kyub

What she (and other climate activists) have done and do is spread awareness about this issue. As you can imagine, it's important to keep important topics (arguably even the most important topic humanity faces, yes even more important than soccer (lol)) present in media and in people's heads for them to not be forgotten soon after again. People need to be constantly reminded that our current way of life currently destroys our planet, especially considering that not much happened to steer against this problem within the last couple of years after the Paris agreement. And we don't even know many of the tipping points that could accelerate disaster even further. When some ecosystems stop existing and food chains become disrupted, for example.

In a way, she's like a PR person for the most important topic in science currently. And she (and other climate actrivists) is successful at it, considering it's so often in the news and so many of the polluters hate her and try to discredit her and others.

Always remember though: it's about the problem, not specific people. Of course we like talking about people, and the media does it as well, but as the saying goes, "small minds discuss people, great minds discuss ideas". It's about the problem at hand, irrelevant of Greta or other activists. She's just trying to bring the point across to a mass audience, that's all. We (as in: the whole humanity, no exceptions) need to take action against the problem, not talk about Greta. This "ad hominem" strategy is sometimes deliberately used as a distraction away from the issue at hand. When articles talk about Greta or try to discredit her or whatever, then the debate is shifted away from the actual problem at hand. Even articles about her in a positive light are, in the end, irrelevant. It's not about her, or other climate activists. She even says that herself. If the activists didn't exist, we'd still face the exact same problem.

Also die Farbgebung ist wohl angelehnt an Pringles, da ist gelb = Paprika und rot = "Original". Da Pringles extrem bekannt ist, kann das Sinn machen, sich an die bekanntere Farbgebung zu halten. Aber was der Unterschied zwischen Original und Paprika ist, weiß ich nicht. Für mich sind Paprika-Chips immer die Default-Chips.

thorough hardware certification process

Probably marketing speech for "an intern tested it once with the default setup and he reported there were no errors"

Broken standby on Linux

That is sometimes broken because of broken UEFI/ACPI implementations which the Windows drivers were made to respect and work around, but the Linux drivers who are often developed not by the hardware manufacture himself but rather 3rd parties who implement them according to the available docs/specifications, will then result in a semi-broken functionality because implementing something according to the specification doesn't mean much unfortunately if there are quirks or bugs you have to circumvent as well. This improves over time though with more adoption of Linux. When you compare the hardware support of Linux today vs. 20 years ago, it's become much, much better already due to more developers and users working on it / reporting issues, and also more and more hardware vendors becoming actually involved in the Linux driver development.

GPU bugs and screen flickering on Linux

Various hangs and crashed

Definitely not normal. But it's likely that it's just a small configuration or driver issue. Since you didn't provide any details, I just leave it as "easy to configure properly". I get that it would be cooler if it worked OOTB, but sometimes that isn't the case. It goes both ways, as well. It's hard to generalize based on few occurrences, but I also had problems long ago with a mainboard with its Realtek audio drivers on Windows which didn't work. Don't remember the details because it was long ago but I had to hunt for a very specific driver version from Realtek (wasn't easy to find), and couldn't use the one the mainboard vendor provided as the Realtek driver, nor the one provided by Windows by default. Anyway, of course Windows is generally better supported on most notebooks, I won't deny that, but that's simply due to market share, not because it's somehow made better. That's important to realize. If Linux had 80% market share, it would be the other way round, every manufacturer would absolutely ensure that their driver will work on all their distro targets and all their hardware models. In the Linux world, the drivers are sometimes made by 3rd party developers because otherwise there would be no driver at all, and so it's better to have a mostly functional driver than none at all. And that's also just because the vendors CAN ignore Linux based on marketshare. They shouldn't, but they can, and it makes short-term financial sense to do so, so it happens. Of course, if they market some of their models as explicitly Linux-friendly, they should absolutely ensure that such things will work OOTB. But even if they don't, it's usually not hard to make it work.

new laptops and Windows 11, basically anything works

Only because the manufacturer HAS to ensure that it works, while he DOESN'T HAVE to ensure that Linux will play nice with that hardware as well. I recommend using either notebooks from Linux-specific manufacturers (I had good experiences with Tuxedo for example) or you continue to use the "Linux-centric" notebook models from Dell/HP/... and then simply troubleshoot any shortcomings these might have. I don't know the model but it's very likely that it's a simple configuration issue. And I wouldn't recommend using the manufacturer's default OS. Especially not with Windows notebooks. Always reinstall a fresh, unmodified OS, and work from there. I'd even assume that if you leave out any vendor-specific software or kernel modules, your problems will probably vanish already.

