Re: "SimpleText is unable to run because of a serious error"
Your history repeating point has another layer. Travis Geiselbrecht, Brian Swetland and Dave Bort all worked on Fuchsia and came from Be/HP (WebOS).
136 publicly visible posts • joined 3 Mar 2023
"It's one guy's personal config of Arch, put on an ISO and shipped. It's a really weird config, it's not easy for either beginners or experienced users, and it has lots of idiosyncratic personal choices."
So the weird thing is that it's incredibly easy to use for beginners, much more so than anything Hyprland I've used before. Why? Because when you add an LLM to it, you can basically ask it to do anything to your system, and because it has a skill built for Claude etc that tells it how to configure Omarchy, *and the permissions* (something I will come back to) it just goes off and does it.
Simple example: natural scrolling. After years of using a Mac where the default is natural scrolling, the first thing I do on any system is change the touchpad to use it. The first time I used a Hyprland set up, I had to Google stuff, find and edit the right text file, etc. And I could it wrong because HELL what it is with all those nested settings?
In Omarchy 4 I just asked Claude Code in a terminal to change it, and it was done. Then I asked it to distill all my customisations into a script which I could run on a new Omarchy machine to set it up how I like, along with all the apps I like, and it did it. And, of course *saved it into Documents in my user directory* because, yes, it has access to everything on the system.
Now this is a HORRIBLE security environment. I have an LLM that can rampage across setup, files, etc. Even though I'm not an AI Refusenik, this horrifies me. But for inexperienced users who -- like DHH -- buy into the AI hype, it's really great. You can set it up any way you like, and move on to doing work rather than tinkering. And if you're part of the generation growing up now that is used to just typing and typing to a machine agent, it's going to be the most obvious way to interact with your machine and get it doing things you want. That's not for me (at least not on my actual work machine) but it's fairly obviously the future even if I don't like it.
You're right that AI is not a single thing. But I cringe every time anyone says "it's not really AI at all." "AI" has been the name of the field since McCarthy coined it in 1956, and it has covered everything from tree search to expert systems, planners and statistical learning ever since. It never really meant human-equivalent cognition, which is why people started calling that "AGI".
There's also the old observation that AI is whatever hasn't worked yet. Chess, OCR, machine translation, spam filtering, route-finding: all AI until they worked, then quietly reclassified as "just software".
Yes, there is a mountain of genuine AI-washing, and plenty of deployments really are IVR menus with a language model bolted on. And yes, capex has run far ahead of realised revenue. Circular vendor-financing deals, depreciation schedules on GPUs, and power constraints are all a thing. What's politely called "a correction" and more accurately called "financial meltdown" looks inevitable.
But "a natural language interface strapped on to a search engine" is just factually wrong about the architecture. A search engine retrieves documents that exist. A language model produces token sequences that have never existed anywhere, which is why "hallucination" is a failure mode at all.
I'm not saying this is your point of view, but I hear this idea of "contribution" measured solely in terms of taxation far too often. Workers in, say, care homes contribute a lot to the country, in part because the kind of people on higher end tax salaries don't want to be "saddled" with looking after old folk. Ditto the minimum wage employees in nurseries, looking after those £id50k+ parents children while they work.
Take away the poorly paid, and a remarkable number of the services which the richer members of society rely on would collapse. No man is an island, and all that.
I'm not sure that "don't know how to use Windows and don't care" is actually any kind of criticism. Why should the rest of computing history be dominated by a paradigm from the 1970s? You and I might find WIMP efficient, but if you've grown up with smartphones -- and if you're under 40, you have grown up with smartphones -- why would you not expect computers to work that way? Rather than what oldies like me prefer.
I still remember impossibly old people (perhaps in their 50s) in the late 1980s claiming that any kind of windowing system was inefficient and humans needed to work "the way computers work, with a command line". Times change, and it's the young 'uns that make the world which works for them. It was ever thus.
Every time I read “if it’s not broken, don’t fix it” my mind adds “for me” in there.
Your definition of “not broken” is not the same as mine, and mine is not the same as (say) an admin looking after a massive server farm.
“Broken”, in a lot of people’s minds, has elided well beyond “doesn’t work at all” to “doesn’t work in the way I learned Unix worked when I was at college in the 1970s/80s”.
I think you're correctly highlighting the unproven thing about immutable distros. There are clear advantages in some areas, but is reliability really one of them? If it's not, you end up with the Apple approach of "take it back to the shop"... which would be a bit difficult with Linux!
You have to remember, though, that for most users, almost everything about every operating system is pretty opaque. A lot of people want a system which requires zero tinkering, because they want to do things with their computer rather than do things *to* the computer.
If immutable distros meet the needs of people who just want something that works reliably without tinkering, great! The world is big enough for many different approaches.
When using Ubuntu -- which is most of the time these days -- I generally prefer using Snap packages. The launch speed issues are mostly gone, and I have fast-enough hardware that it's not really an issue for me anyway.
