421–430 of 578 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try using any Google property without chrome, or try using any iOS device without safari. This is pretty harmless in my opinion.
Google doesn't bother me if I set Firefox for Android as the default browser.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then don't use that DE that is targeting at clearly other people (I agree it sucks that most distributions use that DE but as power user you can install the distribution or DE that fits you better).
Unfortunately the triplet DE--GUI-Toolkit--Applications is often intertwined or at least evolves in the same manner. For example, I don't want GTK-3, I only have GTK-2 installed. It could be all fine and dandy if, one after another, year after year, applications wouldn't give up their GTK-2 backend to only maintain/develop their GTK-3 one. The set of (up-to-date) applications I can run decreases, despite the fact tha…
gtk2 is deprecated, so it makes sense that any actively-supported applications are moving to gtk3, which is still supported. By refusing to use gtk3, you're locking yourself out of not only newer applications that were only written for it, but older ones that have moved to it.
Why do you think an actively-maintained application should stick with a deprecated toolkit?
>On Qt side, there are applications which requires an exact version of Qt (not only the main version Qt-3/4/5, but the point version), or require KDE, or require an exact version of KDE.
In all my years, I've never seen this with an actively-maintained application. Of course, I generally stick with stuff that's available in my distro repo, so I never have any trouble.
Also note that with both gtk3 and Qt5, both these toolkits have been around for something like a decade now. Looking at Wikipedia, gtk3 3.0 came out exactly 9 years ago (10-02-2011), and Qt5 came out on 19-12-2012. Neither of these is at all new. I will grant you, though, that gtk3 is now already headed the way of the dodo, since they've announced gtk4. Personally, I'm not a fan of gtk and prefer Qt as it seems much more stable and better for GUI development anyway, and I don't see anything about Qt5 being phased out. Qt is also used a lot in embedded systems in industry, unlike gtk.
>the visible changes were: icons are now flat and monochrome (i.e. you cannot recognise one from another)
That's all the rage these days. I'm not a big fan either, but it's what most users want. This isn't a brand-new fad either; it's been going on for years now. I do wish I could try living in the alternate universe where UI design mostly stuck with way things were done in the mid-2000s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who uses one of the minority desktops within a minority distro (Fedora w/ Cinnamon spin), I agree that all of the trash-talking within a community is to the detriment to its spread. I almost wish we could get all Linux users to verbally agree to something like the following: "I will not trash popular Linux desktop environments to outsiders. Ubuntu is fine. GNOME is fine. I understand that for the sake of t…
I think you misunderstood : the problem is not the trash-talking, the problem is that all Linux DE are trashes and if people were only putting their effort on one it wouldn't be trash.
And why would Linux need Such desktop-to-end-all-other-desktops? It would be a trashy configure me only with mouse desktop. Let such users stay at Windows or Mac and allow power users to have their choice if 20 desktops with majority of them allowing at least a text configuration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I really don't care about things like UI consistency and whatnot -- what I do care about is stability and functionality. I was on Linux for about 20 years, and now I've been on Mac for 6. Of course, I've had to deal with Windows all this time, too, for gaming and work. (I was even certified on NT.) Anyway, I've no doubt that Windows is pretty stable by now, but the glorious configuration that my company sets up on…
> Apple doesn't play well with enterprises Well, it plays too well actually. At my current job and at previous one we had a choice Mac or a Windows laptop. Mac ones were alway much more rigid with restrictions, less hackable (e.g. Installing Linux side by side was impossible on Mac, because it broke macos somehow as a result of enterprise drive encryption).
