i7 is the new 85. I9 is the new i7. Pretty cynical of Intel. BTW, hyperthreading only speeds up Meltdown, but Meltdown still will get your passwords even without hyperthreading, it just takes a bit longer. This is because of the way cache is shared between processor cores.
If you are buying for gaming which this is aimed at you really don't care about the security flaws.
What rubbish. If you are buying for gaming you are online for sure, in a swamp of script kiddies that know your IP and have a vested interest in learning your passwords. If you are gaming online then you are more at risk than the general population. And of course there is the usual swarm of professional hackers. Sometimes I take a moment to watch them hitting my firewall, it's like a cloud of bugs hitting your windshield at sunset. It is that bad, take a look for yourself. I would not advise any gamer to buy an Intel rig as of today for security alone, never mind the value factors.
$40 Google royalty per phone seems a bit high, I can't see EU consumers being happy about it. After all, Google really should be paying manufacturers to install its software because that is how Google tracks people and makes enormous amounts of money from advertising. So it seems likely to me that Google will find itself the target of further antitrust action if they hold to their current course. This leak might be effectively just a negotiating tactic, or it just might be pure stupidity. Hard to tell at this point.
If Google does somehow manage to make their $40/phone tax stick then that would be a huge boost to AOSP, OpenStreetmap and the like. The more likely result is, horsetrading gets it down to the $5/phone range and life goes on. Google really does want its spying/adserving software on as many phones as possible, and they need those phones to be as cheap as possible, which rather weakens their negotiating position.
Ubuntu snaps are fully supported on Debian also. These are not necessarily a bad thing. While I much prefer to install via apt, snaps allow users to install programs from their own use without needing root privilege. Given that users are going to do that one way or another anyway, this is more secure than needing root and much better organized than installing by hand locally. I guess, a lot of people are using snaps.
Ubuntu custom kernel patches would be evaluated by Debian kernel maintainers, who also have their own patches, and added to Debian if there is a good reason. There is no waiting for upstream for important patches. Likewise, Ubuntu kernel maintainers track Debian kernel patches and pull in the important ones.
I have no issue with Ubuntu supporting ZFS more than enthusiastically than Debian does, that seems right to me. ZFS is a license minefield.
Both Ubuntu and Debian installers are very nice, I don't care that they are different. They both are pretty amazing, actually. I pretty much always do Debian net install, I don't see that Ubuntu should be faulted for requiring the network. After all, you're using apt, do you really ever intend to set up your own local repo?
There are a whole lot more differences between Debian and Ubuntu than you listed, but nothing really bothers me. I just prefer Debian for a bunch of mostly minor reasons. Ubuntu is really Debian with tinsel, it is also a fine distribution, even with the ongoing UI idiocy, which you can easily opt out of.
Just pointing out, there is no such thing as a non-removable app in Linux. There might be packages that other packages depend on, sure, but in general you can configure Linux whatever way you want, with whatever applications you want. And you can find out what anything running on your machine is actually doing.
Oh, looks like some Microsoftie doesn't want you to know that.
Just pointing out, there is no such thing as a non-removable app in Linux. There might be packages that other packages depend on, sure, but in general you can configure Linux whatever way you want, with whatever applications you want. And you can find out what anything running on your machine is actually doing.
the article you linked describes the alternative as "locked down, highly secure Chrome OS machines".
Exactly my point. Microsoft wants to go toe to toe with Chromebook. So Microsoft wants to sell a Chromebook without the Android ecosystem and without Google services. Obviously, the market doesn't want that.
Microsoft is dead in the water with ARM as long as they have to run x86 applications in emulation. Sucky performance, sucky battery life. What was the reason for having ARM again? And good luck convincing Windows software vendors to invest in native ARM builds for that miniscule market. Microsoft hoisted by its own network effect.
I'm not dumping on Ubuntu, it makes perfect sense as a factory preinstall or a no-fuss install for first-time Linux users. And it is perfectly fine for professional and power users. But pretty much anything you can do on Ubuntu you can also do on Debian, and usually in exactly the same way, so I prefer the one without the training wheels.