I have effectively added €500 to my budget

That's an unfortunate reality also in other areas. Smaller vendors can't produce in mass quantities, and so they have to sell their stuff for more money, even though it seems counter-intuitive at first. But this is also the case with e.g. the Librem 5 mobile phone which is also very expensive (but a great option if you want a mainline Linux phone) [in this case, it's very expensive becaue you not only pay for the hardware, but also for the software development time], or well anything which isn't cheaply produced on a mass scale where you get volume discounts. So in a sense, if you want to change the status quo, you have to pay extra. So yes, buying a brand new Linux notebook isn't cheap, unless you want to specifically use an older notebook where Linux also happens to run on. But on the other hand, buying a pure Linux notebook also should generally ensure that it will work well. Similar to how when you buy hardware from Apple, they will ensure that OS X runs well on it.

I don't think that you can generalize anything from your or your friend's experience, so it seems likely that your friend misconfigured something or installed something the wrong way, leading to such stability problems. General tip: stability issues are almost always driver-related. Same as on Windows. So first try to remove all non-essential drivers (kernel modules on Linux) and see whether that improves stability. And, of course, check the logs. In most cases, they will point out the issue. I've also installed Linux on several "Windows-only" (not marketed as Linux compatible) notebooks and it ran just fine without ANY stability or graphics issues. I have a Lenovo ThinkPad for work and it runs Arch Linux, it's probably more stable than the Win11 it's supposed to run with. At least among my colleagues who run Win11 on it, I'm the only one who didn't yet have a driver or update issue within its lifespan. One of those colleagues even had to reinstall Win11 after a borked update. I also use Tuxedo notebooks (Linux-compatible by default) personally and they're great as well. But of course I never use vendor-supplied software, so I'm not affected if such software behaves badly. I always configure my systems the way I want them, starting from a vanilla base.

It depends. It could also be a better idea to introduce a sort of "IT driver's license" for everyone to have basic understanding/skills to use their devices. Sure, modern software stacks are ridiculously complex and no one understands every detail down to each machine code/assembly instruction, so there's always a big amount of abstraction or simplification needed, but I don't think it's a good idea to request that someone with literal zero knowledge whatsoever should be able to perfectly use an OS or device. That's also not even possible. I see it with my mother, she started from zero knowledge but she had to learn some basics to be able to do the few things she needs to do. Of course she uses Linux. No prior Windows knowledge means a much easier start with Linux of course. She wouldn't have been able to use Windows either with zero knowledge. So this is a point that some forget: even Windows users need knowledge to be able to use Windows, and they probably already earned that knowledge in much earlier years. This Windows knowledge also works against you building up Linux (or even OS X) knowledge because Windows works quite differently from a Unix-like OS. This is not irrelevant: a Windows user who spent like 30 years in Windows has a much harder time learning Linux, than someone who didn't have that. But, again, not really the fault of Linux that you indoctrinated yourself with Windows-only MS product specific knowledge over the last decades. This is probably the biggest problem there is, because almost everyone on the planet has already acquired some amount of Windows knowledge in the past. This works against you when trying to switch. Windows knowledge is mostly Windows-specific. When learning about IT, you should make sure that you learn things in a preferably OS agnostic way. Which is also the reason why schools etc. should never teach "using MS products". They should always teach fundamentals, irrelevant of what you use afterwards. And those fundamentals should of course not be taught using commercial products, but rather open source software.

Then there are some fantasies which MS and Apple could establish in the broader population which aren't true, for example that CLI/terminal usage is archaic and has no place on modern desktops anymore. CLI usage will always remain as a fast alternative to a lot of tasks which are hard or even impossible to do via GUI. Even MS has realized this and introduced Powershell, a new terminal, and winget, for example. As well as WSL (which was originally and still mostly is being used to have access to powerful Linux-based CLI utilities). Yet still a lot of people seem to think that CLI is obsolete or that it's "hard". Sure, if you do some scripting or complex one-liners, it can be too hard for someone without strong IT knowledge. But most commands are really basic and easy to understand. Even my mother is able to use basic commandline utilities, and she even prefers it sometimes over clicking around in the GUI. To claim that this is impossible or too hard to learn for a Windows user is, I don't know. At least untrue. Probably even an insult to your own intelligence. And the main reason why most Linux users suggest doing things via commandline is that this is an almost distro- and desktop-independent way of doing things.

