I have used Linux since 1993 (Slackware, Suse and Debian) and Ubuntu since 2006. I consider switching back to Debian because I hate snap and other containers for Of-the-Line Software and while I can uninstall snap and install a De-Snapped Firefox directly from Mozilla I hate doing this Extra-Work.
Dudes, even the “newer faster” Firefox-Snap is still taking three times as long to start and uses twice as much memory and on my work computer, a Core2 Q9550 with 8GByte of memory, this is VERY noticable. Yes, the system is old but for work more than enough. My i7 is only for games and I don’t mix work and fun.
Oh, and then there is that old neighbour who is using a Pentium4 3Ghz 3GByte RAM, which is 32Bit only. He is like 80 years old and doesn’t want to buy a new computer and his old rig does everything he wants. Ubuntu simply doesn’t support it anymore. Supporting old computers is something Linux does outstanding (Windows 11 dropping two year old systems is fucking sick)
Because it’s an easy transition to Linux, which is beneficial in numerous ways. If you’re gatekeeping Linux distros, you can kindly leave normal people alone.
Because once one works out that it’s as easy to I use and does everything they need, it’s a lot more expandable and configurable and a lot less advertising intensive than actual windows
Here comes Arch Linux with the parts for a steel chair! Now they’re pulling out the instructions for putting it together! Uh oh, the instructions say what kind of bolts they need, but not how many! Arch is trying to fit it all together anyway! Hmm, looks like some of the assembly steps are missing… ok, Arch has got something that looks like a chair constructed… now they’re going to test it by sitting down… oh, and the chair frame has held together but the seat has fallen off. Arch forgot about not breaking user space again!
And now here comes Gentoo with a… a coal forge? Oh my God he’s forging a steel chair from a metal blank! But what’s this? Hes pulling out a smaller forge to forge a hammer for the bigger forge! The humanity!
The bit about the small forge forging a forge is skewering the Gentoo concept of toolchain bootstrapping.
Problem: how can you claim to have compiled the entire system on your own local machine if you need a compiler to compile a compiler? Where do you get that compiler from?
Solution: Use an external compiler to compile a compiler. Then use that compiler that you just compiled to compile itself again. Then use that second compiler to recompile the rest of the system.
I briefly experimented with it ages ago. And I mean ages ago, like 20+ years ago. Maybe it’s changed somewhat since then, but my understanding is that Gentoo doesn’t provide binary packages. Everything gets compiled from source using exactly the options you want and compiled exactly for your hardware. That’s great and all but it has two big downsides:
Most users don’t need or even want to specify every compile option. The number of compile options to wade through for some packages (e.g. the kernel) is incredibly long, and many won’t be applicable to your particular setup.
The benefits of compiling specifically for your system are likely questionable, and the amount of time it takes to compile can be long depending on your hardware. Bear in mind I was compiling on a Pentium 2 at the time, so this may be a lot less relevant to modern systems. I think it took me something like 12 hours to do the first-time compile when I installed Gentoo, and then some mistake I made in the configuration made me want to reinstall and I just wasn’t willing to sit through that again.
Compiling your own kernel was often useful or even necessary back in the day. I think it was the only package I regularly compiled for myself back then, and I think I was on red hat
And oh my god, here comes Windows with a steel chair! Its a fine chair that almost anyone can sit in, as long as its updated regularly and paid for, or else they take off two of the legs. She whacks you with it, but only with the long end of the chair by default, which really stings. If you prefer to be hit with the flat of the chair, she desperately tries to convince you that being hit with the Edge is better.
Do you consider drastically improving upon previous conditions to be a miserable failure? Ignoring that Communism has never existed, and only specific forms of Marxism-Leninism have existed, and ignoring that MLism is only a fraction of all of Communist ideology, even MLism drastically improved upon previous conditions.
I’m not even close to a tankie, but I’m genuinely curious what you mean by what you’ve said.
