Quoting: Beamboom

Quoting: Purple Library GuyUm, but Beamboom is literally and specifically saying that nobody who wants to just click "go" should be using Linux. At all. Ever.

Literally? And specifically? Well then, please quote me. It should be very easy to find those quotes, since that's what I am literally saying.

You led off with "I simply do not subscribe to the idea of "Linux for everyone"". Then you started talking about all the "everyone" it was not for, and I recognized myself among them. Going further, describing who shouldn't be using Linux, you compared Linux to a specialized racing car, meaning Linux was only for the few, the proud, the race car drivers of OS users. I am not one of those, so that lets me out.

Quoting: BeamboomWhat I do say, is that those who do intend to use Linux should be willing to learn it for what it is. They should have the mindset and attitude of wanting to learn a new operating system.

You realize those two things are mutually exclusive, right? Wanting to just click "go" does not involve wanting to "learn an operating system" (whatever that even means), let alone get the experience of breaking the system and becoming somehow wiser from doing so.
Well I don't, and didn't when I started using it, have the mindset and attitude of wanting to learn a new operating system. I had the mindset and attitude of wanting to do word processing, browse the web, listen to music etc. on a system other than Windows. At times this meant it sucked to be me . . . not so much any more, and I like it that way, thanks.

Quoting: BeamboomAnd they should be made aware of what Linux is.

What you think it is. What you think it is, isn't what I think it is. So, since I don't want to assimilate what you think it is, and I don't want to approach it on the basis that you think I should be approaching it . . . you are saying that I am among that vast majority who shouldn't be using Linux.

Quoting: BeamboomI don't want to keep anyone from using or wanting to use Linux. But they should approach on Linux' premises, and yes - they might screw up in the process.

So . . . if you want the condition for people using linux to be (X), but you don't want to keep anyone from using Linux, what do you want? A mandatory re-education program for everyone beginning Linux use, so by the time they're really using it they have become the kind of people you want using Linux, with the kind of attitude you want them to have when using it?
How do you get from "I think people using Linux should be like X or do it like X" to "but I don't want to stop anyone"? You want people who don't do it your way to use Linux, you just get to disapprove of them? Except Linux "isn't for everyone", so they have to be the people Linux isn't for. How do you resolve the contradiction you're creating here?

Quoting: BeamboomLinux is a much more open, modular system than the other two. The users must relate to that.

You know, I almost hate to tell you, but modern non-hard-core Linux distributions are very easy to use. Nearly everything Just Works, software is much easier to install than in Windows, software updates are much less of a pain than in Windows, the system doesn't nag you meaninglessly all the time like Windows. Using Mint, you don't have to relate to a goddamn thing except assimilating that you can use the incredibly easy software installation GUI and then have the system keep that software updated, instead of having to browse the web for a bunch of stuff and install it one by one and maintain it yourself.

Quoting: BeamboomThey should use Linux for what it IS - and it is not just some political statement against the establishment. It's not just a toy pose by, a symbol.

Hey, you're the one who seems to believe there is no possible practical reason to use Linux except if you want it to break. Although personally, I think political statements against the establishment are perfectly good reasons to do things.

Quoting: BeamboomJust the mere fact that there's several different audio architectures on Linux! That does almost the same for most users, only not exactly and in different ways! Just to pull out but one small example. We all could make a list with examples like that.

I know that because I read about Linux, not because I use Linux. As a Linux user, I have no awareness of that. I have an applet for sound stuff on my taskbar; if it isn't in the setting when I right click that applet, I don't know about it. So no, that fact isn't relevant at all.

Quoting: Beamboom

Quoting: Purple Library GuyBeamboom is literally saying that Linux should not only remain used by only a minority on the desktop, but specifying just who that minority should be allowed to be

Again: Nonsense. I am saying that Linux will never be the major mainstream desktop OS because of what it is.

Just like a system camera is not for everyone, Linux is not for everyone. But if someone wants to learn to use a system camera - go right ahead! Just don't expect it to be used like a pocket camera - nor should they TRY to!

Quoting: Purple Library GuyAnd yes, I'm going to get "hot under the collar" when I'm told that people like me shouldn't have been allowed in the club.

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. You need to cool your collar her :) . Nobody here tells you so.

If that's not what you're saying I still can't figure out what you are in fact saying. The absolute best spin I can come up with is, I am a poor lost sheep who has by accident ended up using an operating system that by definition is not the one I'd be best off with, so for my own sake I should wise up and leave.

As it happens, that, while somewhat less offensive, is simply not true. I don't think you have much of a picture of what the Linux desktop can be like for straightforward users to use.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: Purple Library GuyThe 30% is quite likely not justified if you think about Steam like a traditional utility

Why?