Also, not a big fan of the "fan" label here. Regardless of whether or not you like Linux (I like Linux as an OS more than Windows, because I think the Unix-way is better, but it's also about so much more), I see a neutral, free/libre open source (FLOSS) operating system as the base for our digital lives as a necessity, and so I see Windows or OS X as intrinsically worse. I don't see it as a kind of war between different products on equal footing. One product denies you any rights and control (and in more recent times, also extracts even more value and data from you than just the price you paid for the license to use it), and one that gives you full rights and control (and pretty much never extracts any more from you). It's not OK that we use our devices for so many things in life nowadays, that all aspects of your life are being done via digital means nowadays, and yet the most popular operating systems are still 100% proprietary black boxes fully controlled by big US companies. This needs to change, and it should have happened a long time ago already. And Linux is simply the most mature and most well supported FLOSS operating system out of all of them. I actually wouldn't care if it would be FreeBSD or OpenBSD or whatever instead, but I see Linux as being the most mature, well-supported and mainstream-viable option here. I only care that it's not a damn black box I don't have any real control over.

We need (almost) everyone on such open technologies like Linux, because the future (or even present) for Windows users looks like this: no control, no privacy (plus AI being trained on your work/data as well), big vulnerability when (not if) MS gets hacked (and they're a huge, juicy target, and we already saw them being compromised twice in the last couple of years), pricey subscription to MS' services which continues to get pricier once you're successfully vendor-locked-in (once all your servers, desktops and data is in MS' cloud, you won't be able to easily leave their services anymore, so they are free to increase prices until it hurts you). Even if you happen to like the offering MS gives you, does that really seem like "the future" of computing to you? To me, that's backwards. Or mainframe history repeating itself. Moving into proprietary clouds with vendor-lock-in only really benefits the cloud provider, which is why they want all users to join the "party".

I'm not a big fan of Stallman in general, but his fundamental propositions e.g. that FLOSS software is intrinsically better than proprietary black boxes, is true. I wonder how long we still need as a society, to arrive at that realization. I assumed that the Snowden revelations as well as the desaster that Windows 10 was for privacy, would have already started a change in thinking about such things. But that probably wasn't enough (strangely). I'm not sure what else would need to happen, but I guess something like first MS shoving all their users into their cloud, and then MS being hacked (again) but this time with malicious auto-updates being pushed to all MS software users as well, impacting tons of businesses. Then, maybe, people will start thinking whether this was such a great idea to begin with to play along with what MS envisioned as the "grand future". Unfortunately I see parallels with the human behavior concerning climate change here as well. It's like we have to first destroy our climate and suffer the consequences, before we realize it's a bad idea and we should do it differently RIGHT NOW. We are just incredibly short-sighted and we only learn AFTER disasters, which were even announced long before. It's tragic.

And for those people who know or think they could start using Linux but still use Windows because it's more "aesthetically pleasing" or whatever else irrelevant aspect they make up to "justify" still staying on that sinking MS ship in 2023, please reconsider your priorities.

Yes, though since it's closed source, contains other proprietary libraries and probably was never properly audited (by a 3rd party) it's possible (even likely, considering it's Meta we're talking about) that they keep a copy of the private key(s) and the messages, so that they're able to decrypt them, and so still be able to gather the content, in addition to everything else, while they can publicly claim it's all Signal's protocol so everything's "E2E". And yes, the app also gathers a lot of other data (actual and metadata) besides the content of the messages (which Meta can't supposedly see since it's E2E, but I never trust anything from Meta). A Meta app (or Google, or MS, for that matter) should generate the same sort of privacy outrages and media/politics attention like TikTok does, but somehow they don't. "Same shit, different country" was never so fitting.

Here's a very good messenger comparison: https://www.messenger-matrix.de/messenger-matrix-en.html

Wasn't ignoring it. What matters is whether the software supports the features you NEED. That there will always be more features added, doesn't mean that you need all those. What matters is whether the software is "feature-complete" for your specific needs. Look at MS Office. It's the "industry standard" office suite (that term sucks btw, just means most popular), yet it has features that the majority of people do not need at all (probably even don't know those exist). So, LibreOffice or OnlyOffice for example can be viable replacements in such cases. You get what you need out of your office suite AND you have it in FOSS format with 100% user control, without a company stealing sensitive info from your documents in the background.

Best option: Use Linux and alternatives to Adobe stuff, if possible. These programs continue to evolve, at some point you might not need the Adobe stuff anymore.

Second best option: Use Linux and run the Adobe stuff inside a Windows VM. GPU passthrough is not that difficult to configure if you need it. You can run your Windows games on Linux in many cases, so it's most likely not needed to run a Windows VM with GPU passthrough just for gaming.

