I switched to Linux 12 years ago and still use it daily, although I think the problem is bigger than that. Even though hardware support is getting better, some bugs are lingering for years, and Wayland took such a long time to be a viable option. Now, as desktop became more complex to support, new platforms are coming, VR and mobile.

Mobile: I own Librem 5, and it was the biggest purchase disappointment I have ever had. I've been ridiculed by my friends while I was waiting for it for years, and when it was delivered, it was too outdated to use. The only silver lining from this is that mobile support exists in GNOME and KDE now. Hardware is still not there.

VR: I have not seen any viable option.

I'm optimising, and hoping that with AI it would be easier to support all of this, but now it looks kinda gloomy.

> Things will only change when democratically elected governments across the world step in with regulation, drag Big Tech through the courts, and fine them billions of dollars.

How will that help you install Linux.

How will it help anything, really? The law of unintended consequences will strike once again.

Yep. Fuck laws. The fact that there are potential negative consequences means that we should throw them all out!

It means we should engineer incentives rather than trying to regulate outcomes. Policy choices aren’t binary.

Because they’re better than everyone else on the inside but are forced down to our level by minor inconveniences. But it’s okay because they know what we should do.

I think the point is that if the corporations are morally kept in check by governments, then installing Linux wouldn't be necessary.

With the funds raised everyone can be assigned a Linux expert to sit next to them.

Why is democracy so universally worshipped? Do they realize evil people with business interests ALSO participate in a democracy?

I would love it if I could use Linux on the Desktop.

Windows 11 feels a practical joke played on humanity by Nadella.

The new Macbooks have amazing hardware, but the software quality has deteriorated considerably - even spotlight has bugs nowadays.

However, I need basic sleep/restore to work on my laptop - and it feels like this is a Mars-mission-effort level problem for Linux to solve.

If the Linux Software Foundation started a Linux-On-The-Desktop project that addressed core usability and stability issues, I would gladly contribute monthly towards it.

> However, I need basic sleep/restore to work on my laptop - and it feels like this is a Mars-mission-effort level problem for Linux to solve.

Pick any model on this list that has all green boxes. There is no step 2. https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Laptop/Lenovo

I hate that this is true. I have 10 year old hardware and I still haven't managed to get suspend on lid close to work.

Also, power management? Linux seems really power hungry. I expect 6ish hours out of the battery I have, but with Linux doing browsing and coding I get 2 to 3ish hours, even with cpu throttling and the dimmest back light settings.

Have mainline Fedora or Ubuntu solved these issues?

I have about 8h hours worth of usage, running Debian stable (Bookworm) w/ KDE, on an 6 year old refurbished thinkpad from a liquidation auction.

Goes down to about 5 hours if I am watching videos or streaming music with a million browser tabs. Perfectly usable for my personal use.

It all depends on your hardware and whether that is well supported. The blame lies with hardware manufacturers keeping secrets and proprietary software vendors. It is a reverse engineering effort to get this stuff to work properly.

I'm on mainline Fedora on a Thinkpad Z13 (Gen 1). Sleep works unless I connect or disconnect a thunderbolt device while the machine is sleeping (which hard crashes the system); I would say it's noticeably more reliable than Windows. Power consumption is still poor in all states - usable, but generally worse than under Windows and pathetic compared to a Macbook.

No distro solves problems by itself, the upstream kernel does. Fedora pushes upstream first, ubuntu much later if it does.

Because computers are complex, and there are many computers with many different hardware configurations nobody can answer if it solves the issues for you.

> However, I need basic sleep/restore to work on my laptop

??? I've had 3 laptops over the last decade+ and sleep/restore has worked on all of them. You using some weird distro or DE?

It depends on your laptop probably, I don't have any issue with sleep/suspend with my thinkpad.

I do think that power management isn't there yet though on the other hand.

I always found it funny that my ASUS laptop has always functioned perfectly under linux... except that putting it to sleep would trigger a full shutdown every time lmao. I may or may not have lost some data once or twice by being overly gullible.

Switching to Linux is not easy. You almost have to hit a wall when you are just done with the bargaining to keep something like Apple or Windows. It kind of takes a major jump.

You also need to be persistent after that jump and not retrench when you can't pull from the familiar.

You'll get there at some point just don't think or care about the awful people - think about how and in what way you want to operate directionally going forward and it will click.

> Switching to Linux is not easy.

Which is a shame because in itself, most Linux distros _are_ easy. The ergonomics and the rationales are, imo, better/easier to understand than Windows or even MacOS.

In fact, even _installing_ a modern distro is easier than installing Windows 11.

What’s hard is not Linux, it’s switching. It requires to, well, think different :)

Having said that, I honestly think switching from Windows to MacOS is harder. I appreciate working with macOS and it can be pretty ergonomic but it’s honestly barely usable without installing and paying for half a dozen sharewares.

