• 0 Posts
  • 53 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 17th, 2023

help-circle

  • No, he didn’t say “those”. He made a statement about commercial Linux games in general.

    When a normal person talks about a topic, they don’t have to continuously clarify that they still talk about the same topic, it’s assumed.

    He mentioned that he has a bunch of Linux native games. The commercial ones run worse compared to running under Proton. This isn’t complicated. Accept that you misunderstood and move on.

    No idea how you get to that from my statement that’s advocating to make unmaintained games free. 🤷

    Oh, now we interpret according to the intent of the author?






  • Debian is amazing, but you’re right that they are far from noob-friendly. I recently switched to Fedora due to the fast availability of new packages (e.g. KDE Plasma 6.1 with fixed Nvidia drivers), and even the arguably easiest option - Ublue images - had some issues I wouldn’t have been able to fix without deep Linux experience.

    But there definitely has been a lot of progress over the last couple of years, and I’m sure that will continue. We just have to be mindful of not participating in creating the next Microsoft. Ubuntu is already seen as the default Linux distribution - the further it gets entrenched, the worse for all of us.


  • But why move people from Microsoft to another company that is implementing more and more user-hostile “features”, when there are alternatives like Mint? If all the new Linux users are herded towards Canonical, it’s just giving them even more power to extract profits in the future.

    It’s far easier to have them start with a community-led project on the same basis. Imagine Ubuntu being enshittified and forked - how should they decide which fork to use, and how can they know it will still exist in a couple of years?


  • I see where you’re coming from, I used to hold the same perspective. But there were already a couple of “unrealistic” plot elements before that - like the gravitational anomalies in their house, or the conveniently-placed-and-magically-kept-open-and-large-enough wormhole, which doesn’t seem much less Deus ex machina than the tesseract at the end.

    Maybe the biggest difference in perspective is in the “power of love” - I don’t think the plot is using that as a solution, that’s just Coopers interpretation. The solution is the tesseract created by the future humans, which isn’t that much more unrealistic than the wormhole. It was a unique and visually incredibly interesting interpretation of the supposed singularity at the center of a black hole, and sadly there’s probably no way we could ever even form theories on what that might look like.

    In the end, I’m not sure there’s anything less unrealistic that could finish the plot, and I’m fine with the sci-fi elements. But that doesn’t make your view any less valid!


  • What do you mean with “love dimension”? Are you talking about the inside of the black hole? That was explained with the future humans constructing a space that Cooper could understand, navigate, and use to transmit the data necessary for human survival to his daughter. Love is what made his daughter believe in him and attempt to decode the message, but the space itself had nothing to do with love.


  • Nothing that happened in the movie could have been successful without love, it allowed humanity to do what shouldn’t have been possible.

    To start off, I believe there was a very narrow path that led to humanities survival - kinda like that Doctor Strange scene in Infinity War. Had things happened differently (Cooper wasn’t the pilot, they didn’t go to the ice planet, Cooper didn’t sacrifice himself) humanity would have been doomed, and all those things happened due to love.

    And only love is what allowed Cooper and his daughter to actually bridge time and space, because if she didn’t love him so much, she wouldn’t have attempted to decode the gravitational messages - she wouldn’t have believed this to be possible. But she did believe in him, and she did believe that he would still be out there and trying to save them.

    None of the things they attempted would have worked without love, and none of them would have meant anything without love. In the end, the story is all about human connections driving us to attempt the impossible, and that’s a lot more powerful than some scientific MacGuffin could ever be.




  • You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding my point, as I didn’t mention the average person’s intelligence in any way. All I’m saying is that minimizing the effort required to really try multiple distributions is a terrible way of introducing people to Linux. It will only lead to frustration and rejection. Choosing your bread doesn’t require investing dozens of hours.


  • No, it absolutely is hard, and those are bad comparisons. Growing up you interact with bread and cars, and you build a preference based on what you’re taught and what you experience. If I go into a new store and see a dozen types of bread I’ve never eaten, I can still make inferences about their taste, texture etc. This is not the case with Linux distributions - if I’ve never used Linux before, I literally don’t know what the hell I’m doing.

    And it’s absolutely unrealistic to expect your average person to try a few out. They won’t be able to decide on technical grounds, and they’ll have to use the distribution for some time to build enough experience for a preference. Going back to your car example, it’s like suggesting people buy a few cars and decide which one they like (since they don’t have the experience to make judgements based on short test drives) - you’re asking them to invest a lot of time for something they don’t really need or want.





  • Okay, but why do you tell me that I’m wrong and keep going on about unrelated points? I don’t care if the user-facing name is different from the binary name. I have no position on the topic.

    I corrected a wrong statement (who is responsible for the .desktop file of an application). You tried to counter-correct me, but did so on an unrelated point (who displays the application name? I’m still not sure). Positions on whether .desktop files defining separate names is good aren’t relevant.


  • Your Mint/Xed example doesn’t show what you think it does. Mint doesn’t just ship with .desktop entries for a bunch of applications, they are still managed by the respective developers and part of the packages themselves. Mint is also the developer of Xed, so the repository is in their organization, but the .desktop file is still part of the package. If you install Xed on any other distribution, you’ll still get the same .desktop entry, because it’s part of the package.

    That is all I’ve been talking about. I’m not sure how your reply relates to that, but it would help me if you tell me what you’re arguing against.