People who expect an effortless transition from Windows to Linux, are better off sticking to Windows. You are expected to be able to read stuff, and make some effort to understand it. It shouldn’t be any less than what you’d expect if going from Linux to Windows.
Many things will be different. You’ll get a long way with learning some fundamentals. If you make the effort, it’ll be well rewarded. If it’s not worth the effort, stick to windows.
This was news to me as well, but I assume that the Arch Linux logo in question suggests that it might be strange to use an Arch Linux specific illustration, for something that isn’t mentioning Arch Linux.
Did that clear it up, or were you just being rude?
Don’t confuse “I’m used to X” with “X is simpler”
Windows: Search the Web for some software. Visit webpage. Download executable. Run it. Go through a install wizard. (One month later) Update? Some do it themselves, some just let you know there is a newer version, and a lot of bigger players have a program dedicated to just updating some other program.
Compared to (for example): paru -S <something>
That’s it. Updating aaaalll the software in your whole system, including the OS, and you don’t have to restart, or even close any of the programs you are updating? paru
Use arch with AUR, and cross your fingers that at least someone checks the changes. I sure don’t.
deleted by creator
Not so much inside your home.
What a weird defeatist thought. We’re already in lala-land with 5% tax added, albeit measly, on the ruling class. So, why not lala all the way to a positive use of it?
The amount of time I’ve spent getting my MacOS to not be annoying… it’s such a shit experience compared to Gnome/Linux. Every single day I use MacOS, I find a new annoying inconsistency, or either poor or directly bad UX design decision or implementation.
Next time I look for a place to work, I’d consider Windows or MacOS to require at least 30% higher salary to be worth the annoyance.
Maybe a mechanism for collective bargaining can help mitigate the problem? Something, something, Reagan.
I get mine to make a clicking sound. Audible to someone else if they stick their ear next to mine.
This covers it pretty well.
If you want a very short version: a hypothetical eventuality in the technological advancement of intelligent life, as to limit their existence.
Why are you assuming and generalizing to that extent? Even if some malign interest are encouraging a trend, it’s still individuals expressing a view that aims to get some point across. If you think this is coordinated astroturfing, I think you might be just a tad delusional, and also simply not aware of why the bear analogy (not meme) was made.
The troubling part here, would be to disregard the gist of the message: a lot more women than most people are aware of, experience unpleasant interactions with men. That this is expressed, perhaps exaggerated (for making the point clearer), perhaps genuinely and literally (because that’s their opinion), as rather taking their chances with a bear… Is kinda fucking rich to disregard as astroturfing, IMHO. And, if you are a normal, decent, empathetic person, and want to be perceived as such, I’d keep that perspective to yourself.
You don’t seem to understand what’s being said. And, I’m not keen on indulging. Have a good one.
I’m going to take all your questions at face value, and assume it’s all good faith.
How would you feel if the hypothetical was asking if you’d rather encounter a bear or a Muslim?
My emotions are not that fickle. I also don’t see an inherent problem with questions, nor this one in particular. It would be stupid of me to assume you mean something more specific than what you’ve stated. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and ask to clarify constraints.
What about a bear or a person who is black?
Same thing here. You realise that what we’d be exploring is the concept of, and awareness of, potential biases and prejudices? And, more importantly, the prevalence of experiences that lead to such biases?
Or a bear vs an immigrant?
Oh, this one is clear cut. Immigrants are the fucking worst.
(jk)
See the issue?
Nope. I don’t. You should re-evaluate the purpose of having conversations and discussing hypotheticals.
Also, when we dehumanize or other an entire sex (which is what we’re doing here) who do you think suffers the most irl from that dehumanization?
Is that what you think we’re doing here? If so, then we arrived at what the misunderstanding is. Which is a good thing. Or, it is if you give a shit about understanding the argument, and less about making your own. The latter is of course fine, but, on its own.
Because it isn’t rich white men in gated suburban communities. It’s the black and brown men who are already viewed as inherently harmful and are disproportionately violently victimized by police and the state.
If we want more George Floyds then we should keep spreading memes like this. Because this contributes to the mindset that allows us to view men of color as inherently dangerous superpredators
Not related or relevant here. Not saying it isn’t important, but, as mentioned. If you want to make your own arguments or discuss other things, that’s fine. Probably effective to start your own thread for that.
Thanks. In other words just not understanding basic words and statistics?
In this case, unknown/random sample != average of samples. Being alone in the woods, and encountering a bear, is arguably more dangerous than the average male human. Most bears that aren’t grizzlies will happily leave you alone, which I hope is also the case with the average man. If you are unlucky with which person you encounter, the dangers can be much worse.
Probably Bayesian elements here too, where the end result is “what is riskier”, with an implicit assumption of “meeting a bear” = unlikely, “meeting a man” = likely (relatively). In any case, not listening to the emotional takeaway from shitty experiences, is, ironically, a very male stereotype.
I’m confused. How is that controversial, and how are people taking it personally?
The first one is just an expression of biases that their experiences have resulted in. As for the second one, I’m clueless. Maybe if you feel like the main character in every situation, they’d be offended because the man in reference is then, and as such not unknown?
Everything you mention is one strange assumption after another.
Blocked most Linux communities on lemmy, as most of them are low hanging dumb image memes that lost their relevancy about 10 years ago. Haven’t ran that much into this since.
That said, I use arch, and I’m very happy with it.
I think that’s a bit unfair here. What I’m saying is that expectations often seems to be that “Linux should be effortless, but it isn’t, so Linux sucks”, and then we quickly talk past each other on which aspects we are referring to. Let me make up three categories:
For users transitioning to Linux from Windows, and …
So, I assume people who just thought I was calling people lazy and dumb thought I meant categories 1. and 2. I just mean category 3. If you expect everything to be the same as Windows, and the effort required to understand the differences is too much, then only Windows will fit your needs. The impression I get is a general unwillingness to “figure stuff out”. Not knowing shit is fine, complaining and not wanting to put in the effort to know stuff… how is that not being lazy?
It was intended as kind advice without any the implied judgement of calling people dumb or lazy. If you don’t want to have to figure stuff out related to the third category, Linux will likely not be a good experience, or even a productive or good change. If you move to another country, you should make the effort to learn the culture. It’s not a good look to complain that things are different.
If I were to try to suggest “a point” with all of this: Don’t suggest to people that Linux is effortless for Windows users. Linux is immensely better, in almost every way (though mind examples in first category). But, it requires learning the basics of how shit works. It’s not hard… the information is well put together and available.