Sure, and capitalism has never existed either, only specific forms of libertarian-constitutionalism 🤷♂️
Now, if you can see how silly what I just typed is, you should be able to see how silly it is to claim communism has never been tried. You say yourself that Marxist-Leninism is a communist ideology, so if it’s being attempted, then it’s valid to say a form of communism is being attempted.
Do you consider drastically improving upon previous conditions to be a miserable failure?
All of the citation needed. Don’t make the mistake of including the goals of outcome as part of the definition, that’s just cheating. Op obviously rejects the idea that it makes things better, you can’t just assume it a priori.
Socialism has existed, that’s what the USSR was. It was an ML Socialist state, but it failed to become a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society. In other words, it failed to reach Communism. Communism has been attempted, but never reached. It never reached the Communist stage, so Communism itself hasn’t been tried, only the ML form of Socialism.
The Soviet Union doubled life expectancy from the mid 30s to the mid 70s, had constant GDP growth until it liberalized and collapsed, guaranteed free Healthcare and education, and had mass housing initiatives. It had far lower wealth inequality than before or after its existence. This is all freely available information.
Am I a USSR Stan? Fuck no, the Politburo was a corrupt mess and Stalin was a thug. However, you’ve completely misconstrued my argument.
Okay I see what you mean. You agree attempted, but never achieved, I see that now. I’m sorry for misconstruing your argument, but I still take issue with your assertion that things got drastically better. That’s a big red flag to me and tends to be a sign that someone is having a big misunderstanding.
.
The Soviet Union doubled life expectancy from the mid 30s to the mid 70s
While true, it is essentially a lie by omission to leave out other key details. For one thing, if you think about it, what kind of conditions would one have to be in initially to make doubling the life expectancy even possible?
The Russians were in horribly dire straits. Life expectancy fell from 37 to 32 from 1930-1935. The chief cause was forced collectivization of farming by Stalin. Privately owned farms were confiscated by the state, and were horribly mismanaged which resulted in famine. Socialist policy directly caused that famine.
Life expectancy started going up again in 1935 after they relaxed grain procurement quotas, decentralized, and opened up private plots. This is the scaling back of socialist policy, and the implementation of capitalist policy. Capitalism policy is to thank for stopping the famine.
had constant GDP growth until it liberalized and collapsed
The US has had exponential growth, rather than linear, along with many of its allies. Russia also supplies a large percentage of the world’s oil, you’d have to make fucking up an art to make your GDP go down with a supply like that.
guaranteed free Healthcare and education,
Both were an improvement considering I don’t think much was their for either before, so I’ll give ya that.
and had mass housing initiatives
These came in response to a housing crisis caused by inadequate supply of houses when the USSR nationalized it under the Central Board of Architecture. The housing initiatives did help, but the housing problem was never solved, and it was a problem created by them.
It had far lower wealth inequality than before or after its existence
Because he killed the rich people, and no one had anything. Equality is not an intrinsically good quality, especially when it means everybody is equally impoverished.
.
I guess this is why I find the observation that communism has never existed pretty naive. Socialism, in its most honest representation, is really the state ownership of the means of production. The way Stalin held ownership in common, was to collectivize it under the state that all citizens are part of. If we are trying to achieve a stateless society, then holding ownership in common is an antithetical goal. Every step the USSR took away from common ownership was a step towards private ownership, and therefor a step towards capitalism.
I wasn’t referring to 30s and 70s as time periods, but the actual life expectancies. LE dropped sharply during the formation of the USSR due to civil war and WWI, and during the 30s due to famine from collectivization. After collectivization and WWII, the USSR was food secure and LE jumped sharply, combined with free Healthcare and mass housing initiatives.
Again, pre-USSR LE was far lower, and post-USSR there was another drop in LE until the last decade or so.
The US has insane growth because it managed to dodge all of the damage of WWII and export Imperialism and control over the global economy as it solidified itself as the reigning superpower. The USSR was a developing country, nowhere near as developed, and had a far more active role in WWII. Not a fair comparison, IMO.
