Some people like to play games but aren't "serious about games".
Yes, and that is fine, if you just want to pick from the handful of games with proper Linux ports, I'm sure they work well enough...
But if you are, then Windows it is...
Some people find windows to be a far, far, far worse experience with far far more headaches.
Again, everyone keeps saying this stuff without providing any examples. "Linux is better, Windows sucks".
Those aren't reasons, those are opinions and personal tastes. What exactly does Windows "suck at"?
Oh, I know! The PITA involved in getting Bioshock Infinite running was just terrible! it was such rigmarole!
The fanboy in you is showing... I said getting stuff to run where it wasn't meant to... Get GTA to run on Linux and get back to me... THAT wasn't meant to, BS:I clearly was...
Linux is the better desktop and working environment
It is? Citation?
I fully get that market share doesn't always call out the better product, sometimes inferior products succeed while the better one fails... but Windows more or less owns the desktop market. Even OS X has multiple times more market share than Linux does.
---
I keep hearing people say "Linux is better", but I don't see any specific reasons. The impression I get is that "Linux is better because it isn't Windows". Frankly, that is not a reason, it is an opinion, which is fine, but it is like saying Chocolate Ice Cream is better than Vanilla Ice Cream.
The point? I don't know there is one precisely. I game on linux because it is my preferred platform. I have been using it for so long now I actually have a ls.bat file on my windows machine somewhere.
Fair enough... but I imagine you are aware you're in the extreme minority... perhaps these stories are popular because this is Slashdot, or perhaps techheads in general (of which I am one) like to have their "special stuff".
Why is Linux your preferred platform I guess is the question. What does Linux in 2015 do that Windows does not? Maybe it does something for you (and if so, great!).
I've played with Linux over the years, first installed it in 1994, and in later years since... but never used it as my primary desktop OS.
---
Why? Because at the end of the day, I can go onto NewEgg and buy anything and it will work on Windows. Linux? I'd have to check first. Sure, lots of it will work, but will that deal on the $100 inkjet printer work? Maybe, but so many of those printers really need Windows.
Software? I can buy and download just about anything. Everything has a Windows version, I don't have to think about it.
This is the same reason I don't drive a diesel truck... Too many places don't have the fuel in the cities. If every station was required to have it, I'd probably drive one (and the auto makers would probably sell more of them).
I wanted to add one more thing... It seems that the primary reason for most people to run Linux is because "it isn't Windows"...
This doesn't strike me as enough of a reason for it to go anywhere. You and I post on Slashdot, so we don't count. The average person uses Windows, has for most of their computer life, and sees no reason to change.
The only other visible option is the Mac with OS X, and I think some people do look at that, until they see the price and then they run away.
---
So I guess the question is... other than "It isn't Windows", what reason does John and Jane Q. Public have to even think about Linux?
I suppose that depends on what you want out of it, and your point of view...
I have over 2,000 games on Steam, the vast majority of which will NEVER get a Linux version...
Some of my computers currently run Windows 7, some run 8.1... All will get a free upgrade to Windows 10...
When games start to come out ONLY for Linux, let me know... until then, what exactly is the point?
---
Don't misunderstand me, I get the value of Linux for servers, but I just don't see a use for it for desktop machines, other than perhaps to keep Microsoft on their toes. Beyond that, it strikes me as quite useless for desktops, other than for geeks to feel superior for some reason.
Windows was a mess 20 years ago, today? It just works... (hey, isn't that Apple's line?)
5. We'll have to get off our high horse about nuclear. At this point I think that I encounter more opposition against nuclear from people TALKING about people being against nuclear, than actual anti-nuclear people. Transportation wise: A mix of EVs which can be charged via solar/nuclear and such, and biofuel vehicles, with the biofuel coming from things like algae farms.
I don't want to argue, I actually agree with many of your points in theory...
I suppose if I had to sum up my views, it would be this:
"When I look at the real world that we actually live in, I don't actually see us doing anything until it becomes a disaster. We will continue to burn fossil fuels until long past the time to stop was and the ability to actually do anything about it is past"
Why? Because we aren't going to Nuclear, as you say. We just... aren't... we should, but we won't, so that's that.
