"☹️".reverse() == "☹️"

may I ask why? Different hardware is designed for different tasks, and using even a Linux phone will beat out most laptops for energy efficiency to make the same call using the same apps

Debian, Arch, Fedora, Mint, Ubuntu, Redhat, Manjaro all have docs and wiki on their primary websites. Slackware has docs, Gentoo has a wiki. Anything that's not on a distro's site needs to be carefully considered before tampering. Almost all of those distros have a warning in their installation instructions to only listen to the information in their docs and wiki, and to a lesser extent their forums. Hell, even nosystemd.org tells you what systemd is, what it's for, what replacements there are, and the proper way to get rid of it in bold text under the header "How do I get rid of systemd?"

Listening to hackneyed advice from unvetted sources just because they have strong opinions is a problem that any and every computer will face. That's not a problem with linux anymore than the hoardes of trolls on random social media sites telling you to "delete System32" is a problem with Windows.

I want Linux to be customizable AND safe. But safe in the way that someone takes the time to learn how what they plan to do will effect their system, not safe in the sense of "impossible to bork"

As for elitism: if it's "elitist" to indirectly poke fun of someone who deleted a core system component without understanding what it does without a backup, then so be it. It feels more like that word is levied by people whose ego is too big to take respobsibility for the mistakes they made, and instead blame others for laughing when it bites them in the ass.

Idk where these swaths of elitists that refuse to help are. OOP went to stackexchange and likely got a helpful answer complete with explanations, as that is the community standard. Over on !linux@lemmy.ml , I see people offering help with problems all the time without shitting on them. If I go to the aforementioned OS forums, or really any software-specific forums, I see people helping or pointing people to where they can get help.

And I'm not denying that assholes who say shit like "did you even bother googling?" exist. They're nasty people with no patience, but they're by no means the community standard unless they're the only ones you pay attention to...

Or unless you see a screenshot of a question from a different website posted in a meme-sharing forum and expect the comments to offer advice, instead of laughing at the person who shot themselves in the foot and went to a hospital instead of seeking help at the DNC HQ

2001: A Space Odyssey

It's my favorite because of the cinematography and atmosphere. It's my favorite because of the themes and philosophy. It's my favorite because space and psychedelia are cool.

It's just an all around great movie if you can appreciate the slow pacing and intentionally jarring or tense aspects that drag on. 30 minutes of monkeys fucking around for seemingly no reason (at least, at first). Discordant wailing that lasts so long it nearly leaves your ears ringing. Space shots with no sound at all, or just the hissing of the space suit, which linger on the slow drift of a character moving from one location to the next. A character begging for his life as another dismantles his brain bit-by-bit.

To me, this movie always flys by, and it always feels like i was there in it, fully immersed. To my friends, it lasts a week and has one cool part that took an eon to get to.

Also it begs for multiple watchings to develop a theory of what the fuck is happening at the end and what the obelisk is and where it comes from.

It also raises philosophical questions that are interesting to come up with and grapple with in new ways with each viewing. Is HAL alive? Whats the next leap in evolution? can uncomfortable art be good? Who owns the moon? How did consciousness evolve? What's happening to Dave?

"Death is only the beginning" - Imhotep's last line in The Mummy.

A man that has been dead for a couple millenia and is about to return to death utters these ominous words. Yes, it's probably just to leave the story open for a sequel, but the metaphysical implications are terrifying. He knows what it's like, and he's claiming that so much more comes after, but we're just left with a vague notion of what it could be. What could this mean? Is there sunshine and rainbows? Eternal torture? An endless void? An infinite realm of possibilities has just opened up for us, the audience.

But there's no time for that shit, there's gold and Benny's a greedy sack of shit, the temple's crumbling, and once they escape there's a celebration and denoument to be had! We've all but forgotten that threat—or promise, as the case may be.

One of the best ways I have ever seen writers leave the door ajar for a sequel. There's no hand pushing up through the rubble, no sinister laugh as the screen fades to black, no "did anyone remember to check that he died for sure?" no cheesy gimmicks. Just an ominous vaguery, that may be about hinting at another installment, but still works by itself as a raw line that goes hard af.

I don't buy the whole "the more users a software has, the better it gets" rhetoric. Historically this has been the opposite of the case. There's an even higher users-to-contributors ratio amongst the general population. Not all users share the same respect for the philosophy behind FOSS.

