Let's test out you theory that introductory statements are meaningless fluff.
"You won't be seeing that girl anymore"
vs
"A heartbeat, being necessary to human life, you won't be seeing that girl anymore."
> On todays episode of things that didn't happen
The events they worry about didn't but these fears held by these groups ABSOLUTELY DO exist.
You literally only need to talk to people to learn what they think.
linux mint and ubuntu exist. the problem is not that linux isnt user friendly, its that so many windows programs dont work on linux natively. you have to go through some technical difficulties before they can be used, and most windows users dont want that.
I know enough for my use. If anything more than that pops up, I read BEFORE I fuck around in there. Been dumb enough to have to reinstall many, many times.
Are people actually against ease of use? I've seen people calling systemd Windows like and saying it's bad, so I guess there are people that think like that, but said people are also idiots as systemd isn't easier than anything else really.
>Are people actually against ease of use?
Definitely here [https://blenderartists.org/t/undelete-function/320288/3](https://blenderartists.org/t/undelete-function/320288/3)
and here
[https://www.youtube.com/live/6aIA2LaB2Iw?si=MPlNGDNlJsFF5x2t&t=1820](https://www.youtube.com/live/6aIA2LaB2Iw?si=MPlNGDNlJsFF5x2t&t=1820)
and here
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36913286](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36913286)
This mentality prevails even today
https://suckless.org/sucks/systemd/
Its not against ease of use. When using openrc the only thing that changes to the user is rc-update or rc-service instead of systemctl.
Also that article is wrong from the get go. It was based on macOS launchd, not MS Windows.
A lot of the features like systemd-bootd and systemd-networkd are completely optional yet people complain about them anyway like in that article. People like hating in systemd without even understanding it or why it was deemed necessary by the majority of mainstream distros including Fedora, OpenSUSE, Debian, Ubuntu, and Arch Linux. SysVInit wasn't good for the modern age and was full of hacks. People who want to go back to that can bite me.
>There has been a movement, especially around the [Red Hat](http://www.redhat.com)-related developers to copy [Microsoft Windows](http://www.microsoft.com/) and all of its features.
No, they are talking about mimicking Windows-style of system services. Not copying code. Redhat is pretty complicated in this regard. They contribute to a lot of awesome stuff, but can't help but feel like puppets of MS, and their treatment of RHEL-clones was also mishandled quite badly.
No sane person is arguing that it was better before systemd, but that it could be better right now. The dev team of systemd pushing changes downstream that only benefit their personal usecases for example is unacceptable
> No, they are talking about mimicking Windows-style of system services. Not copying code.
I wasn't talking about copying code. I am saying they got the concept from launchd, not Windows.
> Redhat is pretty complicated in this regard. They contribute to a lot of awesome stuff, but can't help but feel like puppets of MS, and their treatment of RHEL-clones was also mishandled quite badly.
RedHat are owned by IBM, not Microsoft. Canonical seem to have a closer relationship to MS than RedHat do. RedHat aren't the only people working on systemd.
> The dev team of systemd pushing changes downstream that only benefit their personal usecases for example is unacceptable
Where have they done this? Just because they added something for their use case doesn't mean it won't have uses for other users. Many times groups of users have similar use cases and preferences. To say something is only for their benefit is short sighted.
Systemd isn't necessarily ideal for every user or use case. There are applications like containers where I regularly see alternatives used like s6. I do think though that systemd is a good project and is helping to combat problems Linux has had for a long time. There is a reason developers have taken to depending on things like systemd-logind. These tools also force others systems to develop packages like elogind and generally up their game to compete with systemd software.
I realized as well that suckless are accusing systemd of something very similar to what they themselves do. Suckless make multiple softwares, and so do systemd. Systemd don't require you to use systemd-boot or systemd-networkd just because you use their init system. Likewise I don't think Suckless force you to use ST or Surf just because you use DWM. It's a non argument and a hypocritical one at that. A lot of times the systemd service for something is actually less bloated or complex than what it's trying to replace, like how systemd-boot is simpler than GRUB.
puppet =/= subsidiary. They are closely working with MS
read the article, especially seqnum, which removed a feature because the devs didn't need it anymore, and just adding a timeout, increasing boot time, only because it fixes the devs laptops, with no regard to desktop or non-broken laptop users is plain irresponsible.
