Linux is a kernel and has not a will of its own to "go back" to anything.
If you mean, "why did Canonical pioneer this new technology at my leisure and freedom to use as I wish?", then the answer is because it has a niche role to play that you don't ever have to use if you don't want to.
Your post is rife with self-contradiction. Pick one:
1) I want to avoid modern technologies as much as possible because I hate them (therefore use Slackware, Devuan, CRUX, Gentoo, etc.).
2) I want a modern distro that uses mainstream technologies (therefore use Ubuntu, Fedora, openSUSE, Debian, etc.).
3) I want my own custom mix of 1 & 2 exactly how I like it (therefore make your own distro).
1) DEBs and RPMs aren't going anywhere; they serve different functions from Snappy Core. Snaps are better for servers that require zero downtime because they prevent ABI breakage as packages are updated asynchronously. DEB and RPM are better for desktop, mobile, and less-important servers because they take up monumentally less room (because you don't have to have a million versions of the same dependency installed at the same time).
2) As TFS indicates, Snaps can coexist with all the other packaging tools (apt, dnf, yum, zypper, slapt, portage, pacman, etc.).
3) A large percentage of the Linux community are [a] too suspicious of Canonical to ever adopt any of their technologies and [b] conservative to the tried-and-true methods of doing things. apt will probably live forever on account of that.
Russian spies also targeted the computers of [...] Hillary Clinton
Certainly if there was incriminating evidence of something diabolical in her email server, the Russians would have found it, would they not have? Why would they wait to release it?
The President has a lot more resources to pay off a blackmail than a former SoS.
Even if she personally drove each drone and murdered a bunch of people, I'd still vote for her over Trump.
An eery similarity to the 1932 Reichstag elections. People knew that Adolf Hitler was a violent demagogue (from his Hitler-Ludendorff-Putsch in 1923), but they absolutely refused to vote for the alternatives because they thought they had done something worse.
I'm no GOP supporter, but what exactly was wrong with them "sending letters trying to stop the Iran nuclear deal"? They were merely trying to reclaim a power that the Constitution gives to the Legislative branch but was snatched by the Executive branch.
Clinton authorized drone strikes (i.e. assassinations) via email from her phone, which went through her personal server. Peoples were literally being marked for death through her insecure email server. That alone should be enough to put her in a federal prison, but now Assange is telling us that there's more to be learned? Let all mortal flesh keep silence.
Fair point then. So what name should I give your ideology -- the one where everything is the fault of other people/institutions and nobody is culpable for their own actions?
No, really. The last time I suggested that I got called a Microsoft shill, which is funny because I'm typing this on a 2012 MacBook Pro, but I'm serious. The Microsoft Surface Book is essentially what the iPad Pro wants to be combined with what Apple should have done with the MacBook Pro but didn't.
It's got a high-resolution, high-DPI display, pen support, a real keyboard, and an actual discrete graphics card. Unlike the iPad, it supports a real desktop OS. And it's cost-competitive with the MacBook Pro while having superior specs.
Now I'm sure some people will complain about Windows 10 and its telemetry. But unlike Apple, you have nearly complete control of the OS and can almost entirely disable it. Apple is instead locking down what root can do while sending more and more of your data to Apple. One of the key new macOS features is that it's going to automatically dump even more of your documents onto Apple's servers!
So look into the Microsoft Surface Book. I know I am.
The Surface Book is a terrible machine. Wildly overpriced and plagued with bugs, overheating and firmware issues since day 1.
Apple never really cared. At least with the Macintosh brand.
Going to Unix was a business decision to use a Freely available OS and just tweak it with a New UI. Saving a lot of time programming the details of making an OS from scratch. Multi-Tasking, Memory management, Network Stack.... and many of the core system tools are already programmed and in tack. Allow Apple to mostly focus on building the UI.
Being that it had the Unix Guts just made it easy for Apple market it to Geeks. Because as the parent stated. Getting Linux to work well on a Laptop back in early 2000's while not impossible, did require a lot of extra legwork. And Windows 98-XP (Early SP) were very buggy and crashed a lot, as well that is when they had the first set of high profile attacks on the OS. Making OS/X the best choice.
Now 16 years later. They still have all the Unix behind it, however it needs to stay current. And that isn't easy with the Desktop and Laptop Brands going out of fashion. At least Apple didn't go the route that Microsoft went by making a hybrid tablet and desktop system, that handles both poorly.
Another point to make is that the Powerbooks were really a lot better than contemporary laptops in just about every way. Except for their displays, today's Macs are inferior in just about every respect to comparable laptops.
I didn't expect I'd ever say this, but OS X (or macOS or whatever it's called now) is superb. It is UNIX under the hood, but with a really nice UI. Most importantly, it just works.
It's what Linux could have been if the development community had gotten their heads out of their asses decades ago instead of going with the whole Gnome/KDE split shit.
I don't really mind this to be honest. All the hipster UX designers that write extensions in JavaScript and Python have willingly segregated themselves to GNOME3. The people who want to get on with their lives use MATE or KDE now.