Debian drivers isn't a big deal, you do need to add nonfree to sources.list and you might need to apt install some firmware. Without this your first boot can be pretty funky - a firebreathing GPU without the firmware tends to look like a primeval PC XT with a color graphics adapter. But it works well enough to run an editor and do the obvious fixups, turnaround time typically just a minute or two. I disagree that this feels like installing Windows drivers, maybe you forgot just how clunky the Windows driver experience really is. On rare occasions you might need to download and compile a driver or two from source, but that most probably won't be for base functionality. It's cool that you can even do that. BTW, it's amazing how many vendors offer Linux drivers on their sites now. I'm even seeing Linux-specific bios options in recent machines. I guess that means there are a lot of Linux users out there, and also, lots of in house Linux expertise at the vendors. My how times have changed.
Anyway, I'm ok with Debian ideology. Without it, Debian would not be as good as it is, and there would be much less pressure on hardware vendors to do the right thing and open up. When ideology collides with proprietary stupidity, Debian hardly gets in the way, it basically just makes sure you know you're loading a bunch of mysterious binary crap, and you need to ask for that explicitly.
Where to begin, there's a bunch of misinformation in your post. KDE was nearly always great except for the premature release of 4.0, which was only alpha quality but distros somehow didn't get the memo. You don't need to learn any new applications in KDE, the ones you already use work perfectly fine, including Nautilus, gnome-terminal, browsers, whatever. Look and feel exactly the same except window decorations will be whatever you set up in KDE, which can be almost anything you want.
BTW, the reverse is also true: KDE applications like Kate (great editor) work just fine under Gnome. This is thanks to the cross-DE APIs developed by freedekstop.org, thanks much for that.
What should I run if I just want a headless server with docker?
Debian Buster or Stretch are good. I run Buster on a headless NUC with typically infinite uptime, just reboot every 6 months or so for a kernel upgrade. I removed Network Manager and just use old school Debian networking, more solid for a server. That was easy, basically just apt remove network-manager and set up/etc/network/interfaces in the usual way.
I used to run Ubuntu on a server and there's nothing really wrong with it. But there's no advantage vs Debian either, and with a server, less is usually more. When it comes to security patches, Debian is about the best in the business.
I still don't get why anybody puts up with Gnome when KDE is available. I really don't get why Ubuntu ships with Gnome standard. A whole lot more Windows users would make the switch if Linux presented with a normal desktop by default instead of whatever Gnome is trying to be, which seems to change every year and never seems to have a lot to do with what users need.
For something like 8 years, nearly everything on Ubuntu: desktops, laptops, severs. Because it was easy, with frequent updates. BTW, with KDE, not funky Gnome. But Debian progressed a lot in terms of not randomly breaking Sid like it used to, and "testing" stays a lot more current, so gradually started switching devices over, and everything new gets Debian instead of Ubuntu. Now just one laptop and one mostly unused desktop still on Ubuntu, probably will make the switch on those eventually, just for consistency. Netinst on a USB stick makes this super easy. There isn't really anything wrong with Ubuntu, they do a lot of good development that advances the whole community, and it's way better than Red Hat. But Debian, it's the real thing.
Generally the difference between Ubuntu and Debian is completely invisible except when it comes to upgrading. Upgrading across major versions is no big deal in Debian but it can be a real crap shoot in Ubuntu.
What's wrong with this picture? Why is the hairy old guy with the retro watch and marshmallows in his coffee scribbling a picture not worthy of a three year old? And note the standard headphone jack on his earbuds. WTF is Apple's message?
Microsoft is still clutching at the fading hope that they can put a closed application ecosystem in place to tax all software sales like Apple does. Having failed miserably at selling straight up S devices, the new idea is, first make S mode merely available, and by a variety of underhanded techniques, gradually make it mandatory. Boil the frog slowly. Doesn't work if the frog jumps out of the pot or refuses to get in it in the first place.
it still won't be good as having a true x86 machine
What do you mean by "good"? It should be clear by now that the x86 as efficient as ARM always was a fairy tale. The reality is, running x86 means paying a power tax. If you want x86 then stick with form factors that accommodate a massive battery or plug into the wall.
Slashdot Mirror
i7 is the new 85. I9 is the new i7. Pretty cynical of Intel. BTW, hyperthreading only speeds up Meltdown, but Meltdown still will get your passwords even without hyperthreading, it just takes a bit longer. This is because of the way cache is shared between processor cores.
If you are buying for gaming which this is aimed at you really don't care about the security flaws.
