IMO more people should be critical of the systems and tools that they use instead of shitting on the tools that others choose to use.

We do assume too much of our tools, but many people here are guilty of assuming that other OS’s are broken in ways that do not reflect the average customer experience.

Sometimes, I can’t believe that Lemmy is free.

Are you suggesting that Linux has better printer driver support than the system that 99% of that printers users use?

Easier than what, exactly? Windows always works out of the box for shit like printers. If it didn’t, 99% of their user base would be calling it defective.

OSX, on the other hand, is where I’ve had so, so many issues with printers.

I switched from .local to .honk and I’m never looking back.

Many people use the example of Steam to say “well, they’re doing things right”, because they offer a better service to everyone else.

My point is that Google could have welcomed competition and still stayed at the top. Instead, they created walls that welcomed this ruling, and damaged themselves and customers in the process.

Google gained their initial position fair and square. They had the better search engine, and despite the likes of Bing being actually pretty good they were never able to compete.

All Google had to do was to follow its initial mantra of “don’t be evil”. That’s literally all it needed to do. Sadly, they were evil, and these are the seeds of that evil. I maintain today that Chrome, YouTube, Maps, and Search would still be dominant if Google were to welcome third-parties to compete and take space on their devices.

This, IMO, is a case that is damaging to their CEO above anything else. It shows that over the last few years many of the steps taken that have alienated fans and employees have actually damaged the company too. The exec actions have damaged them, and as such the execs should pay the price or course-correct.

You’ve just made your first post regarding Arch. The cycle is complete.

That is a wild assumption with two key flaws

1. Windows in many workplaces has updates locked down too, except in circumstances where critical security or vulnerability patches are pushed through.

2. The same is true for many servers that run Linux.

As someone that works on tier1 services for arguably the biggest tech company right now, that’s how it works in most of FAANG. Updates are gated, sure, but like with many things there’s a vetting process where some things that look super important and safe just slip through.

In regards to your edit, I guess most cases are different from others, but if your entire business requires you to be able to use a machine 100% of the time then you should have the means to either use a different machine to continue transactions (ideally one with a known state that won’t change, or has been tested in the last few months). If you need to log transactions and process 24-48 hours later do that on something that’s locked down hard, with printed/hard backups if necessary.

Ultimately, risk is always something you factor in. If you don’t care about 48 hours of downtime over several years, it’s not a huge concern. I’d probably argue that many companies lost more money during these days than they would have spent in both money and people-hours training them on a contingency system to use in case of downtime.

No. If everyone were on Linux and there was a breaking change introduced by a third-party there would be similar problems.

The problem is that critical infrastructure isn’t treated like critical infrastructure. If something you rely on can go down due to a single point of failure, maybe don’t fucking use it?! Have backups, have systems that can replace those systems, have contingency! Slapping Windows on to a small machine and running some shitty Chromium app to work as a cash register is a fucking stupid idea when you consider that it is responsible for your whole income.

The problem was never Windows. It was companies that were too cheap to have contingency, because an event like this was considered extraordinary and not worth investing in.

We installed Slackware. One kid bet me that Linux wouldn’t let him drag his entire drive into the bin to delete. It did, and we all laughed, including the professor - who still gave him the passing grade since he’d seen enough of it working before it went up in flames.

I tried it, and while I was really excited about its proposition, it felt like at times any prior knowledge of Linux was a bit wasted. I also had some significant problems with needing to pin packages.

I don’t doubt that it’s a great option for many, if you’ve got the time to learn it. I’m finding myself in the position where I stick my flag to one distro and keep it there for as long as it doesn’t piss me off.

It has seamless integration with the language and framework, and to date (outside of TypeScript support in vscode) I’m yet to use anything that comes close to the level of control in debugging. IntelliJ shits the bed at even basic Gradle builds.

True. If I were to count text editors then vscode would probably be the winner. TypeScript support in vscode is just beautiful.

Eclipse is the Trump to IntelliJ’s Hillary.

IntelliJ is a blight on humanity.

I was so excited for Rider, especially since I do like some of the features of other JetBrains IDE’s, but I’ve found it just too unreliable when it comes to build support, and despite years of dominance in tooling from the ReSharper days VS intellisense is just much nicer. It’s very close though, and IMO Rider is nicer to use for C# than IntelliJ or PyCharm are for their respective languages.

Aside from being boomer tech, I’d say that both are text editors.

I’d consider vscode to still be a text editor, although I do really like using it for TypeScript. For me, VS still takes the crown because it’s just so good at debugging and evaluating C#. It’s hard for anyone to compete since Microsoft largely owns (yes, I know the .NET Foundation is responsible for .NET) the whole ecosystem.

Name an IDE that is better.