The US has far worse housing problems even today than the USSR had. The USSR attempted to solve this problem, the US has not.
People in the USSR had far more than they had under the Tsars, and the idea that those at the top were cartoonishly wealthy is false. They didn’t have luxury goods, but they had little issues with necessities.
Holding ownership in common is the only way to have a Stateless society, Private Property Rights require a state while public property does not, as the community itself enforces this.
All in all, I am not pro-USSR. I think the process of Democratic Centralism is highly flawed and not accountable to the Workers, as the Politburo sustained itself. I also think Stalin was a horrible thug, and tragedies like the Katyn Massacre should be learned from so as to never repeat them. However, it’s also important to acknowledge that many parts of the USSR did work, and as such we should equally learn from where they did succeed.
My opinion is that decentralization is a fantastic thing, and is an excellent way to combat central control. However, this cannot be meaningfully achieved in a top-down system like Capitalism.
I wasn’t referring to 30s and 70s as time periods, but the actual life expectancies.
Oh, I must have assumed you meant otherwise because the USSR never reached that high of a life expectancy. They peaked in 1970 at 68 years old, at which point it trended down again. Russians never reached a life expectancy of 70 until 2015. You should also consider how volatile that graph has been in general, it simply isn’t good for a state to have that much influence over the life expectancy of all of its people.
That little bump in 1985-1990 correlates with the reign of Gorbachev. He implemented policy that gave more autonomy to enterprises (less state control), and allowed for foreign trade (opening the market, again less state control). This included giving way more autonomy to the collectivized farms, as well as allowing for private farms for both personal use and for sale on the market - in other words, he de-collectivized. Given that the central authority in the USSR was the state, you could also say the central authority has less control, and thus they decentralized.
Compare this the the US life expectancy of time. It’s much less volatile for one thing, it’s a very steady incline. They also actually did reach a life expectancy of 70 by 1970, they had it by 1965 in fact.
.
Honestly, we totally agree on quite a bit here. We obviously both don’t advocate for Stalin himself, and we totally agree decentralization is a good thing. It’s just strange to me that in the case of the USSR you don’t see how the act of decentralization was literally being less strict on collective control and more lenient on private control - in other words, being less strict on socialist policy and being a little more lenient on private ownership.
it’s also important to acknowledge that many parts of the USSR did work
It’s also important to acknowledge which parts worked, it’s also important to acknowledge why they worked. When farmers were given private ownership, they had more freedom of choice in how to manage it, which is really important to have on farms for a myriad of reasons I can get into if you want. But in any case, they were better able to feed themselves as well as bring more product to market. Surplus on food and freedom of distribution means less hunger.
However, this cannot be meaningfully achieved in a top-down system like Capitalism.
Take farming as an example since it’s on topic. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. In 1985-1990 USSR most privately owned farms were small scale and personally managed. What’s more top down, a guy owning a plot of land and doing what he wants with it, or being assigned to work a plot by the regional agriculture authority, who answers to the ministry of agriculture, who answered to the council of ministers, who answered to the Communist Party leadership?
.
Private Property Rights require a state while public property does not
Public Property: something owned by the city, town, or state.
I understand that the line is blurry on whether public means “of the state” or “of the people”. For example, the Romans saw the state to be in service of the people, so “public works” were state works for the people. They also saw the republic as a government of the people, so state projects were of the people either way you take it. This is exactly the same in our democracy, public spaces are managed by the state, on behalf of the people, but the democratic state is also a government of the people, so it’s effectively redundant in the modern context.
In any case, I don’t exactly think the distinction matters. As soon as a large group of people (the public) see the need to come together and make decisions and how to manage certain things and/or how to cooperate to get something done, a government is formed. When the Romans did this, they literally didn’t have a distinctive word for it, which is why they basically just called it the “public thing”, the group that handled public decision making. The nature of the Roman “public thing” swayed in and out of meaning of for the people, by the people, in service of the people, in command of the people, and it was never exclusive to one of those things.
