Sure, but the specs aren't directly comparable.
They also still manufacture the RPi 4, which starts at £33- which is £23 in 2012 money.
but they're not cheap any more
People say this, but they really are still cheap.
The original Raspberry Pi Model B launched for £22 in 2012. The entry level Raspberry Pi 5 is £46, but adjusted for inflation that's only £32 in 2012 money. So only £10 more expensive in real terms.
Raspberry Pi Zero 2 W is only £14.40, which is only £10 in 2012 money. Compare this to the original Raspberry Pi Model A, which launched for £16.
People look at the headline cost of the high end RPi 5s (£115 for the 16GB model, £76 for the 8GB), but fail to recognise that there was nothing comparable to these in the Raspberry Pi lineup before, and these are not the only models in the Raspberry Pi lineup now.
I was really impressed by how lightweight and gorgeous it is.
Maybe a controversial opinion here, but the one thing that everyone says about it is that it looks gorgeous, and I really don't see it. Never have.
Even back when I first tried it out, maybe 15 years ago, I thought it looked strangely retro. Nowadays, compared to the eye candy that is completely standard in GNOME, KDE, MacOS, Windows etc., it looks incredibly dated.
It's all hard edges, low res icons, ugly fonts, and eccentric design choices. Yeah, it can make window elements transparent, but you can't dine out on that one trick for ever.
Same went for their rivals, Poundworld and 99p Stores, both of which have already long since bitten the dust.
Meanwhile their rivals that don't bother with the fixed price gimmick (B&M, Home Bargains, Poundstretcher) seem to be doing better.
Poundland is never as cheap as you think it will be, anyway, even when they do stick to under £1. They just sell smaller packages of products than other shops; it's not like they're selling anything at a loss.
Yep. It's to distinguish it from other forms of homelessness, such as "sofa surfing" (where someone moves from one friend or family member to another for short periods without having a fixed address of their own), people temporarily living in homeless shelters/boarding houses, people living in places which aren't really accommodation (such as their place of work), and "statutory homelessness" (a broader legal definition which includes a few things which might not seem like homelessness, such as people who are at serious risk of violence in their homes).
It's also loud.
I don't need or want everyone sat in the same room as me to know every little thing I do on my phone. Leaving aside things that are actually private, that's just a level of inane garbage that we all don't need to know about each other.
Sometimes I just want to glance at the football scores without announcing to everyone: "OK Google, what is the current score for the football match between Swindon Town and Harrogate?".
Edit: It's currently nil-nil, if you're wondering.
We don't have a monopoly on one class of device, we have monopolies on five different classes of device. That's definitely different and better!
Fortnite uses Easy Anti Cheat, which is made by Epic (that is, Fortnite's own developer). EAC works fine on Linux; it just needs the developer to enable it.
I've been a Linux user for a decade and a half now, but still use Windows on my corporate laptops. Honestly, it's baffling how Microsoft seem to consistently manage to miss the mark with the UI design. There's lots to be said about the underlying internals of Windows vs Linux, performance, kernel design etc., but even at the shallow, end user, "is this thing pleasant to use" stakes, they just never manage to get it right.
Windows 7 was...fine. It was largely inoffensive from a shell point of view, although things about how config and settings were handled were still pretty screwy. But Windows 8 was an absolutely insane approach to UI design, Windows 10 spent an awful lot of energy just trying to de-awful it without throwing the whole thing out, and Windows 11 is missing basic UI features that even Windows 7 had.
When you look at their main commercial competition (Mac and Chromebook) or the big names in Linux (GNOME, KDE, plenty of others besides), they stand out as a company that simply can't get it right, despite having more resources to throw at it than the rest of them put together.
I know this thread is likely to quickly descend into 50 variants of "ew, snap", but it's a good write up of what is really a pretty interesting novel approach to the immutable desktop world.
As the article says, it could well be the thing that actually justifies Canonical's dogged perseverance with snaps in the first place.
There's so much to dislike, but I think the thing that irrationally bugs me the most is the fact that they chose a 6 panel door and just chopped the top off it right through the panels. Instead of, you know, just buying a different kind of door.
Worth noting that these were changes implemented by the previous Tory government. The new Labour government was more or less happy to leave it to ride, but now it's been successfully challenged in court they're happy to let it fall by the wayside.