Not even slightly surprised. When I got my Win 10 machine at work I typed "python" into my command line to see if it was installed and was shocked I didn't get a "command not found" message back, and confused when the MS Store popped up a second later. Win 10 ships with a python.exe that redirects to the MS Store and they hide in a place that makes its tough to remove from the path. When I got Win 10 at home I got to…
For most users this is great. Instead of having to find where to download python and install it, Microsoft will do it for you from the store. How is this different than ubuntu suggesting the apt command when you type a command?
apt installs packages for the system as a whole. Microsoft store does not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I just don't understand why people run windows I do. And just a disclaimer, I am using linux 100% on desktop (and prefer freebsd on servers). Where I run firefox, i3, terminal, evolution (as I am forced to use it due to Exchange support, while I actually prefer mutt) and this is it. I rarely run anything else that is windowed. The reason is simple. Linux desktop really sucks. Instead of whole community stepping tog…
> The reason is simple. Linux desktop really sucks. While I am as idiosyncratic as anyone about Linux desktops (I run the Trinity Desktop Environment, which is basically the old KDE 3 kept up to date), and I am no fan of systemd or hw support problems (amdgpu, for instance, insists on locking up my laptop every so often), I don't think any of these things are the primary reason people run windows. I think the primary…
I think this is slowly changing. I'm seeing more and more people who have given up Windows and moved to 1) Macbooks, 2) tables, 3) Chromebooks, or 4) just using phones.
I agree that the Linux desktop failures aren't the primary reason people run Windows, but it hasn't helped.
>It would probably end up cheaper, since the cost of development of a well made, bugless Linux desktop would probably amortize to less than the Windows tax per unit.
There's no "probably" about it. We already have fairly decent Linux desktops (just use Ubuntu: for most people, it "just works" most of the time, and it costs nothing). The Windows tax is already the largest BOM item for a PC. The additional cost needed to make Debian or Ubuntu into something even more bug-free and fully-featured wouldn't be that much. In fact, this was basically the whole idea behind many Linux distros: give them away for free to the masses, but sell support contracts to large corporations and governments to finance it. Unfortunately, that didn't work out so well. It's worked for Red Hat, but that's about the only company that's done well in this space, mainly because of US Government contracts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or you could just use a window manager that doesn’t change? I’ve had the same desktop env for over a decade and nothing has changed at all. In contrast with windows and osx where we literally cannot opt out.
Almost all my Linux work has been via command line for quite a while, so maybe this has changed, but my recollection was the GUI inconsistency had little to do with the window manager. It had much more to do with the X libraries that the developer of each app decided to use. I used to have a screen shot showing me running something like 5 different GUI apps on a Linux system, all of them trying to open a file, each w…
But they all perform the same function of choosing a file right? What does it matter if they all look the same? I don't understand why anyone would care so much whether the file choosing windows match eachother visually between different apps. As long as I can pick a file effectively, I wouldn't really care if the app had pink sparkles or something. As long as it does what it's supposed to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or you could just use a window manager that doesn’t change? I’ve had the same desktop env for over a decade and nothing has changed at all. In contrast with windows and osx where we literally cannot opt out.
Almost all my Linux work has been via command line for quite a while, so maybe this has changed, but my recollection was the GUI inconsistency had little to do with the window manager. It had much more to do with the X libraries that the developer of each app decided to use. I used to have a screen shot showing me running something like 5 different GUI apps on a Linux system, all of them trying to open a file, each w…
https://i.imgur.com/JG7I2hu.png
Odds that it's even worse since this was created?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple does the same sort of thing these days, Music.app on my phone keeps showing me a full screen ad for Apple Music around a month, dismissed it about 5 times now.
it's everywhere outside of overtly freedom-concerned software. the idiots are winning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Were OS upgrades ever a significant profit center for Microsoft? Prior to the free Windows 10 upgrade, most users I know of would only get on a new version of Windows when it came with a new computer.
Those upgrades werent free, they were hidden in the cost of the machine
I'm asking about Windows upgrade SKUs-- the kind that you'd buy in a box someplace like Best Buy or Circuit City or Office Max back in the day, completely separate from a computer. Were those ever a meaningful fraction of sales? Or, phrased differently, is Microsoft actually leaving any money on the table by making Windows 10 upgrades (both the Windows 7/8 to 10 and 10 feature releases) free for consumers rather than paid?