What rubbish. If you are buying for gaming you are online for sure, in a swamp of script kiddies that know your IP and have a vested interest in learning your passwords. If you are gaming online then you are more at risk than the general population. And of course there is the usual swarm of professional hackers. Sometimes I take a moment to watch them hitting my firewall, it's like a cloud of bugs hitting your windshield at sunset. It is that bad, take a look for yourself. I would not advise any gamer to buy an Intel rig as of today for security alone, never mind the value factors.
$40 Google royalty per phone seems a bit high, I can't see EU consumers being happy about it. After all, Google really should be paying manufacturers to install its software because that is how Google tracks people and makes enormous amounts of money from advertising. So it seems likely to me that Google will find itself the target of further antitrust action if they hold to their current course. This leak might be effectively just a negotiating tactic, or it just might be pure stupidity. Hard to tell at this point.
If Google does somehow manage to make their $40/phone tax stick then that would be a huge boost to AOSP, OpenStreetmap and the like. The more likely result is, horsetrading gets it down to the $5/phone range and life goes on. Google really does want its spying/adserving software on as many phones as possible, and they need those phones to be as cheap as possible, which rather weakens their negotiating position.
This seems very strange to me.
Defending the institutions of democracy seems strange to you?
You really have no clue about hardware monitoring on Linux, not sure why you are trumpeting your ignorance.
[Gnome is] just a slim desktop built from a rock solid toolkit.
I don't know what makes you think that. GTK is and always has been, a big squishy mess that is awkward and err-prone to develop with.
Ubuntu snaps are fully supported on Debian also. These are not necessarily a bad thing. While I much prefer to install via apt, snaps allow users to install programs from their own use without needing root privilege. Given that users are going to do that one way or another anyway, this is more secure than needing root and much better organized than installing by hand locally. I guess, a lot of people are using snaps.
Ubuntu custom kernel patches would be evaluated by Debian kernel maintainers, who also have their own patches, and added to Debian if there is a good reason. There is no waiting for upstream for important patches. Likewise, Ubuntu kernel maintainers track Debian kernel patches and pull in the important ones.
I have no issue with Ubuntu supporting ZFS more than enthusiastically than Debian does, that seems right to me. ZFS is a license minefield.
Both Ubuntu and Debian installers are very nice, I don't care that they are different. They both are pretty amazing, actually. I pretty much always do Debian net install, I don't see that Ubuntu should be faulted for requiring the network. After all, you're using apt, do you really ever intend to set up your own local repo?
There are a whole lot more differences between Debian and Ubuntu than you listed, but nothing really bothers me. I just prefer Debian for a bunch of mostly minor reasons. Ubuntu is really Debian with tinsel, it is also a fine distribution, even with the ongoing UI idiocy, which you can easily opt out of.
Just pointing out, there is no such thing as a non-removable app in Linux. There might be packages that other packages depend on, sure, but in general you can configure Linux whatever way you want, with whatever applications you want. And you can find out what anything running on your machine is actually doing.
Oh, looks like some Microsoftie doesn't want you to know that.
Just pointing out, there is no such thing as a non-removable app in Linux. There might be packages that other packages depend on, sure, but in general you can configure Linux whatever way you want, with whatever applications you want. And you can find out what anything running on your machine is actually doing.
KDE is slow as hell on ANY hardware.
Rubbish, KDE runs just fine even on tiny embedded computers. Now crawl back under your rock.
But people don't prefer S Mode, it's one big fail.
Isn't it nice to have choices?
Yes, choices are great. Nice defaults would also be great.
the article you linked describes the alternative as "locked down, highly secure Chrome OS machines".
Exactly my point. Microsoft wants to go toe to toe with Chromebook. So Microsoft wants to sell a Chromebook without the Android ecosystem and without Google services. Obviously, the market doesn't want that.
Windows 10 in S mode is good for enterprise manageability
"S" stands for "School". Is it back to school for enterprises now? Good luck with that.
It's not a game console. Weak.
Microsoft is dead in the water with ARM as long as they have to run x86 applications in emulation. Sucky performance, sucky battery life. What was the reason for having ARM again? And good luck convincing Windows software vendors to invest in native ARM builds for that miniscule market. Microsoft hoisted by its own network effect.
Why would anybody want that?