Third best option: Use OS X instead of Windows or Linux, and run the Adobe stuff on OS X (it's also natively supported there)

Worst option: Continue to use Windows

But Windows is broke. I recommend using it only if you truly have to (e.g. software dependencies for your work). If you think or know you don't need it, then don't use it, don't recommend it and also please don't claim it's not harmful or "just a tool like everything else". Tools don't spy on its users. The monopoly situation due to too many users still using is also in itself harmful for competition/alternatives, and on top of that its users suffer from massive amounts of privacy invasions.

If you don't want to continue to use Windows (which is an important realization to make), but feel like you can't use Linux yet for whatever reason, use OS X. It's sort of middle of the road. Also not great for various reasons, and also not recommended, but it will at least ease your transition to Linux later on because OS X is also Unix-like, and it's at least slightly less bad than Windows. Always re-evaluate from time to time, whether you still need Windows or OS X, and if not, switch to Linux.

Some issues aren’t Linux problems but more like anti Linux solutions

These exist but often you can avoid them by using alternatives. I recommend not supporting LInux-hostile companies/services at all. Problem solved. This problem will continue to exist as long as Linux has low marketshare. So, the answer is not moving away from Linux, but rather to it, so that companies can't ignore Linux users anymore. Also, using Linux has many advantages in termss of user control/agency, privacy and security.

He hates Ubuntu because he feels like Ubuntu diminishes the reasoning to get Linux in the first place

That's nonsense, there is no "true way" to use Linux. It's an operating system and there are distros which abstract a lot of lower level stuff away just like Windows or OS X do (e.g. Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora, OpenSuSE, ...) and there are distros which don't (or which simply don't care about including such things) and thus are considered more "for advanced users", where more stuff needs to be maintained/configured by hand and where less GUI-based tools are available by default. Some people actually like that sort of minimalism and the increased control, but of course it's not for everyone.

Also, if he has trouble with the commandline usage, then it doesn't make any sense for him NOT to use e.g. Ubuntu. Because then he obviously needs the "hand holding" of an "easier to use" distro like Ubuntu. So he shouldn't complain about it. But this is not meant to disrespect the accomplishments of Ubuntu. The most popular OSes/distros are theones which are easier to use and which abstract a lot of things away. Because otherwise, it'd just be a distro for more tech savvy people, period. Then again, if he's a dev he should in theory be more than tech savvy enough to use Linux as a daily driver.

Then again, he doesn’t like that 99% of apps or there like discord just don’t have a good Linux path so you have to randomly trust some potentially bad actor to keep discord updated.

I recommend using the Flatpak versions of GUI apps (in general). It's very easy and it's a trusted source to get tons of applications from. Although for Discord in particular, I don't reocmmend it, I'd just use the web version tucked away in a browser (ideally sandboxed) without too many permissions on your system. Because Discord is spyware, so it's best to keep it in check, if you need to use it. Running it in a browser automatically limits the amount of data they can gather about your system.

Though the early game is hardly important, because it's always easy. Like a tutorial area. In pretty much all games. Mid- and end-game proficiency is much more important.

I ask myself the same question all the time. So you supposedly have this super advanced space-travelling civilization, and they're somehow interested in us, who aren't even able to colonize another planet yet, and are destroying our only one planet in the meantime. We're like monkeys in a zoo to them. Why should we be interesting for a much more advanced civilization? At best, they'd monitor our "progress" as a civilization from afar, and maybe make contact once we've become a Kardashev type 2 or 3 civilization. If or when that happens. Still a long way. We haven't even ensured that our home planet is safe from us. Or maybe they want specific resources from Earth. But then we'd get much more visitors, who also wouldn't be friendly I guess. So I think it's highly unlikely, which means I also think this is being staged, intended to gain more funding.

Probably the "space theory" from the German BND (like the national NSA here). When they were confronted shortly after the Snowden revelations with why they're illegally collecting network data in bulk on their own citizens (in addition to international ones) they basically said "Well, we collect the data from satellites in earth's orbit, and because that's not on German soil, that law doesn't apply so it's OK for us to do this". I mean, of course they will do whatever they can to grab as much data as they can, and use whatever excuse or reasoning that allows them to continue to do so, and these kinds of institutions seem to exist in some extra-legal space anyway, so they don't really have to fear a lot of repercussions unfortunately, but that excuse was REALLY wild. Also shows the absurd ways in which systems or laws designed to protect us from abuse are being successfully and routinely gamed.