If the driving force behind design decisions becomes "what keeps people happy so they'll keep using our software" and not "freedom," there's now a practical incentive to sell out and introduce more Intellectual Property shenanigans into the ecosystem. After all, it's a lot easier to hire devs and churn out new features and keep the software actively developed for the foreseeable future if there's money in it. And the only way there can be money in it is if there are proprietary licenses shitting up the place, and Shit As A Service suscription models as far as the eye can see.

Linux always has been, and should always continue to be, about freedom. If that freedom comes with user-friendliness, great! If not, then we have to pay the price: taking responsibility for the tools and tech we use and learning how to use them properly and contributing to them to maintain a community of likeminded people. Otherwise, we're not worthy of the freedom and the responsibilities it entails.

I get your point about elitism and gatekeeping. We're no better than Windows users or Mac users or any other OS' users. We just have a set of values unique to our community, and they have sets of values that differ. We also shouldn't be throwing users under the bus in the name of politics, but part of what makes Linux slightly more bearable is the way the driving philosophy of Free Software is evident throughout. Linux is better than it could be because it attracts the people who want to be here for the community's values, not the people who have to be coaxed and coerced into accepting the values to use the "best"/"easiest"/"friendliest" software.

Uncharitability to those you disagree with, style without substance, and all built upon thought-terminating cliches.

This isn't helpful or enlightening or informative, it's entertaining but not in an interesting nor original way. It reminds me of 2010s Reddit memes where everything was about adding as many "fucks" as possible because our moms aren't supervising our internet time anymore. It espouses a consoomer mindset of "gotta have bigger numbers and shinier visuals because all that matters is appealing to lizard-brain."

And it's all couched in the obvious mindset that any criticism will be met with "ok boomer" (I'll almost be insulted if I don't get one) because being superior is more important than being right. Y'know... like a boomer?

You've got a point, focus on that: you can make the case that Linux fits your use case, or that certain mindsets within the Linux community are hindering progress. But please do so in a way that doesn't just lend itself to more infighting and drama. That shit is for shallow people who have nothing to contribute and only serve as the cultural detritus that destroys communities and community-driven projects.

I call it "museum source": look, but don't touch

1. Stagnation isn't always evil, it's just part of tech. Once tech solves the problem it set out to, it should stagnate. Adding more bells and whistles makes things better less often than it makes them bloated and more prone to breaking. On the flipside, software that hasn't changed much other than bugfixes and security patches is the backbone of a loooot of our tech infrastructure. Edit: @SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone provides an excellent refutation, with counterexamples showing where lack of new features is hurting X11 here (direct link broke for me on lemmy.ml, hence the redirect)

2. I fail to see how the architectural difference fundamentally solves the issue of changes breaking compatibility. Now instead of breaking compatibility with the server, you're "only" breaking compatibility with the compositor. But that's okay because at least there are other compositors that fulfill this use case... oops switching to that compositor broke 3 of your other apps, well lets try another! ... and now my pc won't communicate with my GPU... well, we can always... and so on and so on.

Not saying that wayland is bad nor that X is better, but these are the two most common "cases against X/for wayland" that I hear and I just don't buy it. As much as I argued against it, I love trying new and different software and eking every last bit of performance out of my 8 year old PCs, I can't wait to give Wayland a try and see if there's a noticeable difference... I just wish these two arguments would go away already

- person using software developed in opposition to monolithic architectures rediscovering the benefits of monolithic architectures

What if every software became FOSS? Who would put in the free labor to write the software

The implication that we can make all software FOSS and have nothing else about the world change is a textbook example of putting the cart before the horse. It's like asking "what if everyone became vegan, who would pay the cattle ranchers?"

The world FOSS strives for, the world where it is the norm, has a fundamentally different economy from our own.

It's not a valid thought experiment to ask "what if all software was FOSS (but nothing else changed)?" because that creates a hypothetical world that has a fallacy at its core. A world where entire social movements can blink in and out of power without regards for sociological and historical factors is a world unconstrained by logic as we understand it. The correct framing should be: "what would our world have to change to enable FOSS to be the norm?"

The distinction is subtle, but cuts to the core of the contention betweem movements aiming to change the world in radical ways and their detractors offering criticism that boils down to "but the future you propose doesn't integrate seamlessly into the present state of affairs."

We all want change, we just don't want it to change things.

Might seem a little far-fetched, but i'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the community that basically worships conspicuous consumption of electronics with complete disregard for e-waste and electrical consumption in support of being a better gamer, a consumer identity fabricated by marketing companies, and have thus turned it into an implicit contest might not be interested in practicality, liberty, nor freely available goods unless they're the most visually appealing