Solar and Wind? Yes, we'll get more of it, but not enough... it'll be a rounding error, maybe 10-20% of the total power produced, if we're lucky, world wide, and I think even that is a stretch... but it won't matter, as the total power the world produces continues to climb, it just won't matters.
Which makes me sad, because I suppose we're screwed, but then maybe we deserve to be if we're unable to plan longer than one election cycle in advance.
I've been doing some reading on the various climate web sites...
I have normally been in the camp that mankind is not changing the climate. That being said, some very smart people with some very impressive sounding titles all seem to be harping on it...
Looking at the numbers put forward, we are in the 2 min warning, the game is tied and we have 1 min 56 seconds left on the clock in the 4th quarter. The time for small moves is past, that all had to be done 20 years ago.
Now we need a Hail Mary pass, nothing else is going to make enough of a difference to matter.
Solar isn't going to get us there. We doubled our production of power from solar in the past few years, but doubling a very small number is still a very small number. Doubling it again will be nice, and doubling it again will help, but frankly it still won't matter.
Nuclear is the only power source that we have today that could replace all the coal and natural gas plants in 30 years. But it would have to be an incredible project the likes of which we haven't seen for a long time.
These small baby steps are too little, too late. Everyone wants to say, "well, at least we're trying". That is like being in the middle of the ocean in a rowboat and paddling while saying, "well, at least we haven't given up, we're trying".
Yes you are, but it won't make any difference. Either a ship or a plane will find you, or you'll die at sea. The paddling is immaterial to the outcome.
Boosting solar to 20% of the worldwide total power output would be impressive, but it won't change the outcome. It has to be 80% to do that and that simply isn't going to happen.
Sometimes there is no middle ground, that is what you've missed...
If you're flying across the ocean and need 1,000 gallons of fuel and you take 500... taking 750 does in fact get you half way to your goal, but it doesn't change the outcome...
40 million customer credit cards exposed, 70 million customer records containing PII exposed. 10 million dollar settlement over a year later? This is a joke, and a good reason to not bother with security.
Yes, what I took from it is that it is profitable to ignore security.
I would have been happier with an actual trial that ordered the entire year of profits to be divided up and paid out to the customer's who had data stolen.
It might only be $10 or $20 per person, but it hurts Target far more and it gives all companies the incentive to do whatever it takes to secure data.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to be judgemental, but it sounds to me like you're wasting your life.
I like supporting indie developers and I buy almost every Humble Bundle for charity reasons...
The majority of those games will never be played, but the collection does grow...
Not installing windows.
Got it, so it is an "Anything but Windows" mindset...
You know, "Windows Sucks" doesn't translate into "Linux is great". The 1.5% Linux desktop marketshare would seem to indicate that is a true statement.
I suppose my interest is to simply hear why Linux on the desktop is so great, but instead I keep hearing "It isn't Windows".
Why the hate on Windows?
Some people like to play games but aren't "serious about games".
Yes, and that is fine, if you just want to pick from the handful of games with proper Linux ports, I'm sure they work well enough...
But if you are, then Windows it is...
Some people find windows to be a far, far, far worse experience with far far more headaches.
Again, everyone keeps saying this stuff without providing any examples. "Linux is better, Windows sucks".
Those aren't reasons, those are opinions and personal tastes. What exactly does Windows "suck at"?
Oh, I know! The PITA involved in getting Bioshock Infinite running was just terrible! it was such rigmarole!
The fanboy in you is showing... I said getting stuff to run where it wasn't meant to... Get GTA to run on Linux and get back to me... THAT wasn't meant to, BS:I clearly was...
Linux is the better desktop and working environment
It is? Citation?
I fully get that market share doesn't always call out the better product, sometimes inferior products succeed while the better one fails... but Windows more or less owns the desktop market. Even OS X has multiple times more market share than Linux does.
---
I keep hearing people say "Linux is better", but I don't see any specific reasons. The impression I get is that "Linux is better because it isn't Windows". Frankly, that is not a reason, it is an opinion, which is fine, but it is like saying Chocolate Ice Cream is better than Vanilla Ice Cream.
