Windows ‘just works’? What about all the programs crashes that you need to go through endless YouTube tutorials to fix? What about having to fill up a form and register your credit card for every closed source program you need to install?
I’ve literally never had either of these experiences with W10.
At least not in the past 5+ years.
Yes it was longer than that.
My main thing is that, then and now (based on discussions I read between users), most any user experience that I relate to seems to be equal parts:
“try to figure out the Linux equivalent of what you were doing in Windows and hope it’s compatible with the rest of your needs”
“Try to figure out how to get Linux to behave like Windows to accomplish something you did with that os”
“Become a hobbyist…programmer? IT specialist? And get familiar with tweaking and adjusting the details of how your computer works just to get it to do things you want”
Like…for people who enjoy it, I’m happy for them. Really! But I don’t want to have to familiarize myself with commands, learn how to boot things up, or learn a whole list of things just to get the simple mindless functionality I have with Windows from decades of time in the system.
I think back then I tried Debian, Ubuntu, and…is ‘OpenSUSE’ a thing? I even had a group of three friends who were all super into Linux encouraging me and helping me every step of the way, and I was young and technically inclined and happy to have a challenge…and in the end, I went right back to Windows after a semester or two of that, because I just found that my experience was, broadly speaking, “Enjoy a problem solving exercise in software management every time you want to do something, just to get to a basic level of function, with added quirks that you’ll just have to deal with…and little real benefit for the order of magnitude of extra effort”.
And while I’m sure some of that would have had to get better in the years between, most of the conversations I still see about Linux are enthusiasts enjoying coming up with solutions to the issues of using their chosen system. Which again, that’s fine, but I don’t want to have to become an enthusiast of an OS.
Given a choice between, “have to learn how to get the OS to do everything” vs “put up with data collection and some intrusive ads once in a while”… I’m happy to go with the latter to have things just work without having to learn a new skill set just to get the same level of functionality.
I’m happy to use W10 well after its official support ends, though I strongly suspect there will be significant extensions to that timeline. Even then, I’m happy to use it until it’s no longer the path of least resistance, at which point, I’ll reevaluate my options. When we get there, if it seems reasonable, maybe I’ll dip my toes into the Linux pool again.
Man, it’s a toss up for me as to which I hate more: Microsoft threatening and badgering me toward W11 (and by extension, a new computer) or Linux fanboys evangelizing for their preferred system.
Both are complete non-starters for me. I’m not buying a new machine while my current one does everything I need just fine… And after a few years of using Linux on my laptop back in college, I have no desire to set foot in that environment again either.
My perfectly good PC has an incompatible processor with W11, so I’m not upgrading.
I imagine it’ll still be just fine next October, so even if Microsoft doesn’t extend support for W10, I’ll still be using it.
My guess?
He’s far less concerned about the specifics of this situation and far more concerned about what happens if/when his Twitter is host to something horrible enough that people are calling for his head, and/or he is wanting to sell…or being pressured to sell Twitter…but there’s something specific he wants to stipulate in that transaction that a precedent set here might fuck up.
I mean, it’s all very subjective, so “too much” for you seems to be what is a good amount for everyone else…but realistically, I don’t think this is a legitimate complaint since you still need to be able to make all these adjustments anyway… it’s just a matter of the way the adjustments are being made.
All a touch screen changes is that it can play host to multiple functions depending on context…but it loses much of the visual recognition and almost all the tactile feedback of a physical control.
And while vehicles keep getting more and more complex for sure, I feel like when I’m riding in a more touchscreen heavy vehicle, that screen is displaying the same static set of controls 99% of the time…and at that point, the flexibility it offers is largely irrelevant, and the tradeoffs mean giving up a lot to get very little in exchange.
They get really spicy!
Disagree.
Personally, I feel the problem is absolutely touchscreens.
I’ve only got five senses, and taste and smell aren’t helpful in a driving situation.
Of the 3 left, sight is the most important for the most important task: driving.
For other tasks, sound is best used to alert or remind about something, and is frequently diminished as a driving aid by music.
That leaves touch and sight for all remaining tasks.
Touchscreens are, despite the name, effectively 100% reliant on sight, since there’s no real tactile feedback to enable the user to make eyes-free adjustments. To use a touchscreen, you have to take your eyes off the road to see what the screen says and make your selections.
While some are better than others, I also feel like touchscreens are still embarrassingly and frustratingly prone to errors, missed touches, and generally not doing the things the user intended, requiring even more eyes off the road to undo whatever actually happened, get the interface back to the place you want it, and try again, hoping that this time it’ll work.
My mid-teens vehicle has a mix of a medium sized touch screen for the entertainment unit but physical controls for climate, driving, and a few of the entertainment adjustments, and while I was all about the advanced new touchscreen when I bought it, I find it’s my least favorite part of the controls this far along in ownership.
