• 1 Post
  • 19 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 13th, 2023

help-circle


  • Historically, yes, Ubuntu has put in the most effort into being the most user-friendly, most easy-to-use distro.

    However, I would argue that is not really the case anymore because as other distros (especially Mint and Pop!) have arisen for a user-friendly experience, Canonical has gradually abandoned this over the past few years in favour of being more server focused. Most of the innovation for user-friendly design just isn’t coming from Canonical anymore.

    The biggest argument for Ubuntu for beginners is that there are more resources such as tutorials for it - mostly momentum.





  • While I agree that increased bandwidth is crucial, I’m not so sure about leaving so many people and remote areas cut off over this. Especially as each generation of technology has shorter range (and therefore more expensive to service). Each generation of technology will have more people cut off, and I think there are implicit fears that one day, it will be them.

    Maybe those fears are wrong, but it seems you’re just as dismissive of these fears as people that dismiss future benefits from greater bandwidth.

    Also, I don’t know about looking to the US for inspiration, they also have a very large digital divide, largely based on the wealth of the local area.





  • Although I agree that other forms of transport should be considered, I genuinely can’t figure out how either a conveyor belt or autonomous carts could be better than a freight train. Both for battling decreasing manpower and for intercity freight transport.

    I think both proposed ideas are better for short-distance transport, with conveyor belts better for a single direction of movement in indoor (or as the article mentions, tunnel) conditions (must be kept clear of debris in order to run, more so than track which only needs to be cleared before the next train) and autonomous carts better for transporting small packages between many origins and destinations (eg. a warehouse or maybe delivery service).

    Conveyor belts might also require much more maintenance, as moving parts would be all along the length of the belt.


  • yistdaj@pawb.socialtolinuxmemes@lemmy.worldwayland was a mistake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    “OpenBSD made a secure fork of X?” Depends on what you consider secure I guess. X has some fundamental design issues.

    One particularly memorable one is that lock screens in X are run on top of your userspace. If they crash, you get to use your computer again. No matter how many patches are applied to X lock screens, a new bug appears every few years that has to be patched. It fails insecurely, and as such will always be insecure as long as the lock screen could feasibly crash.

    If your answer is “lock screens don’t matter,” security is not a top priority for you, and that’s okay. There are other reasons you may wish to use X. Please understand however that some people may find it important, and may choose to use Wayland as a result.







  • From what I understand, GIMP fell behind because it refused corporate donations while Krita accepted them. This lead to GIMP reducing in scope as the 1-3 part-time* developers (at least when I last really looked into it) realised they’d never catch up, leading to people donating less as they weren’t satisfied with GIMP’s simultaneous underpromising and underdelivering. Meanwhile Krita managed to receive enough money to hire a team of full time developers for several years, leading to better software, to more donations. It’s like the poverty trap, but with software.

    • Edit: part-time isn’t the right word, more like casual


  • I don’t buy the idea that immigration is the cause of the housing crisis, any more than young Australians buying their first home. I’m not even sure if it’s the investors either. They all may be sources of demand pressure, but I think there’s a sort of blockage in Australia’s housing market, and I would pin the blame of high housing costs on that blockage.

    We live in an economy that assumes that the basic ideas of supply and demand lead to capital investment into production, leading to more supply. In housing, the way it’s expected to react to increased immigration is as follows:

    1. Increased immigration leads to increased demand for housing.
    2. Demand for housing leads to higher house prices.
    3. Higher house prices lead to higher demand for construction.
    4. Higher demand for construction results in more profits for construction companies selling houses.
    5. Construction companies reinvest more of their profits into making houses, increasing supply of houses.
    6. Increased supply causes housing prices to drop back to where they were before immigration rates increased. I takes a few years, but it’s supposed to be “self-adjusting”, always restoring prices back to a theoretical “ideal”, not counting inflation.

    Except as we all know, it doesn’t do that, at least with housing. In particular, I think steps 3, 4 and 5 don’t follow in the modern Australian market. I think the key to solving the housing crisis, short of the government building it all themselves, is to figure out why 3, 4 and 5 don’t follow, and to change things so that they do.

    It might look like decreasing immigration would at least alleviate demand pressure, but that’s just kicking the can down the road. There isn’t enough housing supply for demand caused by our natural birth rate, and so we’re accumulating demand pressure anyway. I view it as a distraction from discussing real solutions, that allow housing prices to not just increase more slowly, but fall.