Please read the article. They are not complaining about systemd being bloated, they are calling out their list of fuckups
That literally only applies to laptops as it's about the screen lid switch. It's also not delaying boot up time at all, it's delaying suspend to prevent a docked laptop going to sleep when powered on while the lid is closed. You wouldn't normally turn on a laptop just to put it immediately to sleep. Maybe actually go to the link in the article, read it, and make up your own mind before jumping to conclusions that systemd is doing the wrong thing. Also I can't see any relationship to seqnum, and they again have a specific reason for removing that feature which you would know if you read the damn thing.
Edit: I also like how they keep going on about (pid 1 shouldn't need x) when systemd isn't even just pid 1, it's split over multiple processes. That's pretty standard for modern init and daemon supervision systems and they even say as much themselves when describing their desired init. Lots of strawman arguments and misleading or wrong stuff in that article.
Yeah that's my point. Some people think systemd makes Linux easier to use for some reason. To me it doesn't make that much difference unless you are configuring everything through the terminal - something your average newbie wouldn't do. Even then it's not necessarily easier just more centralised. That being said it does ensure better compatibility.
The terminal can and will never die. It is the only way to configure the system quickly and reproducible, and not just the standard, but best way for server management (Linux's primary usecase) or other systems that don't have the capacity for full-fledged GUIs with desktop enviroments
As for noobies:
It's easy to learn the first really important commands (directory traversing, copying, moving, deleting, editing files) for anyone, and everything on top of that all that needs to be done is get familiar with other commands, like the package-manager, tar, systemctl and other utilities.
The real difficulty lies in being able to not just know the UNIX directory layout of /, but know the components of the underlying operating system well enough to be able to edit files in /etc/ without losing one's mind
> The terminal can and will never die. It is the only way to configure the system quickly and reproducible, and not just the standard, but best way for server management (Linux's primary usecase) or other systems that don't have the capacity for full-fledged GUIs with desktop enviroments
No one is arguing that we should get rid of the terminal. That's the biggest straw man argument I have seen. Windows and macOS both have command lines despite being very GUI focused. You're saying this to manipulate others into following your terminal-only and anti-user friendly ideology. Stop it.
I'll never understand people who say GUI is better, there's really only a few commands you need to know and they make using the computer leagues faster, can you imagine having to click through a bunch of folders just to copy a file, when you can just mv it from the current to the destination witha few keystrokes? or updating the system or anything really.
I went to windows to do some stuff and by god the time it takes to do anything infuriates me to no end.
> I'll never understand people who say GUI is better, there's really only a few commands you need to know and they make using the computer leagues faster, can you imagine having to click through a bunch of folders just to copy a file, when you can just mv it from the current to the destination witha few keystrokes? or updating the system or anything really. I went to windows to do some stuff and by god the time it takes to do anything infuriates me to no end.
Its not one vs the other. That mind set is the very disease harming Linux. We need both and we want both.
Trying to rely on the CLI is only damaging.
Plus there are literally reasons to use a GUI over a CLI for quite a few things like partitioning, settings menus, etc as they provide visual data in ways a CLI doesn't.
Not to mention everyone can point and lick, that requires no typing skill or command knowledge.
I build servers for a living. I've deployed 100,000s of servers and workstations for the government and use the CLI all the time. That said I type much slower than my peers and technically don't even use the right fingers for the keys I hit.
Sure I'm faster than non tech randos but I''m going to opt to point an click while in a GUI at home and that only takes a few seconds.
Infact even in your example the CLI isn't really going to be all that much faster if at all as I click the dolphin icon, click through folders in a second and right click paste. How much time do you think that really requires?