There was an analysis I read relatively recently, based on the figures released through the Epic vs Apple trial (I'll include the link if I happen to find it again) that had Valve's break-even point at around a 20% cut, and GOG's at around 25%. Valve's cut is 20-30%, depending on your sales, and they provide a whole lot in exchange.

Well, perhaps. It's very hard to be sure because they're pretty opaque.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Rooster

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: RoosterSo instead of package managers having to expect that their users will not read Warnings (which imo is ridiculous), I would say that the distros aimed at new users like Mint and Pop should include a message when running the Terminal (with the option to disable the message for future) that the Terminal is a high level tool and the user is expected to read and understand potential Warnings.

So for people who don't read warnings, what you want is a warning, because that will surely make them read warnings.

Shit, that's a good point. Well then the only way for them to learn to read them is the hard way. Like Linus did.

As a library person I learned the hard way over many years: Nobody reads the signs.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guesta) actually the gui initially forbid the removal of packages. It was doing exactly what you would like it to do. He had to bypass that - and without any other change, would the new changes to apt avoid what was done? If something is to improve, I would suggest a discussion around how to improve it, because I see the apt change (whatever your stance) as not actually solving anything.

To be honest, I don't know just what the GUI's error message was and haven't thought about how it should have been instead. Everyone seems mainly exercised about the change to apt. Which I agree was done hastily and may or may not be the best change that could have been done . . . I just don't see that it matters enough for anyone to be getting in an uproar about it. The new approach versus the old is a distinction with little practical difference. I don't frankly think that anyone objecting has arrived at their position because they really don't like the way apt works now for that bizarre little corner case, they just don't like thinking that a change, any change, got done because some know-nothing bigshot had troubles. And if they'd say that I might have some sympathy for that general point.

Quoting: Guestb) breakage is not desired, but....literally a thing nobody should ever do? Actually, no, it's absolutely a thing people might want to do (yes, I've wanted to do so before myself). My system, my choice.

Uh, breakage in general or this particular thing? I think you're very emphatically sidestepping my point. I was making a specific point about the specific rarity to nonexistence of people wanting to break their system in this particular way (and hence the unimportance to would-be breakers of changing this particular thing) . . . because to accomplish that breakage you would be using a different method. Anyway, if you use Gentoo, you can't break your system using apt in the first place, so what are you talking about?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guestc) This talk of gatekeeping is utter crap. GNU/Linux is for everybody, that's the point. However, it's important to note that not every distro is for everybody. There are more experienced people who want to break, and want to learn, and make their system work their way. There are people who just want to click "go". And there's a whole range in-between. Which makes "improve" extremely subjective, which is a problem in and of itself.

Um, but Beamboom is literally and specifically saying that nobody who wants to just click "go" should be using Linux. At all. Ever. Beamboom is literally saying that Linux should not only remain used by only a minority on the desktop, but specifying just who that minority should be allowed to be (and I'm not a member, incidentally--it appears people like me should be banished to Windows or MacOS). I don't see how you can not call that gatekeeping.

So I'd say the gatekeeping is utter crap, not the talk of gatekeeping. And yes, I'm going to get "hot under the collar" when I'm told that people like me shouldn't have been allowed in the club. So are you telling me I should shut up and let myself be gatekept?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BeamboomHands up, those of you who's never fucked up your Linux system, removed packages you shouldn't have, or screwed around in config files to the extent that you just had to reinstall the system?

... No? Nobody?

... We have ALL done that. Every single one of us. And we learnt from that! We GREW, that day. We became wiser, and better at reading and better at understanding, even RESPECTING the system.

Apparently not all (Yay Nezchan!) but yeah, I've done some of that stuff. I started using Linux 20 years ago or more and I've had to wrestle with it, and I fancy myself not a stupid person so I was able to learn some of what I needed to do so.
But, and this may blow your mind, I hated it.
No, having to fix all kinds of crap and having that sometimes fail and even make things worse did not make me respect the system, it made me pissed off. I respect systems that work. No, it didn't make me grow, and it didn't make me wiser. Are you kidding me? Learning philosophy makes you wiser. Learning some technical details makes you know technical details. I want the hours back that I spent doing all that nonsense so I can use them to read fantasy books or learn more about political economy or history.

I started using Linux because I liked the concept of Free Software on a political level, because I hated Microsoft, and because despite all the hassles with Linux it was still usually less annoying than the hassles and impositions from Windows 95 and 98 and Xtra Proprietary. But I like systems that work and don't make me use the command line, and if there is a reason to use the command line I want that process also to be quick, and painless, and work.
Luckily, over the years Linux has gotten better and better for people like me. But Linux is open and full of choice. There is nothing stopping people like me from using Linux Mint or some other distro that pretty much Just Works. And there is nothing stopping people like you from using Linux From Scratch or Gentoo or something.

