And modern mid-range photo cameras come with crazy features. Autofocus that can detect human and even animal eyes and instantly focus on those. Lenses with whisper-quiet and crazy fast ultrasonic focusing motors. Image stabilization both in the lens and in the camera.
Oh, and your photo camera can record video, too, because why wouldn’t it?
And their business practices as well. Bringing store exclusivity to the PC games market and paying publishers to delay launches on other stores is not something I want to support.
If you want a bunch of stuff that’s not in core or extra and you don’t want to intensely babysit the AUR, you could try Chaotic-AUR. It hosts prebuilt packages for a bunch of AUR packages which are actively maintained by the Chaotic team.
I consider it to be more secure than the AUR proper since they actually care for their packages and review nontrivial changes. For instance, the recent takeover attacks didn’t hit Chaotic-AUR builds since the changed packages didn’t make it past the review.
It’s still an unofficial third-party repository and closer to the AUR than to extra but I consider it a major step up.
I have to disagree on side details: OS X did have version numbers starting with 10. I used it between Panther and Yosemite and I can remember Tiger being called version 10.4; it was literally printed on the installation disc.
Yes, that means “Mac OS X 10.0” had two tens right after one another. Apple aren’t Microsoft silly when it comes to names but they can be silly.
Also, it wasn’t introduced as OS X. It was “Mac OS X” until 10.7, then “OS X” until 10.11, and “macOS” since then.
Not to my knowledge. They did block a few of these because they got auto-flagged for manual review.
Reformatting isn’t going to change how your SSD is electrically connected to your mainboard. Do you actually mean NTFS?
I suppose a distro might ship without NTFS-3g or the ability to install it, although Bazzite should be able to at least read NTFS.
Not a hardware issue; Linux handles NVMe and SATA drives just fine. They probably encrypted everything with BitLocker. Of course Linux can’t access an SSD encrypted using a proprietary Microsoft software with keys that may no longer be accessible.
Too much typing. Real men just press Alt+SysRq+L.
A Backstroke of the West screenshot is definitely an inspired choice for the “keep above others” feature.
As does Arch AFAIK. It’s still very niche, though.
You see, that’s just inaccurate. GNU/Linux is not equivalent to GNU+Linux. That would be addition; this is division. The bigger Linux gets, the smaller GNU/Linux becomes.
That’s why they’ve developed GNU/Hurd. Hurd is unlikely to ever amount to much, meaning that GNU/Hurd will never evaluate to a small value. And that is cold, hard mathematical fact.
Mind you, on my own Linux machine I can become root while on Windows all I can be is someone with admin rights (but subordinate to SYSTEM).
Interesting. So only the fast distros were done patching by time of disclosure. The ones you wouldn’t run a server on. Because only the kernel devs better informed. That’s… pretty amateurish from the guys who discovered CopyFail.
Most distros delivered patched kernels well before the vulnerability was publicly disclosed. Not sure if Ubuntu did but they had ample time to do so.
I said I can respect it, not that it’s good. It feels like a deliberate attempt to torpedo the revival of a series that really didn’t need to be revived. That’s what I can respect, not the movie on its own merits.
I can respect the fourth one. Sure, it was a terrible movie but it feels like a deliberate piss take on the idea of reviving the franchise. And I can respect that.
I have. Never had your machine just sit there and refuse to boot because a network share is down? Or because the wifi isn’t connected yet?
I absolutely have. The solution wasn’t found in the init system, though, but by giving my NFS mounts the nofail option in /etc/fstab. Filesystem handling isn’t init’s job.
Overall I haven’t had significantly more or less issues with systemd over OpenRC. I’m not a particularly big fan of their approach to things but their init system is perfectly serviceable.
There are 3 or 4 total sentences in the whole thing and the very first one is laying out that this whole thing is about workstations. I don’t know how much more I could do other then literally plan for this argument that you started.
The problem lies with the closing sentence: “sure, but its down there with arch as a usable OS in anything outside of an LTT video.” That implies that both Pop and Arch are not very useful for anything. That is the broad statement that people are arguing against. You may not wanted to have made a strong statement there but you did.
As far as not mentioning nontechnical users, fuck right off with that, all users are nontechnical unless otherwise stated. Anyone who has had to set a computer up for anyone other then themselves knows this. I did not make the comment assuming that someone would get bent out of shape and look for any “win”.
Nobody knows how many people work in your shop and what kind of shop it is. That’s the part where you come in with a premise that is unknown to everyone else. There’s a huge difference between a chain of three computer stores in a 10 km radius, a chain of three hobby stores scattered across a country, and a chain of 100 anything stores operating as part of a major LLC.
