Upon hearing the stories of hundreds, if not thousands or millions, of women who have had traumatic experiences with the actions of men, he may decide to, in other words, take a look inside himself, and find, lurking beneath the surface, that same potential for violence, forceful sexuality, and mindless impulse, that they know has been the cause of the trauma of billions over the centuries. Alluding to the aforementioned Shrek, the ogre will be hounded and feared by the villagers to the point where the ogre resorts to the very thing those villagers fear, in order to survive, and loathes themselves for it. It would make sense that a man, seeing in himself that little seed of truth in what others fear him to be, may in turn retreat into self-loathing and self-repression in the same way that Shrek isolates himself from society.
In order to continue logically, this train of thought requires input on human internal morality and intention. However, that is not the topic being discussed as of now, and it has been explored countless times before. So in order to continue logically, I am going to assume that the overwhelming majority of humans have, at their core, some good intentions for their fellow humans, and wish the best for the people they know (that is, until some sort of stress overload causes them to abandon this notion and become a cynic).
With that out of the way, assuming that most young men, at this phase in life, generally want to do good for others, knowing that they have, deep within themselves, the potential, nay, the instinct, to commit savage acts against the ones they love, in the name of perverse satisfaction, having been told this throughout their lives and also seeing it within themselves, would naturally set them to at least begin trodding along one logical path, which has one conclusion: that they are, deep down, monsters, and must keep their impulses completely repressed to keep others safe.
This logical chain applies not only to sexual immorality, but, I theorize, to all preemptive assumptions which have the effect of making their target seem a danger. For instance, a man, knowing that men have the potential to easily overpower women, may see that latent physical potential in himself, and thus seek to never raise a finger.
This phenomenon, which I dub the Reflective Warrant Effect, is, per my theory, the cause of the social, emotional, and physical repression, not to mention competition, redirection, and seclusion, that together make up what we know as the masculine cultural pattern. This unwritten code dictates that due to men's innate physical potential, men must never be emotional, angry, or violent, except as a last resort, in order to prevent harm to others.
It then goes without saying that this repression, which many men see as necessary in order for society to function, will eventually take a toll on the repressed party's mental health, leading them to seek new means of self-gratification, backpedaling into violence and objectification.
In conclusion, it is not only societal norms of masculinity which leads to the distress of young straight men, but also the real component that they see within themselves; it is not possible for this outcome to be reached with just one or the other.
EDIT: This analysis may be slightly skewed by personal philosophical experience, as I may myself just be feeling guilty about my own subconscious. I don't know if it's a male thing or a teen thing but it's making me feel like I'm a danger to society please help.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dontworryhouston Yes, these problems still exist, but Marxism chooses mainly to focus on the elimination of the wealth-class system. Meanwhile, today, while this wealth-class disparity does still exist, it is now mostly driven by race, ethnicity, gender, and other purely social classes. Thus, Marxism, which was created in a world where inequality was seen as having only one or two dimensions, cannot truly apply in our world where inequality has thousands of dimensions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I am now seething with pain, so much so that the church I would create would be exactly the same idea but done correctly, just to spite these cringe generators.
The first thing I would do is hire an actually competent singer and songwriter. I can't stand those country-folk note accents in chants, and every time this person does it I die inside a little more.
The second thing I would do is open the Church to trans women. Since, by their logic, any male features and identity are sins, why should they not celebrate those who abandon them?
The third change I would make is to devote the mission of the Church to the gradual elimination of maleness, which seems to be the original aim of these people's specific movement anyway. In this Church, any and all signs of male identity would be barred, and men who do not give up these symbols and identities would be excluded. Those who would choose to give them up either because they discover that they are trans women or because they simply wish to would be included as they would help further the cause of the Church.
I don't even like this idea. Being a man is something I'd like to keep doing in peace. But the one thing I truly detest is when people are not only furthering a bad cause, but are also doing it badly. Bad singing, no real goal, and insulting nonmembers is not going to help your church grow. So I at least tried to make the organization into something that could actually work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@skyblazeeterno Certain tasks work way better on Linux than Windows, e.g. resource management (Windows has a lot of overhead and doesn't let you stop unnecessary processes that are part of a large environment), network drivers, GUI customization, shell scripting and commands, compilation (more compilers exist for Linux users), changing your workflow, and using alternate applications. Aside from auto-updating and tracking (which you can have on Linux anyway), Windows also has a core problem in that NTFS is objectively terrible, and a simple mass copy which would take ten seconds at maximum under ext4 takes up to several minutes. When I choose to dual-boot my machine, it's not because of any privacy concerns (your CPU logs activity anyway); it's because I almost always run into a fundamental issue with Windows that I can't stand anymore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I thought a new category would suffice: the crazy distros. These are distros that focus on doing something unique, that you don't find anywhere else. For example, PostmarketOS, Qubes OS, GoboLinux, Guix System, and, yes, NixOS. They can turn into meme distros, as NixOS seems to be doing on r/unixporn, but usually they develop cult followings and the users maintain the OS.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To be fair, there are a few caveats to GNU/Linux or any other Unix-like OS. For instance, most distributions do not offer a way to directly access the package manager graphically, meaning you have to know the command to use for your distribution, or go through PackageKit. As well, there are points where the entire display system crashes and you have to know some commands to get back (like, say, using your sysctl program). And many of these commands have names that people wouldn't normally guess (why use cat for printing lines, or cd for goto, or nano for a text editor?). This problem also can extend to Linux's very old and extended-upon file hierarchy. Most people would probably have no idea what goes in bin, lib, var, or etc, and I'm betting tons of people would wonder why home and usr both exist at once. Most NT users would barely even know how to use their command line, since generations of graphical tools have been built to automate things. However, since Linux is at its core a hobbyist OS which has a decent shell, people don't do that much on Linux. A decent solution would probably be for a beginner distro to list basic commands on shell startup and/or if you type in 'help', since for new users there's nothing less intuitive than a blank screen, but I have yet to see any distro do that yet.
Sure, DEs exist, and they work very well, but chances are people will need to use the terminal at some point, and right now that CLI has a UI which makes it seem difficult for new users.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I respectfully disagree with your views on Senator Warren; her policy and views differ substantially from Sanders in a few key areas, in my opinion. Warren is quite a bit closer to the side of using the markets to produce change than the side of completely denouncing them. She is much more inclined to producing flexible, modular, complex legislation which works together to achieve various goals, as evidenced by her plans for a Blue New Deal initiative, which mainly uses economic stimuli and incentives to further ocean conservation. Meanwhile, Sanders is much more in favor of direct action, preferring to be decisive and bold. He is much more inclined to using direct government power to solve issues and influence the private sector, believing that it is the only way to make the marketplace less hostile to newcomers. I would support either of them, but I am more in favor of Warren's political philosophy. Not that it matters now, but still.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1