The point? I don't know there is one precisely. I game on linux because it is my preferred platform. I have been using it for so long now I actually have a ls.bat file on my windows machine somewhere.
Fair enough... but I imagine you are aware you're in the extreme minority... perhaps these stories are popular because this is Slashdot, or perhaps techheads in general (of which I am one) like to have their "special stuff".
Why is Linux your preferred platform I guess is the question. What does Linux in 2015 do that Windows does not? Maybe it does something for you (and if so, great!).
I've played with Linux over the years, first installed it in 1994, and in later years since... but never used it as my primary desktop OS.
---
Why? Because at the end of the day, I can go onto NewEgg and buy anything and it will work on Windows. Linux? I'd have to check first. Sure, lots of it will work, but will that deal on the $100 inkjet printer work? Maybe, but so many of those printers really need Windows.
Software? I can buy and download just about anything. Everything has a Windows version, I don't have to think about it.
This is the same reason I don't drive a diesel truck... Too many places don't have the fuel in the cities. If every station was required to have it, I'd probably drive one (and the auto makers would probably sell more of them).
I thought about my last reply...
I wanted to add one more thing... It seems that the primary reason for most people to run Linux is because "it isn't Windows"...
This doesn't strike me as enough of a reason for it to go anywhere. You and I post on Slashdot, so we don't count. The average person uses Windows, has for most of their computer life, and sees no reason to change.
The only other visible option is the Mac with OS X, and I think some people do look at that, until they see the price and then they run away.
---
So I guess the question is... other than "It isn't Windows", what reason does John and Jane Q. Public have to even think about Linux?
Gaming on Linux is looking good actually.
I suppose that depends on what you want out of it, and your point of view...
I have over 2,000 games on Steam, the vast majority of which will NEVER get a Linux version...
Some of my computers currently run Windows 7, some run 8.1... All will get a free upgrade to Windows 10...
When games start to come out ONLY for Linux, let me know... until then, what exactly is the point?
---
Don't misunderstand me, I get the value of Linux for servers, but I just don't see a use for it for desktop machines, other than perhaps to keep Microsoft on their toes. Beyond that, it strikes me as quite useless for desktops, other than for geeks to feel superior for some reason.
Windows was a mess 20 years ago, today? It just works... (hey, isn't that Apple's line?)
But who games on Linux?
That is rather what I was thinking...
If you're serious about playing games, you run Windows... or you should... far fewer headaches and just a better overall experience...
Trying to get stuff to run where it wasn't meant to is just a PITA...
Shame you posted as AC, you're actually right. :)
Except not for $750, they cost more like $5,000. :)
Solar is cost-competitive with coal, sometimes and in some places, and when subsidized with tax dollars...
Power companies can't replace all their coal with solar, what would we use at night?
Yea, yea, batteries, sure... I suspect people who keep saying batteries don't quite grasp the numbers involved...
Pumped storage doesn't work everywhere or at scale...
Solar is just not a replacement for coal and natural gas...
Your own link proves my point...
We have the highest level of wind generation in the country, by total amount, but we're number 11 in terms of percentage...
Percentages sound nice, but it is the totals that matter. Increasing wind to 20% won't help if the total coal and natural gas burned goes up by 20%.
5. We'll have to get off our high horse about nuclear. At this point I think that I encounter more opposition against nuclear from people TALKING about people being against nuclear, than actual anti-nuclear people.
Transportation wise: A mix of EVs which can be charged via solar/nuclear and such, and biofuel vehicles, with the biofuel coming from things like algae farms.
I don't want to argue, I actually agree with many of your points in theory...
I suppose if I had to sum up my views, it would be this:
"When I look at the real world that we actually live in, I don't actually see us doing anything until it becomes a disaster. We will continue to burn fossil fuels until long past the time to stop was and the ability to actually do anything about it is past"
Why? Because we aren't going to Nuclear, as you say. We just... aren't... we should, but we won't, so that's that.
Solar and Wind? Yes, we'll get more of it, but not enough... it'll be a rounding error, maybe 10-20% of the total power produced, if we're lucky, world wide, and I think even that is a stretch... but it won't matter, as the total power the world produces continues to climb, it just won't matters.