Macs were extremely popular with nerds a decade ago, when Linux required a lot of hacking and tweaking to get working on a laptop. "Just save the trouble and buy a Mac, it's certified UNIX with a nice graphical shell and the hardware was high quality" is what a lot of people said. Even at Linux developer conferences, everybody had Macs.
Nowadays, the hardware is not competitive at all for the price point; plus the drives and RAM are soldered in, so tweakers have moved on to other things. OS X is falling way behind in features to Linux (native ZFS, kGraft, gaming and GPU support, etc.), and newer versions are splicing in iOS features rather than adding anything compelling.
I don't blame them. Focusing on stylishness, ease of use and cross-device features (to encourage vendor lock-in) probably yields higher profits than repairability, high performance and terminal utilities. But that's also a dangerous road to go down.
FreeBSD is excellent for servers. OS X is excellent for workstations. That means that there's no need for Linux any longer.
It takes me no time at all to get Ubuntu working on a workstation (I've yet to install it on anything that didn't just work out of the box!), and I don't have to sell my organs and children to afford it.
Presumably the One S will have better specs than the One; $300 for that sounds like they're selling it at a loss. What would be the prospects of buying it and not buying any games to harm Microsoft and have a decent Linux machine?
Perhaps you could explain to me why Christians are culpable for Islamist mass murders, but atheists aren't culpable for the genocides of other atheists like Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao?
The only upside to all this is that Symantec has an astonishingly powerful ability to turn everything they acquire into utter shit. This doesn't make one of the world's major SSL CAs owning a sleazy SSL MiTM appliance vendor any less disturbing; but it at least means that the various malefactors using Bluecoat products to exploit us will have an incrementally more miserable time.
Just more fuel on the "trusting 'trusted' CAs just doesn't cut it" fire.
Agreed. It would be nice if Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Mozilla agreed to blacklist Symantec-signed certificates from their browsers. Unfortunately they have billions of dollars to throw at legislators and judges, so it wouldn't make a difference in the long run.
Can you give us a glimpse into what your main work computer looks like? What's the hardware and OS, your preferred editor and browser, and any crucial software you want to give a shout-out to?
Slashdot Mirror
Linux is a kernel and has not a will of its own to "go back" to anything.
If you mean, "why did Canonical pioneer this new technology at my leisure and freedom to use as I wish?", then the answer is because it has a niche role to play that you don't ever have to use if you don't want to.
Your post is rife with self-contradiction. Pick one:
1) I want to avoid modern technologies as much as possible because I hate them (therefore use Slackware, Devuan, CRUX, Gentoo, etc.).
2) I want a modern distro that uses mainstream technologies (therefore use Ubuntu, Fedora, openSUSE, Debian, etc.).
3) I want my own custom mix of 1 & 2 exactly how I like it (therefore make your own distro).
1) DEBs and RPMs aren't going anywhere; they serve different functions from Snappy Core. Snaps are better for servers that require zero downtime because they prevent ABI breakage as packages are updated asynchronously. DEB and RPM are better for desktop, mobile, and less-important servers because they take up monumentally less room (because you don't have to have a million versions of the same dependency installed at the same time).
2) As TFS indicates, Snaps can coexist with all the other packaging tools (apt, dnf, yum, zypper, slapt, portage, pacman, etc.).
3) A large percentage of the Linux community are [a] too suspicious of Canonical to ever adopt any of their technologies and [b] conservative to the tried-and-true methods of doing things. apt will probably live forever on account of that.
Russian spies also targeted the computers of [...] Hillary Clinton
Certainly if there was incriminating evidence of something diabolical in her email server, the Russians would have found it, would they not have? Why would they wait to release it?
The President has a lot more resources to pay off a blackmail than a former SoS.
The problem is, it's her... or Trump. No way 'round it.
I'll be voting third party, thanks. The "Dem or Rep" attitude is a self-fulfilling, and self-wounding, prophecy.
Even if she personally drove each drone and murdered a bunch of people, I'd still vote for her over Trump.
An eery similarity to the 1932 Reichstag elections. People knew that Adolf Hitler was a violent demagogue (from his Hitler-Ludendorff-Putsch in 1923), but they absolutely refused to vote for the alternatives because they thought they had done something worse.
I'm no GOP supporter, but what exactly was wrong with them "sending letters trying to stop the Iran nuclear deal"? They were merely trying to reclaim a power that the Constitution gives to the Legislative branch but was snatched by the Executive branch.
Clinton authorized drone strikes (i.e. assassinations) via email from her phone, which went through her personal server. Peoples were literally being marked for death through her insecure email server. That alone should be enough to put her in a federal prison, but now Assange is telling us that there's more to be learned? Let all mortal flesh keep silence.
So a standard phishing attack. There doesn't seem to be anything particularly vulnerable about Siri in this case.
Fair point then. So what name should I give your ideology -- the one where everything is the fault of other people/institutions and nobody is culpable for their own actions?
Look into the Microsoft Surface Book.
No, really. The last time I suggested that I got called a Microsoft shill, which is funny because I'm typing this on a 2012 MacBook Pro, but I'm serious. The Microsoft Surface Book is essentially what the iPad Pro wants to be combined with what Apple should have done with the MacBook Pro but didn't.