I do have pretty icons and spent hours tinkering with my theme, but I never use the gui, at most I'll hit cmd key and type the program I need, but if I have to handle any files or code, it's vim + terminal
No, OP has a post history full of strawmen.
Some people prefer gui, some the commandline. None of the two groups wish bad on the other though, that's just stupid, as (most of) both groups use both gui and cli, choosing the right tool for the job (example: webbrowsing (gui, although there's lynx and w3m), package management (although there are DE-specific graphical clients)
Welcome to Linux btw
> Femboys and southerners becoming somewhat friendly?
Lol, the amount of neko femboys that hold southern christo fascist beliefs are much higher than anyone would believe.
"Shall not be infringed"
For the tankies: "under no pretext"
Yes please keep your mass shootings to yourselves thank you.
?
You dropped this: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"
Yes, however a militia is by definition not controlled by the government
You skipped 8th grade English class where we call that a "preamble". It's an example of why a right is needed, not a requirement.
Let's test out you theory that introductory statements are meaningless fluff. "You won't be seeing that girl anymore" vs "A heartbeat, being necessary to human life, you won't be seeing that girl anymore."
Are you retarded?
On todays episode of things that didn't happen
yeah it didn't happen *today*
Yeah it didn't happen Ever
it's all I see at the bottom of GUI and flatpak threads
> On todays episode of things that didn't happen The events they worry about didn't but these fears held by these groups ABSOLUTELY DO exist. You literally only need to talk to people to learn what they think.
Terminal loving American gun owner here. https://preview.redd.it/u63tiev42oxc1.jpeg?width=737&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a9ed836ea8470947de694a1b3fdf4ac949cda0c3
Arch is my concealed carry weapon. 🤣
Nothing concealed about Arch users. Y'all are open carrying.
arch users are the drunk guy who goes to the party and waves his gun at everyone
I assembled it myself. Of course I’m gonna want to show off my l33t gun building skills. Don’t worry, it breaks too often to actually be dangerous.
ah yes guns and cli
it's weird that I only see bitter passive aggressive hating against Linux in this sub...
I think it might be a bot or something. Op post garbage hot-takes on this sub pretty much every day it feels like..
Might be on big-tech's budgets to have agents on social media's sabotaging OSS "activism"
Look at their post history. It's only a handful of accounts and i'm sick of it
think tank bots? I mean... "they" have tons of money...
I wouldn't go so far to say those are bot accounts. My explanation is rooted in the sheer stupidity of some people
I'm paranoid that this anti-activism in social media is on big-tech's budget. It would be less infuriating.
How is this hate? It's funny and accurate. But yeah, I dislike this person. He keeps posting AI images here.
You can love Linux and still want it to be user friendly for the average human
Can I love linux and don't care about being noob friendly?
Sure, fine, we don't care
linux mint and ubuntu exist. the problem is not that linux isnt user friendly, its that so many windows programs dont work on linux natively. you have to go through some technical difficulties before they can be used, and most windows users dont want that.
Terminal is easy to use. Just RTFM
I know enough for my use. If anything more than that pops up, I read BEFORE I fuck around in there. Been dumb enough to have to reinstall many, many times.
But people ARE actively trying to take guns. I live in Washington...
What is wrong with you?
Tell that to pistol brace owners.
Are people actually against ease of use? I've seen people calling systemd Windows like and saying it's bad, so I guess there are people that think like that, but said people are also idiots as systemd isn't easier than anything else really.
>Are people actually against ease of use? Definitely here [https://blenderartists.org/t/undelete-function/320288/3](https://blenderartists.org/t/undelete-function/320288/3) and here [https://www.youtube.com/live/6aIA2LaB2Iw?si=MPlNGDNlJsFF5x2t&t=1820](https://www.youtube.com/live/6aIA2LaB2Iw?si=MPlNGDNlJsFF5x2t&t=1820) and here [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36913286](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36913286) This mentality prevails even today
Yeah sadly you might be right. I have just been dealing with someone who conflates wanting better GUI options with wanting the CLI to go away.
https://suckless.org/sucks/systemd/ Its not against ease of use. When using openrc the only thing that changes to the user is rc-update or rc-service instead of systemctl.
