this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
1211 points (100.0% liked)
linuxmemes
21180 readers
875 users here now
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
- Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
- Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
2. Be civil
- Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
- Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
- Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
- Bigotry will not be tolerated.
- These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
3. Post Linux-related content
- Including Unix and BSD.
- Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of
sudo in Windows.
- No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
4. No recent reposts
- Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think both macOS and Android are inherently superior to anything I've ever used that was created by Microsoft.
Multiple versions of macOS are UNIX® Certified Products according to the institution that publishes the POSIX standards: https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3688.htm https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3673.htm
"Android is a mobile operating system based on a modified version of the Linux kernel" so it is surely easier to liberate yourself by using Android than by using Microsoft Windows.
Windows NT had a lot of UNIX code in it and was fully POSIX compatible. But then came the Win32 code, and XP became what it is.
And Windows NT was the result of the failed joint venture with IBM while developing OS/2. While IBM wanted stability and preferred to let the user wait at power up until the IS was sure everything checked out, MS wanted fast user satisfaction and if things fail, just let the user reboot.
I prefer to get a cup of coffee when the computer boot up at the start of the day, but no, 'the market' preferred a quick start and regular coffee breaks during the day. I'd almost suspect MS from having stocks in the coffee industry.
Which OS is better? The one that meets the user's needs. I'm glad there is choice, my choice isn't everybody's choice. The Windows desktop at work comes with a helpdesk, which works fine for me. (when I need them, but I'll deny any knowledge of Windows ;) )
When I bought my first (and only) smartphone, I figured that since it was using this partially open source linux-based OS, I'd be able to customise it, get rid of crapware, and remove google's hooks from it. But I was wrong. I wasn't able to do any of those things. Because of that, I don't have a particularly favourable view towards Android.
Actual, vanilla AOSP is a pretty good system. But as soon as a manufacturer takes it and puts their own stuff on top, things get annoying.