Private property demonstrably does not require a state to exist, because that’s not always how property rights are handled. In this early period of Rome, the state could purchase and grant rights, but so could private citizens. If the people of Rome wanted a plot of land to themselves, the legal way to do so would be through a legitimate exchange with a private owner. Property rights are granted by whoever holds the property rights, private or public. Modern nations technically own the land they claim, which is why they grant access.
.
The far more important distinction are the things that which the people don’t decide need collective cooperation. That’s what we call “private”. To be privately controlled, you can’t be under the control of the collective or the control of the state, which is precisely why “private” is the antithesis of “public”. In the context of Rome, centralization would be to make it part of the “public thing”. So, if the people and senate of Rome decided to bring the whole market under the control of the people the way they did the army and roads, they would have been both centralizing control of the market and technically socialist, as the means of production would been publicly controlled. The USSR was socialist for exactly that reason.
You’re continuing to compare a fully developed superpower that never had skin in WWII with a developing country the rest of the world tried to oppose at every step, that’s still completely disingenuous. The graph was volatile because the USSR was founded in Civil War, had a famine in the 30s during the horribly botched collectivization of agriculture, then had their bread basket invaded during WWII while they took on the majority of combat against the Nazis. After that, steady!
Decentralization is firmly a Socialist ideal, and is incompatible with Capitalism. Capitalism requires that workers have no power, otherwise it wouldn’t exist.
You then go on to completely butcher the definitions of Socialism by assuming it means state control, rather than collective control, of the means of production. State control is merely one path of Socialism.
Private Property requires a monopoly of violence to enforce, ie a state. You cannot have private property without threat of violence via a state, even your example proves this.
All in all, you’re frustratingly bad at arguing anything coherent, and it’s clear you don’t actually care about proper definitions.
had a famine in the 30s during the horribly botched collectivization of agriculture
which implies that non-collectivized agriculture was doing a good job considering the significant upswing in the 20s. After the civil war, non-collectivized farms were doing a good job.
All in all, you’re frustratingly bad at arguing anything coherent, and it’s clear you don’t actually care about proper definitions.
This response makes me think you didn’t really read my comment very closely considering I literally explain the etymology of the word “public”. Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production, and there’s good reason to consider that state ownership given the history of the word and its use over time. I don’t think I’m incoherent, I just think you don’t understand, otherwise you’d actually address my comment instead of restating your position and implying I’m stupid for not agreeing. I honest to god do recommend taking my comment a bit more seriously and rereading it. Really try to look at what I’m telling you, and if you disagree, I’d love to see you actually point out what’s wrong with my comment.
You’re never going to convince me I’m out of line here unless I can tell from your response you actually took in what I was saying, because honestly, you really didn’t have to read much of what I said to generate the response you made.
FOSS isn’t a political ideology itself, no. That’s like saying Mutual Aid or Worker Democracy aren’t political ideologies. Technically correct, but that wasn’t the point, all of those are leftist structures.
Communism is a political ideology, and I don’t think it can be globally considered fringe. Perhaps in the US, but not globally.
WHEN WILL YOU PEOPLE LEARN THAT EVERYTHING IS POLITICAL?
The libre software movement has the stated goal of making a political statement. Your decision to exclude discussion of a certain ideology in a certain forum is itself a political decision. It is turtles all the way down.
spoilerKDE making random features only available on wayland for no reason like trackpad gestures because memes GNOME being GNOME which is being useless anyway And literally everyone else is still using X11 by default, unless you count the 20 random github compositors that no one uses. I would switch to wayland if it had any actual immediate benefit, especially in performance, but as far as I have tested it doesn’t. Will probably join it in 2030 when the xfce devs wake up from their eternal slumber and make an update for it
There is no one devoloping for x11 anymore, it is abandonware and dead (even if still usefully sometimes) wayland isn’t the new shiny thing but it has been getting devoloped so so slowly and getting little support, because the focus on x11. Death of x11 is better for everyone
Is something like barrier/synergy already working with wayland?