I'm not telling you you can't do it your way. So how about you stop telling me I'm not allowed to do it my way? Hmmmm?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I really don't understand what all this argument is about. Like, there are people actively upset about it being more difficult for the attempt to install a package using apt to result in the system getting hosed. Like they're actively mad because in order to do that they will now have to check the apt man page or something and add a "let it hose my system" option when they do the command, instead of just typing "Do what I say" when apt tells them they're about to hose their system.
These are the same people who say nobody should be using the command line unless they have some idea what they're doing . . . which I would normally figure at a minimum would involve having given the man page a once-over before starting to use a command, which would mean those approved-of people would be in a position to know they needed to add "--let-it-hose-my-system" or whatever to the command if they want to let it hose their system, so the change isn't really a barrier.
These are also the same people who say Linus was an idiot to type "Do what I say" in the first place. So they're saying that the new fix isn't going to stop anyone, who isn't the kind of idiot they don't want using Linux, from doing anything, ever. And yet it's terrible.

Really, WTF?! This is incredibly silly, even if you're going to be a "Linux should only be for techies who want to learn by breakage" gatekeeper. There is no use case where a Linux techie learning how to use the system should have as their objective to make their system become headless by trying to install a wrongly packaged package. If you want to delete the GUI or some other important part of the system, there are various ways to do it and that isn't one of them. This isn't a case where you've got a command some people will want to use to do a certain kind of thing and it is now harder for them, this is literally a thing nobody should ever do and it is now harder for them, and this is a problem because . . . a good operating system should have a nice supply of gotchas, so the users get hair on their chests? What?!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: NociferBut I do have one question: what if I intentionally do want to remove a "system critical" package like Xorg or my DE - how do I do it if package managers, both GUI and CLI, prevent me from doing so?

If you intentionally want to delete something, wouldn't you normally do it by, I dunno, using a "delete something" command of some sort, not by trying to trigger the deletion by installing a package? As far as I know, nobody's done anything to the stuff you do when you're trying to delete things.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I think people are talking past each other a bit here.
The 30% is perfectly justified if you're thinking in pure capitalist terms where whatever people are willing to pay is an OK price. Clearly the network effect of Steam's customer base make it absolutely a poor choice for most game companies, ones without huge amounts of independent marketing muscle, to avoid Steam. Generally, people are going to make more money paying Steam 30% than they will avoiding Steam and not paying 30%.

But "what the traffic will bear" is not the only way of thinking about what kind of price is appropriate. As an extreme case, people often get quite annoyed when pharmaceutical companies suddenly jack the price of lifesaving medicines up by 10 times. They're still going to pay, because how much is your life worth to you? So in the sense that Steam's 30% is by definition fair, so are skyrocketing prices for lifesaving medicines, or for bottled water during a natural disaster. But we tend to think there has to be more to fairness than that.
The 30% is quite likely not justified if you think about Steam like a traditional utility--traditionally, private electric utilities and such have often been regulated to allow them a price that returns the cost of production plus some modest profit, to avoid letting them put the citizens over a barrel with their monopoly power. This has generally worked less well than having public utilities in the first place, but a lot better than having deregulated utilities, which generally lead to skyrocketing prices and supply problems. It may well be that a traditional utility regulator considering Steam as a utility would, upon investigation, find that their profit margin was way too high and they should be regulated to keep it down.

I feel like the people saying the 30% is totes justified have mostly been basing it on the first rationale, where since developers get more from paying the 30% than they would from not paying it, 30% would be justified even if Valve's expenses were zero and their profit margin infinite. And the people saying it isn't have been coming from more of a utility regulator perspective where there is a reasonable level of profit and exceeding it is unfair and bad for broader society. The two are not going to be able to have a reasonable conversation without getting at that difference in their theoretical basis for what's OK.

Mind you, I'd say that Valve has been a lot more responsible with their market power than most deregulated utilities, let alone pharmaceutical companies. Maybe because there is more potential for meaningful competition, maybe because what they're providing isn't a necessity so there are more meaningful limits to what the traffic will bear, maybe just because they're nicer folks.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Philadelphus(And personally, I've yet to break my system in 7 years of using Linux and that's one "learning experience" I'm happy to continue avoiding.)

There is a saying: The fool learns from his own mistakes. The wise man learns from the mistakes of others.

View this comment - View article - View full comments