"It just works" Linux aka "Anything better than Ubuntu?"

[Hel OWeen]

Whilst I love LTT they’re absolutely abysmal in conveying how stuff they don’t understand can still be appealing.

The video is not about people who want to sink their teeth into something they don't know yet and learn about it. It's about "how hard/easy is it to use Linux as your average gamer?"

Yes, and Luke managed to do it quite smoothly. Linus has a really unconventional setup with lots of crap around and you don't install Linux on stuff like that unless you actually know your way around bash. On the other hand, Pop!_OS actually fixed the issue, there was a dependency clash between Gnome and Steam due to the llvm version in the Ubuntu 21.04 repos - this lasted only a few days at most, but that's when Linux tried to install it

No he hasn't. Yes, he runs his personal workstation off a rack closet, but the hardware is not esoteric (except for his sound mixer setup) at all. That the OS decides to brick itself because he wanted to install one of the most used consumer software (which the distro itself hails loudly it's tailor made for) package out there, is not in any way on him. This wasn't a hardware issue, this was a critical bug in package management of the OS itself. That no one even caught up on this before a big youtube profile decided to give it a go is tbh quite amazing. And is maybe a symptom as to why Linux isn't regarded a viable consumer desktop alternative yet.

Exactly this. So many parts that a real home user needs from a computer day-to-day are unncessesarily buggy, fragmented, barely maintained/instructions kept up to date, and have giant GULFS between installation methods on any Linux distro.

I'm not asking for babby's first app store - i'm trying to tell the REAL TRUTH about it that you find when you look beneath "nah everything is fine* for anyone to use Linux". It's a lie, it's fragmented, unpolished and the only place you can get help for every 10th issue is a 4 year old forum post where some rain man expert figured it out and gave you a command to copy+paste.

To be fair, I've used Linux since Debian version 2.1, and it's quite amazing how far it's gotten. But it's not there yet, but I'm sure it will be. Some day ....

I've stated that elsewhere tongue in cheak, but wouldn't be too surprised if it becomes reality sometime in the future: Linux makes its desktop breakthrough the day MS Windows switchs from its NT codebase to a Linux kernel. Just considering what resources MS has allocated to Linux over the past years: All the WSL stuff + MS own Linux distro CBL-Mariner + all the .NET (Core) stuff.

[whispous]

I've stated that elsewhere tongue in cheak, but wouldn't be too surprised if it becomes reality sometime in the future: Linux makes its desktop breakthrough the day MS Windows switchs from its NT codebase to a Linux kernel. Just considering what resources MS has allocated to Linux over the past years: All the WSL stuff + MS own Linux distro CBL-Mariner + all the .NET (Core) stuff.

I would be absolutely thrilled, though my guess is that NT isn't going to be over for many many more years, and when it is replaced, it's likely to be a homegrown kernel more suited to that future's needs than to today's.

[Malcanis]

Microsoft will never, ever make GPL'd code part of Windows unless and until they can basically make the whole thing a locked down thin client experience. If they wanted to go that route, they'd do like Apple and use FreeBSD or something with a non-open source license.

[helgur]

Yep, if Microsoft would switch out their NT kernel for a Unix like kernel it will be a BSD derivative because of legal and licence issues I think. No way they would do Windows with GPL restrictions.

Not that I think that is plausible in the first place.

[erichkknaar]

Yep, if Microsoft would switch out their NT kernel for a Unix like kernel it will be a BSD derivative because of legal and licence issues I think. No way they would do Windows with GPL restrictions.

Not that I think that is plausible in the first place.

They already took the BSD network stack

[helgur]

Yep, if Microsoft would switch out their NT kernel for a Unix like kernel it will be a BSD derivative because of legal and licence issues I think. No way they would do Windows with GPL restrictions.

Not that I think that is plausible in the first place.

They already took the BSD network stack

I've heard conflicting stories. And wasn't that pre-vista?

[erichkknaar]

Yep, if Microsoft would switch out their NT kernel for a Unix like kernel it will be a BSD derivative because of legal and licence issues I think. No way they would do Windows with GPL restrictions.

Not that I think that is plausible in the first place.

They already took the BSD network stack

I've heard conflicting stories. And wasn't that pre-vista?

I've heard it associated with very early days TCP/IP implementation and tooling on NT itself (remember, it was NetBIOS previous). I believe it changed away from that in the Vista/2000k era.

[Hel OWeen]

Yep, if Microsoft would switch out their NT kernel for a Unix like kernel it will be a BSD derivative because of legal and licence issues I think. No way they would do Windows with GPL restrictions.

Not that I think that is plausible in the first place.

They already took the BSD network stack

Nope, they didn't. They based their stack on the existing BSD stack. Which makes sense.

Windows Sockets code and design are based on BSD sockets, but provides additional functionality to allow the API to comply with the regular Windows programming model. The Windows Sockets API covered almost all the features of the BSD sockets API, but there were some unavoidable obstacles which mostly arose out of fundamental differences between Windows and Unix (though Windows Sockets differed less from BSD sockets than the latter did from STREAMS).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winsock#Technology

And yes, I also seem to remember that MS rewrote the network stack basically from scratch for Vista.

[helgur]

The north-German state of Schleswig-Holstein plans to switch to open source software, including LibreOffice, in its administration and schools

[Hel OWeen]

Schleswig-Holstein seems to be the frontrunner of this, and also determined to replace everything.