It's got a high-resolution, high-DPI display, pen support, a real keyboard, and an actual discrete graphics card. Unlike the iPad, it supports a real desktop OS. And it's cost-competitive with the MacBook Pro while having superior specs.
Now I'm sure some people will complain about Windows 10 and its telemetry. But unlike Apple, you have nearly complete control of the OS and can almost entirely disable it. Apple is instead locking down what root can do while sending more and more of your data to Apple. One of the key new macOS features is that it's going to automatically dump even more of your documents onto Apple's servers!
So look into the Microsoft Surface Book. I know I am.
The Surface Book is a terrible machine. Wildly overpriced and plagued with bugs, overheating and firmware issues since day 1.
Apple never really cared. At least with the Macintosh brand. Going to Unix was a business decision to use a Freely available OS and just tweak it with a New UI. Saving a lot of time programming the details of making an OS from scratch. Multi-Tasking, Memory management, Network Stack.... and many of the core system tools are already programmed and in tack. Allow Apple to mostly focus on building the UI.
Being that it had the Unix Guts just made it easy for Apple market it to Geeks. Because as the parent stated. Getting Linux to work well on a Laptop back in early 2000's while not impossible, did require a lot of extra legwork. And Windows 98-XP (Early SP) were very buggy and crashed a lot, as well that is when they had the first set of high profile attacks on the OS. Making OS/X the best choice.
Now 16 years later. They still have all the Unix behind it, however it needs to stay current. And that isn't easy with the Desktop and Laptop Brands going out of fashion. At least Apple didn't go the route that Microsoft went by making a hybrid tablet and desktop system, that handles both poorly.
Another point to make is that the Powerbooks were really a lot better than contemporary laptops in just about every way. Except for their displays, today's Macs are inferior in just about every respect to comparable laptops.
A burglar break in and plays an edited recording of YOU:
Hey Siri, Move $500 to account # 123456789...
How exactly did this criminal get a voice recording of me making financial transactions?
I didn't expect I'd ever say this, but OS X (or macOS or whatever it's called now) is superb. It is UNIX under the hood, but with a really nice UI. Most importantly, it just works.
It's what Linux could have been if the development community had gotten their heads out of their asses decades ago instead of going with the whole Gnome/KDE split shit.
I don't really mind this to be honest. All the hipster UX designers that write extensions in JavaScript and Python have willingly segregated themselves to GNOME3. The people who want to get on with their lives use MATE or KDE now.
Perhaps if you spent more time flipping burgers and less time on slashdot, you'd be able to afford some real hardware.
In order words, I work less than you and have equivalent hardware because I didn't throw out half my budget to get an Apple logo.
Macs were extremely popular with nerds a decade ago, when Linux required a lot of hacking and tweaking to get working on a laptop. "Just save the trouble and buy a Mac, it's certified UNIX with a nice graphical shell and the hardware was high quality" is what a lot of people said. Even at Linux developer conferences, everybody had Macs.
Nowadays, the hardware is not competitive at all for the price point; plus the drives and RAM are soldered in, so tweakers have moved on to other things. OS X is falling way behind in features to Linux (native ZFS, kGraft, gaming and GPU support, etc.), and newer versions are splicing in iOS features rather than adding anything compelling.
I don't blame them. Focusing on stylishness, ease of use and cross-device features (to encourage vendor lock-in) probably yields higher profits than repairability, high performance and terminal utilities. But that's also a dangerous road to go down.
FreeBSD is excellent for servers. OS X is excellent for workstations. That means that there's no need for Linux any longer.
It takes me no time at all to get Ubuntu working on a workstation (I've yet to install it on anything that didn't just work out of the box!), and I don't have to sell my organs and children to afford it.
Well, doing that with the PS3 was apparently so harmful for business that Sony stamped it out with a firmware update.
Yeah, those people aren't sending those requests. It's an automatic spam profiler.
"Aye, but no true Scotsman would put sugar on his porridge..."
Presumably the One S will have better specs than the One; $300 for that sounds like they're selling it at a loss. What would be the prospects of buying it and not buying any games to harm Microsoft and have a decent Linux machine?
Perhaps you could explain to me why Christians are culpable for Islamist mass murders, but atheists aren't culpable for the genocides of other atheists like Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao?
The only upside to all this is that Symantec has an astonishingly powerful ability to turn everything they acquire into utter shit. This doesn't make one of the world's major SSL CAs owning a sleazy SSL MiTM appliance vendor any less disturbing; but it at least means that the various malefactors using Bluecoat products to exploit us will have an incrementally more miserable time. Just more fuel on the "trusting 'trusted' CAs just doesn't cut it" fire.
Agreed. It would be nice if Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Mozilla agreed to blacklist Symantec-signed certificates from their browsers. Unfortunately they have billions of dollars to throw at legislators and judges, so it wouldn't make a difference in the long run.
Microsoft may as well have burned their $26b cash to keep some homeless people warm. It would've been a better use than to buy LinkedIn.
Can you give us a glimpse into what your main work computer looks like? What's the hardware and OS, your preferred editor and browser, and any crucial software you want to give a shout-out to?