I still remember getting all amped up at taking the leap to Linux when I read this or that guide for doing so in a 90s issue of MaximumPC and I made it as far as realizing there weren't drivers that would work with my mouse (without _considerable_ effort) and noped right out.

I've been entirely on Linux for over fifteen years now. And I used to develop for Win32.

Same here! I'd love to know why the author keeps crawling back to Mac after trying Linux. I feel grateful that Linux exists and would never contemplate moving away from it. I totally understand that I am an esoteric techie and other people may have different experiences, of course. But in the ~14 years Linux has been my daily driver, it has improved so much.

for me the main reason is that mac just works. I spent less time configuring my OS and tinkering around and just focus on my work.

For low levels of "it just works".

Every major OS update Apple changes something that breaks either specific programs or restricts the OS further which leads to breakage.

The "too many files open" error could be fixed by raising the limit of open files (there are instances where a tool really does need lots of open files and isn't leaking) but nowadays I need to break the security of my own hardware to maybe be able to raise it as Apple adds hoops and is changing what to do every so often.

Is it just because you can't on a mac ?

Most people I know who are 100% Linux users are like you. They don’t know what they are missing, and they are happy.

> Why am I in this state of tension with computer products when I use a multitude of non-computer products made by corporations that cause much more harm to people and nature?

> I drive a Hyundai car, shop at Reliance stores, wear clothing made by Zara. Why am I not concerned about the poor behavior of these other organizations? It’s not like they’re any better than Google, Microsoft, or Apple.

> Honestly, the reason is not entirely rational.

Honestly I don't have the answer and it's a great question. There seems to be a mix of passion, trends, media, social exchanges and probably tons of small parameters making this happen in our heads.

The part about melding human and machine feels awfully pretentious.

Just use the tools that let you be productive. It's okay to separate the art from the artist. And if you really do care about the global well-being, then... force yourself to the switch (for the moral greater good, after all!) and don't complain about it on the internet?

We're all awful people, every one of us. Some are better at hiding it than others.

the overwhelming majority of people, 95%+, are wonderful awesome people.

Sounds like projection to me

soundtrack to the post https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8Igmd424X8

I've been using Linux exclusively for 15 years. Went through my entire university degree using only Linux.

The biggest issue people face when switching is the desire for it to be the same as their previous OS. It's not. It never will be. It's different (and IMO better).

Like GNOME Shell, so many people hate it. No dock, no way to minimize Windows, etc... Until you actually try to learn it a little. Launching apps is super quick with the search, you can bring up overview with 3 finger swipe up on the touchpad, scroll virtual desktops with 3 finger sideways swipe, arrange your windows with meta + arrow keys, etc... Its nearly as keyboard driven and quick to use as a tiling window manager yet my wife can use it as well (she's very much not technical).

As for apps, there's an app for everything normal people need to do. For developers, it's easily the best OS. Games, it's got most of them. I guess if you're an accountant forced to use Excel don't bother (and if you're not forced to use Excel, Gnumeric is better anyway).

is linux made by good people?

The tools I love are made by flawed people

Yeah I first tought that this was rant about how Linus Torvalds is asshole.

Mostly by corporations: https://kernelnewbies.org/DevelopmentStatistics

its not. People are people. Only the incentives are different.

Switching to Linux won't help either, because Linux (at least the kernel) is developed mostly by the same corporations: https://kernelnewbies.org/DevelopmentStatistics

There’s this modern affliction where people believe they are morally responsible for the actions of every person they buy anything from.

For your own sanity, please let this go. You are responsible for your own actions. If you buy a pen from a psychopath and he uses the money to buy a bullet and shoot someone, that’s not your fault. He’s responsible for his actions.

It’s like everyone somehow forgot that other humans are sentient beings with their own agency. Main character syndrome run amok.

Wrong. It's not about morality (or "main character"), it's about caring for your own and your beloved ones current and future. Ignorance, apathy and indifference keep the buyers/consumers/followers encouraging the unhealthy yet very "focused and efficient" morons (big and small) to ruin the world for everyone while they accumulate enormous power to further abuse the rest.

__If you buy gold from someone who poisons a river (to extract the gold more "efficiently"), soon your whole forest will suffer from deceases and degradation.__

You may feel tiny and powerless but it's sane and healthy to care for the whole ecosystem and think about aftereffects of everyone's actions.

We have a government to enforce laws to protect the commons. If someone is poisoning the river, the government should fine them and shut them down. They should be inspecting gold producers to make sure they are complying with regulations so that all gold is produced in a sustainable way that doesn't destroy the environment.

If that's not happening, then we need to fix the government so it does happen. Expecting each individual person to be their own EPA and research how every single item they consume is produced idiotic and doomed to failure.

you can be pragmatic and choose not to buy from certain companies whose behaviour you consider egregious, while at the same time not having to worry about each single expense you make.