Not only that, but there’s a 100% chance they sell this shit to you as a forever mouse, then in a few years if it’s not making them money hand over fist, they’ll discontinue it and keep your money.
It also wouldn’t cover a meal from Uber Eats.
Definitely worse than nothing.
It occurred to us that CrowdStrike is an absolutely terrible name. It sounds like a terrorist attack. Of course, it felt like one on Friday.
When I first heard about what was going on, I assumed that “CrowdStrike” was not the name of the software/company, but rather some sort of advanced DDOS-like attack where they used systems they’d previously hacked and had them all do the same thing at once to another target.
But you’re working in that scenario because you’re being paid.
If you had that job where your employer only had a say in what you deliver (ignoring the obvious pitfalls of that arrangement), and they suddenly stopped paying you, or started only paying you half…would you still be okay with it?
If not, then you’re working because you like being paid, not because you want to work.
On the flip side: if you had some sort of situation where you got paid a comfortable living that allowed you to cover all your expenses, indulge some luxury, and save…and you got this money no matter what, just for waking up…would you still work every day? Or work until your employer was satisfied with your output each day/week/pay period?
Some might…most specifically (I would think) people whose jobs provide some sort of personal fulfillment like teachers, caregivers, etc. but I think the vast majority of people would take the money and live lives that offered personal enjoyment and fulfillment, doing what they wanted to do, not what an employer (who at that point isn’t their source of pay) would like them to do.
But let’s say you could also make that living wage just by existing. In a world where you wake up each day and a day’s worth of your living wage was automatically deposited into your account whether you worked a job you liked or even if you went out for a walk in the park…would you still choose to work every day?
Right?
“Nobody wants to work anymore!”
Like no shit man.
News Flash: nobody has wanted to work ever. They work because the compensation lets them live the lives they want outside of work. If nobody wants to work for you, it’s because you either aren’t willing to compensate them enough to do that, or your job makes them so miserable that it’s not worth it for them to trade away that much happiness for the compensation.
Or both. In lots of cases it’s both.
The more the old lies are proven as lies, the closer we get to the truth:
Just as important as “getting the job done” is the notion among many employers that they truly believe that with their payroll they are buying human lives and happiness. That if they are paying a worker for their time and labor that they are entitled to also dictate how that person feels about it…and if that worker is not sufficiently miserable, then they can be squeezed further.
I used to think that it was purely about money…that the idea was that if a worker ever got “all caught up” and had free time, then they should be generating more wealth for their employer in some other way…but then we had the pandemic.
The pandemic where lots and lots of workers had to suddenly do the whole work from home thing. And in that time, these employers were thrilled to go along with it, since it meant continuing to make money. And in that time, most office workers eventually turned out to be happier and even more productive.
…yet in the wake of the pandemic, many of these employers have chosen less productivity in exchange for bringing their employees back to offices. The only explanation for bringing employees back in who were happier and more productive from home is that these employers value the image of control and the ability to make their workers unhappy more than they value productivity and money.
I went from IE to Firefox back in that same timeframe, then by the time Chrome came out, my Firefox just had too much clutter and Chrome was way faster.
Within the past year, Chrome managed to enshittify itself enough that I’ve gone back to Firefox on PC (still using chrome on mobile) and it’s the same sort of “lighter, faster” feel that I got years ago when I left it for Chrome.
There’s also the whole ad blocker bullshit too, of course. YouTube ads were the last straw for me.
This
And when I run into issues, I would rather be using the OS that is the most common so that I have more options to get good info for a fix. I don’t want problems that nobody’s ever encountered, or for which the fix is beyond my limited technical ability.
It’s somewhat amusing when I see people on Lemmy proselytizing for Linux and literally while laying out their points to convince someone how easy it is, they’ll talk about doing shit that is already beyond my ability. And I’m not some 90 year old who struggles to turn it on. I’m just a user that doesn’t care to use any OS that I’ll need to take time to learn to figure out how to use it.
When I start a Windows machine I just do what I need to do.
When even a Linux cheerleader is trying to convince someone how easy it is, they’re already indicating more effort than I want to put into it.
“Intuitive” is basically telling you what you want and being right about it.
The opposite of telling you what you want isn’t being intuitive, it’s being flexible and customizable.
Real talk: at this point, you may be my main reason to still be active on Lemmy.
Anyone who thinks tariffs will do anything at all positive for the American working class is absolutely clueless.
All they do is make prices jump for consumers. It doesn’t put domestic goods at an advantage because the domestic producers of those goods increase their prices artificially to achieve parity with import pricing.
So prices go up for the consumer with the extra money going to either:
or