But boy oh boy 25.10 has some issues in that regard. Case in point: the Snap version of Tuba (the excellent Mastodon version) simply won't launch. The Flatpak is fine. That seems... odd.
"It Just Works..."
For you. That's the important caveat.
And you know what, that's fine! But it's not true for everyone. Any time you have to reach for the command line – it's not "just works" for most people. Any time you have to do any kind of config in a text file - not "just works" for most people.
Part of the problem is that Linux users are perpetually stuck in the 1990s. Consider the sheer volume of comments on any article here which strays into Windows claiming that the peak of user interface design was Windows 97. And Linux "just works" to the same degree, largely, that Windows 97 "just worked". Mostly, it's fine. Run into something which requires tweaking - which you will do every now and then - and you're going to have to get a knowledgeable friend in. Or try and Google it, which will lead you down a rabbit hole of bad advice and waste a lot of time, if you're not careful.
None of this is *bad*. And for a couple of non-technical friends of mine, Linux works fine. But for a few months they needed hand-holding through it, and I would welcome any effort to make that handholding less.
Most modern operating systems – macOS, Windows 11, ChromeOS -- are fairly forgiving. Users can fumble around and find workarounds for doing things, even if they're not the optimal way of doing it. Linux is not forgiving, not at all. Try the same approach and it's still remarkably easy to break things in a way which will cost you a long time (I know, I've done it).
All of which is to say: I agree with a lot of the points that are being made here. If all the effort that's spread across a bazillion distros went into two or three of them, Linux as a whole would be in a better place. There are HUGE blind spots (accessibility being the biggest). The response you get when you point out Linux's failings tends to be a thousand different variants of "well it works for me, why you can't be more like me I don't know, you must be stupid".
Linux is *remarkable*. But it's not the one true operating system, and it won't be until we stop thinking that the peak of operating systems was nearly thirty years ago.
"Windows 95 was a design classic. There was only a single thing wrong with it: it was single-threaded."
Begging your pardon, guvnor' but I don't think that's right. Sort of. Windows 95 was multithreaded -- but only for Win32 applications, and only when specifically written to be so.
"I have about 20 different email addresses for different purposes, and a good email client (or even "Legacy" Outlook) allows me to see them all in one place."
Good webmail services let you do this now, too. For example, Fastmail can effectively act as an IMAP client to any account which supports it. Nothing wrong with preferring a proper application, of course, but the days when webmail services were one-account only are gone.
> And anyway I can't drive PhotoShop, which I find even more baffling than the GIMP, frankly. Which is why I do not accept claims that Photoshop has a better UI.
It's not designed for *you*, Liam. You're not, and never will be, a professional graphic designer.
Good UI in a professional tool is about serving its professional users, not people who, well, aren't.
I love that people here are downvoting you, an experienced Photoshop user pointing out the challenges with Gimp because they refuse to believe you're correct.
And you are, 100%, correct. Your point about shortcuts being different *matters* because people who use Photoshop everyday have memorised every single one they use and don't want to spend a long time unlearning that.
The obvious approach would be for Gimp to adopt, as far as possible, the same shortcuts. But NO, it cannot, because the kind of people who cheerlead for it would rather it's a tool that is less useful to professionals and more "their thing".
Way back in the day, when I used to work for the illustrious Mr Proven, I tried getting some of our graphic designers who had the keyboard shortcuts for Photoshop into their DNA to have a look at Gimp and give me their opinion. They disliked it, immensely.
There were two reasons for this. First, it couldn't do RGB to CMYK transformations at the time, and that was required for anyone who worked with print.
Second, though: the name. "It sounds like a f-ing joke by a teenager with spots" was uttered by one.
So yes, names matter. Especially for tools used by professionals.
The fact that it wasn't used as an ableist slur - which wasn't what the person you're criticising said anyway - doesn't mean it isn't one.
Words are wonderful things, and if you lack the imagination to use different ones if someone points out something is offensive, that's very much a "you" problem.
No idea why your post is being downvoted given that it's entirely factually accurate and a lot of the people complaining about what you're saying and getting quite upset are of the "facts don't care about your feelings" variety.
But when they say that, what they really mean is, of course, "I don't care about your feelings (but I'll sure as hell complain if you do anything hurt mine)".
I don't *entirely* agree with you, as it's clear that at the time of the backronym coming about, it's unlikely the original creators thought of it as derogatory. It was just a funny thing from a movie. But we're long past that now, and the fact that some people want to cling on to the past is their problem.
At this point it doesn't make any sense to repurpose even a base M1 to Linux, unless you just want to play around with Linux on a very good ARM machine. The performance Is still excellent. I have an M1 Mac mini bought when it was first released, and it works really well and runs all the latest macOS stuff. Four years old it might be, but boy the performance is still good.
"Monopolies are usually short lived..."
Bell Telephone was effectively a monopoly for over 70 years, and regulated as such from the Kingsbury Commitment in 1913 to the break-up of AT&T in 1984. Monopolies are only short-lived if there is the political will to act against them because there are few economic forces which will knock a monopoly off its perch in any kind of short order.