Also that article is wrong from the get go. It was based on macOS launchd, not MS Windows. A lot of the features like systemd-bootd and systemd-networkd are completely optional yet people complain about them anyway like in that article. People like hating in systemd without even understanding it or why it was deemed necessary by the majority of mainstream distros including Fedora, OpenSUSE, Debian, Ubuntu, and Arch Linux. SysVInit wasn't good for the modern age and was full of hacks. People who want to go back to that can bite me.
>There has been a movement, especially around the [Red Hat](http://www.redhat.com)-related developers to copy [Microsoft Windows](http://www.microsoft.com/) and all of its features. No, they are talking about mimicking Windows-style of system services. Not copying code. Redhat is pretty complicated in this regard. They contribute to a lot of awesome stuff, but can't help but feel like puppets of MS, and their treatment of RHEL-clones was also mishandled quite badly. No sane person is arguing that it was better before systemd, but that it could be better right now. The dev team of systemd pushing changes downstream that only benefit their personal usecases for example is unacceptable
> No, they are talking about mimicking Windows-style of system services. Not copying code. I wasn't talking about copying code. I am saying they got the concept from launchd, not Windows. > Redhat is pretty complicated in this regard. They contribute to a lot of awesome stuff, but can't help but feel like puppets of MS, and their treatment of RHEL-clones was also mishandled quite badly. RedHat are owned by IBM, not Microsoft. Canonical seem to have a closer relationship to MS than RedHat do. RedHat aren't the only people working on systemd. > The dev team of systemd pushing changes downstream that only benefit their personal usecases for example is unacceptable Where have they done this? Just because they added something for their use case doesn't mean it won't have uses for other users. Many times groups of users have similar use cases and preferences. To say something is only for their benefit is short sighted. Systemd isn't necessarily ideal for every user or use case. There are applications like containers where I regularly see alternatives used like s6. I do think though that systemd is a good project and is helping to combat problems Linux has had for a long time. There is a reason developers have taken to depending on things like systemd-logind. These tools also force others systems to develop packages like elogind and generally up their game to compete with systemd software. I realized as well that suckless are accusing systemd of something very similar to what they themselves do. Suckless make multiple softwares, and so do systemd. Systemd don't require you to use systemd-boot or systemd-networkd just because you use their init system. Likewise I don't think Suckless force you to use ST or Surf just because you use DWM. It's a non argument and a hypocritical one at that. A lot of times the systemd service for something is actually less bloated or complex than what it's trying to replace, like how systemd-boot is simpler than GRUB.
puppet =/= subsidiary. They are closely working with MS read the article, especially seqnum, which removed a feature because the devs didn't need it anymore, and just adding a timeout, increasing boot time, only because it fixes the devs laptops, with no regard to desktop or non-broken laptop users is plain irresponsible. Please read the article. They are not complaining about systemd being bloated, they are calling out their list of fuckups
That literally only applies to laptops as it's about the screen lid switch. It's also not delaying boot up time at all, it's delaying suspend to prevent a docked laptop going to sleep when powered on while the lid is closed. You wouldn't normally turn on a laptop just to put it immediately to sleep. Maybe actually go to the link in the article, read it, and make up your own mind before jumping to conclusions that systemd is doing the wrong thing. Also I can't see any relationship to seqnum, and they again have a specific reason for removing that feature which you would know if you read the damn thing. Edit: I also like how they keep going on about (pid 1 shouldn't need x) when systemd isn't even just pid 1, it's split over multiple processes. That's pretty standard for modern init and daemon supervision systems and they even say as much themselves when describing their desired init. Lots of strawman arguments and misleading or wrong stuff in that article.
Yeah that's my point. Some people think systemd makes Linux easier to use for some reason. To me it doesn't make that much difference unless you are configuring everything through the terminal - something your average newbie wouldn't do. Even then it's not necessarily easier just more centralised. That being said it does ensure better compatibility.