Deciding what bank you will get your home loan from -> not something you do every day, it's ok to do some research

Deciding what cafe you will get your next lungo from -> not worth your time

Isn’t that the same as “just avoid things you’re morally opposed to as time and energy allows”? Why even bother with taking a moral stand if you only do it when it’s convenient?

It's less of 'when it's convenient' and more 'when it's worth the effort'. Perfection is the enemy of good and all that.

The definition of slippery slope, right here.

Hmm, this doesn't track with history. Boycotts, and more generally collective economic action (strikes, etc), are an incredibly powerful form of protest. People have shaped the world through refusing to buy from oppressive forces - case in point, the boycotts of South Africa during apartheid successfully pressured South Africa out of apartheid. We got our collective rights as workers (40 hour work days, etc) through strikes, boycotts, and more.

It's not easy, but if you're serious about it is best done in community, with support and strategy. So, the opposite of main character syndrome, I would say.

It's also very odd that you take an analysis that is fundamentally systemic and translate it into purchasing from an individual psychopath - under what assumptions is that a valid comparison, one with any merit? It's not like corporations exist in a vacuum, only to emerge from the void to casually sell a single pen, the money with which they use to buy a single bullet. We as individuals, as communities, exist in feedback with the systems that we are a part of, including (surprise) corporations. So, yes, we have power to shape them, though (again) not easily.

I feel the same. It may be because it's easier to feel virtuous by not buying a company product than to actually be virtuous by going out doing virtuous things.

Giving up something you'd otherwise enjoy or find convenient because it would indirectly bring harm to other people feels a very virtuous action to me. I wish more people (including me) had the ability to do that more.

While I agree with the sentiment, just out of curiosity, would you buy a Tesla if it meets your needs and even if you disapprove of Elon's actions?

I would buy a "tool" that solves a problem significantly better than its competitors, but I usually ditch options that are marginally better o cheaper if I feel a personal moral conflict.

Just to honour the Godwin law, take the Eduard Pernkopf anatomy manual as an example, a fascinating example of this discussion.

There is always a tipping point where practicality beats purity, and I think it's ok trying to stretch it, respecting other's choices in the way of course. No need to judge.

Yes. If you determine a Tesla is the best car to fit your needs, there are far better ways to influence Elon's actions than depriving yourself of the best car for you. You could write your Senator / Congressperson to support laws that would curtail Elon's actions. You could speak publicly and propose better things than what Elon is doing or publicize how and why they're harmful, etc. Buying or not buying a Tesla is very unlikely to influence Elon at all.

Also consider: There are thousands of employees at Tesla and thousands of shareholders. Do you also need to individually vet every one of their opinions before you enrich them by buying a Tesla? What if they don't all have the same opinion? Are you supposed to take a poll and go with the majority? This is silly.

I think it's more rational to fuss about buying a Tesla than about buying a Windows license for a few reasons:

* It's a heck of a lot of money to send to any company, so it makes more sense to pause and consider what you're funding. I can't put that much effort into every <$100 purchase without going crazy.

* Tesla is far more about Musk than Microsoft is about... whoever runs Microsoft these days. There's a very specific person tied to it.

* Driving a Tesla is seen by the world as a statement of some kind in a way that running Windows simply isn't. It's worth considering if that's a statement you want to be making.

I feel similarities to the trolley problem[0].

[0]: https://neal.fun/absurd-trolley-problems/

I would. With some modification. If it was cheapest vehicle on market that meets my needs I would probably buy it. But it is neither cheapest or gas...

> If you buy a pen from a psychopath and he uses the money to buy a bullet and shoot someone, that’s not your fault. He’s responsible for his actions.

If you know upfront that's what's going to happen, why wouldn't you have a degree of responsibility?

You don't know up front what's going to happen. Seeing the future is not an ability humans have. Unless the pen is being sold as part of some murder fundraiser and you're going out of your way to specifically buy it there than from any better options the person doing the murder is the one responsible for the murdering.

"if you don't like it, vote with your dollars or quit whining"

I feel the opposite. I feel I am responsible if I know the psychopath will use the money to buy a bullet and shoot someone.

I think what you're not realizing is that most people don't care. They don't care and they don't think about it. They just scaffold really weak logic to justify the whole thing and then go about their day. So when you ask them they have convoluted reasoning why they're ok with it. This blog post is that convoluted reason.

Ultimately the real reason is that we just don't care.

Most people think the comparison to an actual killer is hyperbole. These institutions are flawed, not evil.

(And if you’re going to jump in the comments about them being evil, check your privilege. None of these tech companies operate literal death squads as several non-tech companies did as recent as a few decades ago, and probably still now.)

The genius of capitalism is in its unique ability to harness the energy of sociopaths* to produce valuable products and services**.

If there was no freedom to amass fortunes, these people would still exist, and they would do even more damage in whatever theoretical social structure we would have.

* And to a lesser degree, the self-interest everybody naturally possesses.

** Minimizing negative externalities is the responsibility of government accountable to the people.