I'm not dumping on Ubuntu, it makes perfect sense as a factory preinstall or a no-fuss install for first-time Linux users. And it is perfectly fine for professional and power users. But pretty much anything you can do on Ubuntu you can also do on Debian, and usually in exactly the same way, so I prefer the one without the training wheels.
Debian drivers isn't a big deal, you do need to add nonfree to sources.list and you might need to apt install some firmware. Without this your first boot can be pretty funky - a firebreathing GPU without the firmware tends to look like a primeval PC XT with a color graphics adapter. But it works well enough to run an editor and do the obvious fixups, turnaround time typically just a minute or two. I disagree that this feels like installing Windows drivers, maybe you forgot just how clunky the Windows driver experience really is. On rare occasions you might need to download and compile a driver or two from source, but that most probably won't be for base functionality. It's cool that you can even do that. BTW, it's amazing how many vendors offer Linux drivers on their sites now. I'm even seeing Linux-specific bios options in recent machines. I guess that means there are a lot of Linux users out there, and also, lots of in house Linux expertise at the vendors. My how times have changed.
Anyway, I'm ok with Debian ideology. Without it, Debian would not be as good as it is, and there would be much less pressure on hardware vendors to do the right thing and open up. When ideology collides with proprietary stupidity, Debian hardly gets in the way, it basically just makes sure you know you're loading a bunch of mysterious binary crap, and you need to ask for that explicitly.
Where to begin, there's a bunch of misinformation in your post. KDE was nearly always great except for the premature release of 4.0, which was only alpha quality but distros somehow didn't get the memo. You don't need to learn any new applications in KDE, the ones you already use work perfectly fine, including Nautilus, gnome-terminal, browsers, whatever. Look and feel exactly the same except window decorations will be whatever you set up in KDE, which can be almost anything you want.
BTW, the reverse is also true: KDE applications like Kate (great editor) work just fine under Gnome. This is thanks to the cross-DE APIs developed by freedekstop.org, thanks much for that.
What should I run if I just want a headless server with docker?
Debian Buster or Stretch are good. I run Buster on a headless NUC with typically infinite uptime, just reboot every 6 months or so for a kernel upgrade. I removed Network Manager and just use old school Debian networking, more solid for a server. That was easy, basically just apt remove network-manager and set up /etc/network/interfaces in the usual way.
I used to run Ubuntu on a server and there's nothing really wrong with it. But there's no advantage vs Debian either, and with a server, less is usually more. When it comes to security patches, Debian is about the best in the business.
I still don't get why anybody puts up with Gnome when KDE is available. I really don't get why Ubuntu ships with Gnome standard. A whole lot more Windows users would make the switch if Linux presented with a normal desktop by default instead of whatever Gnome is trying to be, which seems to change every year and never seems to have a lot to do with what users need.
For something like 8 years, nearly everything on Ubuntu: desktops, laptops, severs. Because it was easy, with frequent updates. BTW, with KDE, not funky Gnome. But Debian progressed a lot in terms of not randomly breaking Sid like it used to, and "testing" stays a lot more current, so gradually started switching devices over, and everything new gets Debian instead of Ubuntu. Now just one laptop and one mostly unused desktop still on Ubuntu, probably will make the switch on those eventually, just for consistency. Netinst on a USB stick makes this super easy. There isn't really anything wrong with Ubuntu, they do a lot of good development that advances the whole community, and it's way better than Red Hat. But Debian, it's the real thing.
Generally the difference between Ubuntu and Debian is completely invisible except when it comes to upgrading. Upgrading across major versions is no big deal in Debian but it can be a real crap shoot in Ubuntu.
What's wrong with this picture? Why is the hairy old guy with the retro watch and marshmallows in his coffee scribbling a picture not worthy of a three year old? And note the standard headphone jack on his earbuds. WTF is Apple's message?
Microsoft is still clutching at the fading hope that they can put a closed application ecosystem in place to tax all software sales like Apple does. Having failed miserably at selling straight up S devices, the new idea is, first make S mode merely available, and by a variety of underhanded techniques, gradually make it mandatory. Boil the frog slowly. Doesn't work if the frog jumps out of the pot or refuses to get in it in the first place.
it still won't be good as having a true x86 machine
What do you mean by "good"? It should be clear by now that the x86 as efficient as ARM always was a fairy tale. The reality is, running x86 means paying a power tax. If you want x86 then stick with form factors that accommodate a massive battery or plug into the wall.