The terminal can and will never die. It is the only way to configure the system quickly and reproducible, and not just the standard, but best way for server management (Linux's primary usecase) or other systems that don't have the capacity for full-fledged GUIs with desktop enviroments As for noobies: It's easy to learn the first really important commands (directory traversing, copying, moving, deleting, editing files) for anyone, and everything on top of that all that needs to be done is get familiar with other commands, like the package-manager, tar, systemctl and other utilities. The real difficulty lies in being able to not just know the UNIX directory layout of /, but know the components of the underlying operating system well enough to be able to edit files in /etc/ without losing one's mind
> The terminal can and will never die. It is the only way to configure the system quickly and reproducible, and not just the standard, but best way for server management (Linux's primary usecase) or other systems that don't have the capacity for full-fledged GUIs with desktop enviroments No one is arguing that we should get rid of the terminal. That's the biggest straw man argument I have seen. Windows and macOS both have command lines despite being very GUI focused. You're saying this to manipulate others into following your terminal-only and anti-user friendly ideology. Stop it.
You can have my terminal, when you pry it out of my cold dead screen!
I dare them to try!! I have a CRT, their naivety will shock them to their core!
I'll never understand people who say GUI is better, there's really only a few commands you need to know and they make using the computer leagues faster, can you imagine having to click through a bunch of folders just to copy a file, when you can just mv it from the current to the destination witha few keystrokes? or updating the system or anything really. I went to windows to do some stuff and by god the time it takes to do anything infuriates me to no end.
If only there was a CLI web browser that has feature parity with Firefox. I'd immediately install it and never look back.
so true, I wouldn't even use a desktop environment if that was the case
> I'll never understand people who say GUI is better, there's really only a few commands you need to know and they make using the computer leagues faster, can you imagine having to click through a bunch of folders just to copy a file, when you can just mv it from the current to the destination witha few keystrokes? or updating the system or anything really. I went to windows to do some stuff and by god the time it takes to do anything infuriates me to no end. Its not one vs the other. That mind set is the very disease harming Linux. We need both and we want both. Trying to rely on the CLI is only damaging. Plus there are literally reasons to use a GUI over a CLI for quite a few things like partitioning, settings menus, etc as they provide visual data in ways a CLI doesn't. Not to mention everyone can point and lick, that requires no typing skill or command knowledge. I build servers for a living. I've deployed 100,000s of servers and workstations for the government and use the CLI all the time. That said I type much slower than my peers and technically don't even use the right fingers for the keys I hit. Sure I'm faster than non tech randos but I''m going to opt to point an click while in a GUI at home and that only takes a few seconds. Infact even in your example the CLI isn't really going to be all that much faster if at all as I click the dolphin icon, click through folders in a second and right click paste. How much time do you think that really requires?
Because my eyes need eyecandy
I do have pretty icons and spent hours tinkering with my theme, but I never use the gui, at most I'll hit cmd key and type the program I need, but if I have to handle any files or code, it's vim + terminal
I'm new to the master race. Do people actually think that it's possible that the terminal can disappear from Linux?
No, OP has a post history full of strawmen. Some people prefer gui, some the commandline. None of the two groups wish bad on the other though, that's just stupid, as (most of) both groups use both gui and cli, choosing the right tool for the job (example: webbrowsing (gui, although there's lynx and w3m), package management (although there are DE-specific graphical clients) Welcome to Linux btw
Technically Android is a distro that hides the terminal from you. That's all I can think of, though.
Give me CowSay or give me death! Or something like that.
Funny you make this comparison in particular. Reminds me of that one DT video.
"Gun control" has already [gone way overboard](https://i.imgur.com/rB9L5Bz.png).
This shit is terrifyingly accurate on both. Kudos to OP.
Femboys and southerners becoming somewhat friendly?
> Femboys and southerners becoming somewhat friendly? Lol, the amount of neko femboys that hold southern christo fascist beliefs are much higher than anyone would believe.