Which makes me sad, because I suppose we're screwed, but then maybe we deserve to be if we're unable to plan longer than one election cycle in advance.
That China is doing it isn't an excuse for us to be doing so.
No, it isn't... but the reality is that if China doesn't change, it doesn't matter what we do.
They are burning 5 billion tons of coal a year, we're burning 1 billion. They are on track to increase that to 6 billion in the next few years.
We could cut to zero, it won't change the outcome by enough to matter.
China, it is all about China...
It doesn't make a lick of difference what the US or Europe does...
If you can't get China to change, and do it quickly, your efforts are completely irrelevant...
I've been doing some reading on the various climate web sites...
I have normally been in the camp that mankind is not changing the climate. That being said, some very smart people with some very impressive sounding titles all seem to be harping on it...
Looking at the numbers put forward, we are in the 2 min warning, the game is tied and we have 1 min 56 seconds left on the clock in the 4th quarter. The time for small moves is past, that all had to be done 20 years ago.
Now we need a Hail Mary pass, nothing else is going to make enough of a difference to matter.
Solar isn't going to get us there. We doubled our production of power from solar in the past few years, but doubling a very small number is still a very small number. Doubling it again will be nice, and doubling it again will help, but frankly it still won't matter.
Nuclear is the only power source that we have today that could replace all the coal and natural gas plants in 30 years. But it would have to be an incredible project the likes of which we haven't seen for a long time.
These small baby steps are too little, too late. Everyone wants to say, "well, at least we're trying". That is like being in the middle of the ocean in a rowboat and paddling while saying, "well, at least we haven't given up, we're trying".
Yes you are, but it won't make any difference. Either a ship or a plane will find you, or you'll die at sea. The paddling is immaterial to the outcome.
Boosting solar to 20% of the worldwide total power output would be impressive, but it won't change the outcome. It has to be 80% to do that and that simply isn't going to happen.
All fair points, and none of it matters...
China, it all comes down to China...
Nothing the US or Europe does will change anything if China isn't right there with us, and right now they are not.
I don't agree, you clearly do...
I suppose we're each welcome to our point of view...
Remember - food production at a scale that can actually feed everyone is only possible today through fossil-fuel based industrial methods.
No, it is possible due to large amounts of power. That power can come from thousands of nuclear reactors.
Sometimes there is no middle ground, that is what you've missed...
If you're flying across the ocean and need 1,000 gallons of fuel and you take 500... taking 750 does in fact get you half way to your goal, but it doesn't change the outcome...
Nonsense, I totally think kids should be in new cars...
New cars tend to have the best safety equipment, or at least better than what was standard 5-10 years ago.
I'll bring up my point right here:
https://youtu.be/TKL_cn8vhjo
There is no middle ground, or not much of one...
If CO2 is indeed a problem, you have to cut most of it... probably 65-75% of it...
Cutting 20-30% won't accomplish anything worthwhile... not for the money spent...
40 million customer credit cards exposed, 70 million customer records containing PII exposed. 10 million dollar settlement over a year later? This is a joke, and a good reason to not bother with security.
Yes, what I took from it is that it is profitable to ignore security.
I would have been happier with an actual trial that ordered the entire year of profits to be divided up and paid out to the customer's who had data stolen.
It might only be $10 or $20 per person, but it hurts Target far more and it gives all companies the incentive to do whatever it takes to secure data.
Now, what kind of compensation do you want? I mean everyone was hurt only a little bit, so the actual "make whole" part is pretty small.
If I was harmed for $24, then I'd like triple that back to me... in cash...
$72 would be just fine...
We can have a phased solution with different transitions to new energy mixes. This isn't something we can fix in a day.
No, it isn't... but from what I understand, it also isn't something we can take 100 years to fix either, it will be too late by that point...
We need to fix it this generation, and we aren't even close to making that happen.
It's not even really a political one, it's an economic one. If we make things more expensive, someone has to pay and no one wants that hot potato.
Aren't they one and the same? :)
Then the only solution is to convince everyone that this is worth paying for.