Nobody knows if setting up workstations involves you walking over and configuring everything by hand, you pushing preconfigured images over PXE, or (as seems to be the case) you shipping unmodified live USBs to people along with a set of instructions. I assumed the first one, for instance.
We didn’t even know what your workstations are and do. When I hear “workstation” I think of a beefy PC doing things that require a lot of processing power and are typically given to power users. But they could also be thin kiosk systems that only ever need to display a single website. Or they could manage the POS system. Or a million other things. Depending on what those workstations are, the requirements could be anything from a hyper-specialized setup to “here’s a desktop with Chrome; you know the rest”.
So while it was obvious to you that “one of my stores workstations” implies “a general-purpose computer maintained and operated by a nontechnical user in a remote location”, it wasn’t obvious to anyone else.
The stores are 250 kms apart, you can not in good faith tell me arch is appropriate unless you have an administrator on site (and if I was that administrator I would likely strike you).
Given your use case, Arch is indeed a bad fit. I wouldn’t even argue for an Arch derivative (where usually the setup is done through a bog-standard Calamares installer). But that’s like complaining that nobody ever needs a semi truck because it doesn’t meet your needs of being compact and fuel-efficient. Like Arch it’s simply a tool for a different job.
There is no situation where you are setting up workstations for users that are not Linux-averse outside of a Linux development environment, in which case those users will not like that you set up arch for them, as if they are arch fans they will also want to do their own configurations.
Those users also don’t want to deal with any other Linux distro or Windows or macOS. They want their computer to work and someone else to make that happen. And if someone else does make it happen they generally couldn’t care less about what’s under the hood as long as their workflow isn’t impeded.
(Also, there definitely are people who prefer Linux outside of Linux development. Just because my company issued me a Windows desktop doesn’t mean I have to like it.)
The problem is that you didn’t state your premises very well, making your argument harder to follow. (You also argue very broadly.)
You first argued that Arch is not a usable operating system, which is a bold claim given that it’s one of the most popular Linux distros. While you did mention a workstation before, the claim regarding Arch wasn’t obviously connected to that, implying that Arch is not useful for any purpose.
When asked to back up that claim you talked about workstations for nontechnical users (which hadn’t been mentioned before). That didn’t match your earlier claims; you made a broad statement and then defended a narrower one. That’s indeed a motte and bailey argument even if you simply forgot to mention some details.
Also, if the users are nontechnical they’re probably not the ones who administer the workstations so they don’t need to care about technical details as long as you can provide a desktop and the applications they need.
After that you declared that any OS that needs more than 15 minutes to set up is useless, which amounts to pretty much all of them unless you don’t engage in any configuration at all. And, well, it’s another bold claim. It’s basically on par with “Mint is completely pointless because unlike Alpine I can’t use it to ship 5 MB Docker images”; you’re basically declaring that your specific use case is equivalent to any use case any Linux user will ever have.
A coherent version of your argument would be “I don’t like Arch because when I set up workstations for Linux-averse users it was much more work than Mint and I prefer something that’s quick and easy to set up”. And fair enough, that’s a perfectly valid reason for you to prefer Mint over Arch. But it’s not an indication that Arch is worse in general or even unusable. It’s just a bad fit for this specific use case.
It also doesn’t help that ACPI is a badly-designed mess of a standard. I remember that in the 2010s one of Apple’s selling points was that their laptops had sleep and hibernation that worked every time. Heck, MacOS X could even decide intelligently when to do which. This mostly worked because they fully controlled the hardware, firmware, and software. Other laptop manufacturers could just take their best stab at implementing ACPI power states and hope their implementation matched Microsoft’s.
Microsoft tried to solve the mess by introducing the S0ix ACPI state (aka “Modern Standby”), which was defined in a way that could actually be implemented without too much guesswork. Unfortunately, this was during the Windows 8 era when Microsoft decided that laptops should be more like smartphones so S0ix is much closer to turning your screen off on a phone than to actual standby.
The system randomly waking up and deciding to do work is an explicitly intended feature because what if you get a Teams message while your laptop is in your bag? Sure, you might say that you’d either have Teams on your phone or wouldn’t immediately care but that kind of thinking won’t get you anywhere within Microsoft. Also, Windows actually has very little restraint about what it does when it wakes up so it might decide to install a heavy update or an application might decide it’s important enough to do work right now. While the laptop is in your bag. Cue you wondering if the laptop turned off because the battery’s empty or because it overheated.
And to make things worse Microsoft specified that in order to be allowed to use Modern Standby, the device must not offer S3 (sleep/suspend-to-ram). Some manufacturers still allow you to enable S3 but it’s a legacy feature that’s even less well supported than before.