I wanted to try it so badly, but controlling multiple computers with one set of keyboard & mouse is quite essential to my workflow.
Also, does X forwarding over ssh work in some way?
Like, can I open remote GUI programs over ssh on my wayland, like on X11? And less important for me, but still, also the other way round?
Thanks upfront!
I have some FOMO here, but last time I checked wayland couldn’t provide me those things, I need for work :-(
This is a photoshop, the original from Modern Humorist said something like “when you download MP3s, you’re downloading communism” and it was attributed to the RIAA instead of Microsoft.
Source: I owned the print of this a couple decades ago, and you can probably find Modern Humorist on archive.org
I highly doubt that. They are open-sourcing a small suite because it is economical to do so. Closed source means constantly having to re-train newcomers. Normalizing VsCode and friends will go a long ways. Same thing Google did with their IT certs.
Nah, nobody cares about their monopoly anymore. They got outmaneuvered on mobile, and they’re stuck being a desktop OS while the rest of the market moves around them.
Happens a lot with monopolies. IBM was the biggest name in mainframes, but their PC division made a standard that other companies would take and run.
Microsoft wouldn’t have put as much effort into WSL if it was just performative.
Still, everything enterprise related or video/audio revolves around them (and Macs of course). That is one of their biggest assets now, as well as the “a perscription OS” spin they’re trying to pull on Windows. Also, their subscription services, people that do all sorts of businesses use them a lot.
Even enterprise stuff has largely moved away from Microsoft. They are still dominant in some areas like the business desktop space/office 365/active directory, but ‘enterprise’ apps running on Windows Server (and associated stuff like IIS) with tight Microsoft integrations are a thing of the past.
Yeah, that’s what I meant by enterprise use, not IIS. And they’re still dominant on the audio/video production market. Basically, every aspect that is not just your everyday browsing or small office work.
They recognized that PCs were the next big thing and needed one of their own. Large companies don’t move fast, and IBM is certainly no exception, but they had to move fast now. So they took a bunch of off the shelf components that anyone else could have bought and called it their PC.
Everything except the BIOS. It regulated how the OS interacts with the hardware. Almost to the point where you could argue DOS isn’t an OS at all, but just a thin command line layer over the BIOS, plus a simple minded file system.
Anyway, some people at Compaq make a cleanroom implementation of the BIOS and release an “IBM PC compatible”. This quickly becomes the basis of everything we call a PC today. But IBM doesn’t get to profit off it in the long run. They sold off their PC division decades ago.
The show “Halt and Catch Fire” has an excellent fictional example of the reverse engineering process.
TCP/IP does not have a concept of Presentation or Session. Everything above it is just “Application”, which is more sensible. There isn’t much criticism to be had of layer 4 down, but when they got to layer 5 and 6, they were telecom people sticking their nose in software architecture. You can write networked applications with those layers if you like. I’ve seen it done, and it’s fine. There are also plenty of other ways to architect it that also work just fine.
There isn’t much criticism to be had of layer 4 down, but when they got to layer 5 and 6, they were telecom people sticking their nose in software architecture.
That is true.
But, you have to understand, back when OSI was made, the only thing which could benefit from it was telecom and banking… there were no PCs as we know them today. It’s no surprise that OSI caters mostly to telecom software and needs.
And you could always just use the model up until layer 4, it’s pretty good up until layer 4, and just do whatever you like after that… if you’re developing your own protocol for something that is.
Microsoft open-sourced all of dotnet core, which is arguably the largest and most well-maintained (with exceptions) collection of tools/platforms for developers that exsists to date. So, I don’t really agree that they’re just “making face”
They’re absolutely just “making face”. For each thing Microsoft frees, how many more are proprietary shit? Visual Studio, proprietary. Windows, proprietary. Etc.
linuxmemes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.