My sister in Christ, even Microsoft has admitted that Linux can do things their own OS cannot, and now gives all Windows installations the ability to run it in parallel, to the point of rewriting how their own OS works to accommodate it. WSL2 literally runs at the same layer as the Windows NT kernel itself. They’ve started releasing tools of their own that will not work on a purely Windows system, but require WSL2, in order to even function. All of Azure runs on a Linux backbone. They’ve made their own distros for internal use. And knowing how hard they are going to push AI with Windows 12, WSL3 might graduate from optional feature to absolutely mandatory part of Windows. All the PCs that can’t do the necessary virtualisation were filtered out by the Windows 11 requirements, after all.
This from the company that tried to destroy Linux for years, tried to kill it with UEFI, SecureBoot, FUD and sponsoring lawsuits against the Linux Foundation. Why does your vendetta continue when even theirs has faded and been replaced by a wholehearted embrace?
I bet you can’t do that on Linux. You’re not disproving my point in the way you think you are. Don’t misinterpret the truth as a vendetta, that’s wilfully ignorant and intellectually disingenuous.
Is Linux better than is was? Yes. Is it better than windows? 3% desktop marketshare says no.
acting as though your subjective opinion is the one and only truth, and getting extremely mad at people who hold other opinions
I see you’ve also let your autism get the better of you.
Anyway, nothing you can say or do will stop me from continuing to use the impending threat of Windows 11 to get as many friends as I can to start switching to Linux, and given that they’re all ADHD/autistic furries with a pre-existing interest in tech, I expect they’ll all handle the transition very well. “Keeps the amount of yiff on your hard drives between you and God” is a major selling point there, and unlike TempleOS, Linux actually works very well on modern hardware.
Anyway, I have no intention of continuing this argument.
Isn’t that the whole point of an internet argument, though? To get angry, turn your higher thinking off and yell at each other like big territorial lizards until someone gets bored and no longer has an interest in continuing?
(and yes I have gotten bored + actually have things to do now, so the anger has subsided and replaced by “why am I doing this again?”)
It’s been shown by research that almost nobody has their mind changed by these things, and logically it holds up, you’re arguing with someone you have no emotional connection to, over something you have different opinions about and both have strong emotions towards. Also, often there will be a difference of value judgements, that determine to a person which objective facts matter, whether they’re positive or negative, and which don’t matter/“are just the cost of doing business” (e.g. you clearly treat compatibility as vitally important, I don’t really care as long as most things work decently enough, and the Amish treat it as a negative, because to them a computer should be nothing more than a word processor and a calculator, everything else is a superfluous distraction), and value judgements are always subjective.
As an example, the great tragedy of vegans is that they’re as close to objectively correct as you can be with a value judgement, that the animal industry is objectively responsible for almost a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions while consuming vast amounts of land that could be used for growing crops for people (I believe the estimation is 6-7x as much land used for animal agriculture as plant agriculture once you account for feed crops), and if we don’t destroy it soon we’re headed for a vast amount of human suffering from climate change and famine. But you would be hard-pressed to find someone who has been turned vegan or even vegetarian by an internet argument, because a) a lot of people value their beef and bacon over the suffering of other people they’ve never met, and b) almost everyone has an emotional attachment to their current diet, which they perceive vegans as “threatening” (which admittedly they are, but for very good reasons), and so go on the offensive, morality be damned.
In my own experience, living with one + reading up on how much the animal industry is fucking the planet did far more to convince me than a thousand internet arguments with vegans I didn’t know and never interacted with again, and even then, I still don’t have the willpower and self-restraint to go fully vegan or even vegetarian, just greatly meat-reduced.
Why do you feel so threatened by Linux just existing? We’re not going to take Windows away from you
I’m not the one trying to gaslight about the failures of my chosen OS. Why are you scared of reality?
My sister in Christ, even Microsoft has admitted that Linux can do things their own OS cannot, and now gives all Windows installations the ability to run it in parallel, to the point of rewriting how their own OS works to accommodate it. WSL2 literally runs at the same layer as the Windows NT kernel itself. They’ve started releasing tools of their own that will not work on a purely Windows system, but require WSL2, in order to even function. All of Azure runs on a Linux backbone. They’ve made their own distros for internal use. And knowing how hard they are going to push AI with Windows 12, WSL3 might graduate from optional feature to absolutely mandatory part of Windows. All the PCs that can’t do the necessary virtualisation were filtered out by the Windows 11 requirements, after all.
This from the company that tried to destroy Linux for years, tried to kill it with UEFI, SecureBoot, FUD and sponsoring lawsuits against the Linux Foundation. Why does your vendetta continue when even theirs has faded and been replaced by a wholehearted embrace?
I bet you can’t do that on Linux. You’re not disproving my point in the way you think you are. Don’t misinterpret the truth as a vendetta, that’s wilfully ignorant and intellectually disingenuous.
Is Linux better than is was? Yes. Is it better than windows? 3% desktop marketshare says no.
I see you’ve also let your autism get the better of you.
Anyway, nothing you can say or do will stop me from continuing to use the impending threat of Windows 11 to get as many friends as I can to start switching to Linux, and given that they’re all ADHD/autistic furries with a pre-existing interest in tech, I expect they’ll all handle the transition very well. “Keeps the amount of yiff on your hard drives between you and God” is a major selling point there, and unlike TempleOS, Linux actually works very well on modern hardware.
Anyway, I have no intention of continuing this argument.
Lmao, check your ego. You’re the one gaslighting about your chosen OS. It’s software not your God or your personality.
If self awareness was a disease you’d be the healthiest person alive.
Isn’t that the whole point of an internet argument, though? To get angry, turn your higher thinking off and yell at each other like big territorial lizards until someone gets bored and no longer has an interest in continuing?
(and yes I have gotten bored + actually have things to do now, so the anger has subsided and replaced by “why am I doing this again?”)
It’s been shown by research that almost nobody has their mind changed by these things, and logically it holds up, you’re arguing with someone you have no emotional connection to, over something you have different opinions about and both have strong emotions towards. Also, often there will be a difference of value judgements, that determine to a person which objective facts matter, whether they’re positive or negative, and which don’t matter/“are just the cost of doing business” (e.g. you clearly treat compatibility as vitally important, I don’t really care as long as most things work decently enough, and the Amish treat it as a negative, because to them a computer should be nothing more than a word processor and a calculator, everything else is a superfluous distraction), and value judgements are always subjective.
As an example, the great tragedy of vegans is that they’re as close to objectively correct as you can be with a value judgement, that the animal industry is objectively responsible for almost a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions while consuming vast amounts of land that could be used for growing crops for people (I believe the estimation is 6-7x as much land used for animal agriculture as plant agriculture once you account for feed crops), and if we don’t destroy it soon we’re headed for a vast amount of human suffering from climate change and famine. But you would be hard-pressed to find someone who has been turned vegan or even vegetarian by an internet argument, because a) a lot of people value their beef and bacon over the suffering of other people they’ve never met, and b) almost everyone has an emotional attachment to their current diet, which they perceive vegans as “threatening” (which admittedly they are, but for very good reasons), and so go on the offensive, morality be damned.
In my own experience, living with one + reading up on how much the animal industry is fucking the planet did far more to convince me than a thousand internet arguments with vegans I didn’t know and never interacted with again, and even then, I still don’t have the willpower and self-restraint to go fully vegan or even vegetarian, just greatly meat-reduced.
Cool story bro.