But it's not only them: Open source instead of Microsoft: Federal and state governments plan "sovereign workplace" (Google translated article)

The [German] federal government and nine federal states want to use free software to create an alternative to MS Office and Teams. That should reduce dependencies.

[Joe Appleby]

Munich tried in 2006, went back to MS in 2017 with the last machines changing in 2020. In 2020 the decision was made to try again in 2021.

To be honest: why? They haven't managed to provide proper IT infrastructure to schools for example and now they want to make that switch?

[Malcanis]

Munich tried in 2006, went back to MS in 2017 with the last machines changing in 2020. In 2020 the decision was made to try again in 2021.

To be honest: why? They haven't managed to provide proper IT infrastructure to schools for example and now they want to make that switch?

Munich reverted for political reasons as much as technical ones.

There are good reasons for owning your own IT infrastructure. IT wares like operating systems are a 'strategic resource' in a way analogous to coal and steel and oil a century ago. Ultimately if you can't really trust your OS, then you can't trust anything in your IT ecosystem, and the same goes for cloud systems, productivity suites and so on. And if the Trumperium did nothing else, it's woken the other NATO nations to the unavoidalbe realisation that the US is less of an unconditional ally than it ever was, nor even one that can be relied on to act in its own obvious self-interest. And that's without even touching on China.

The EU absolutely has the resources to push digital sovereignty. Its a sufficiently large internal market that they can do so without repercussions, and it's hard for US companies to complain about 'discrimination' when that means open standards and transparency. It's something they should have started in earnest a decade ago.

[Joe Appleby]

Munich tried in 2006, went back to MS in 2017 with the last machines changing in 2020. In 2020 the decision was made to try again in 2021.

To be honest: why? They haven't managed to provide proper IT infrastructure to schools for example and now they want to make that switch?

Munich reverted for political reasons as much as technical ones.

There are good reasons for owning your own IT infrastructure. IT wares like operating systems are a 'strategic resource' in a way analogous to coal and steel and oil a century ago. Ultimately if you can't really trust your OS, then you can't trust anything in your IT ecosystem, and the same goes for cloud systems, productivity suites and so on. And if the Trumperium did nothing else, it's woken the other NATO nations to the unavoidalbe realisation that the US is less of an unconditional ally than it ever was, nor even one that can be relied on to act in its own obvious self-interest. And that's without even touching on China.

The EU absolutely has the resources to push digital sovereignty. Its a sufficiently large internal market that they can do so without repercussions, and it's hard for US companies to complain about 'discrimination' when that means open standards and transparency. It's something they should have started in earnest a decade ago.

I get the sovereignty part. I just doubt that Germany is in any position to do that. France, the Netherlands, Italy, Estonia? Sure. Germany? No.

[Overspark]

TBF Linux and other open source software has already won ages ago in datacenters, and that includes government datacenters. Azure Cloud runs more Linux than Windows. .NET developers deploy to Linux containers on Kubernetes these days because containers on Linux are so much better than "containers" (they're not, they're mini-VM's) on Windows.

Where closed source is entrenched is on the desktop and on "Enterprise" stuff. If you're still doing VM's VMware is slightly better than KVM. If you want a SAN you'll turn to DellEMC or NetApp or HPE or someone similar. They'll be using Linux and BSD based stuff under the hood, but you won't know that. But IaaS/PaaS IT infrastructure is largely open source these days (Kubernetes, OpenStack, etc), so governments don't need to stimulate anything there.

[Malcanis]

And when it comes to the desktop:. Most users just click a shortcut.

[Zeekar]

And when it comes to the desktop:. Most users just click a shortcut.

I do that at work as well. Catch is there is no open source alternative for a lot of software i use. Pushes like these might change things around.

[erichkknaar]

Munich tried in 2006, went back to MS in 2017 with the last machines changing in 2020. In 2020 the decision was made to try again in 2021.

To be honest: why? They haven't managed to provide proper IT infrastructure to schools for example and now they want to make that switch?

September 2016 - Microsoft moves its German headquarters to Munich[38]
February 2017 - Politicians discuss proposals to replace the Linux-based OS used across the council with a Windows 10-based client.[39]
October 2017 - Once seen as a stalwart supporter of open source, the city council said that running a Linux-based operating system on its PCs would not be cost efficient in the long run.[40]

:thinking:

[Hel OWeen]

Before relocating to Munich city, MS' headquarter was located in Unterschleißheim, which is part of the Munich county. So tax-wise, MS moved within Munich, just to a bigger HQ, as they outgrew the Unterschleißheim location.

[Edit]
My initial conclusion re tax benefits seems to be wrong.

[erichkknaar]

Before relocating to Munich city, MS' headquarter was located in Unterschleißheim, which is part of the Munich county. So tax-wise, MS moved within Munich, just to a bigger HQ, as they outgrew the Unterschleißheim location.

It's not me saying it is politically motivated. There was a lot of it in the run up to the announcement that I remember.

The problems of Munich's IT, which are undoubtedly present, were attributed to LiMux from the political side, whereby the statements often either appeared to be bogus or did not testify to a deeper knowledge of the topic . Statements by experts such as the IT officer Kotulek that the complaints of the employees and the criticism of the second mayor Schmid had little to do with LiMux were not appreciated.

(translation from google) From: https://www-computerbase-de.translat...&_x_tr_pto=nui

[Malcanis]

Munich tried in 2006, went back to MS in 2017 with the last machines changing in 2020. In 2020 the decision was made to try again in 2021.

To be honest: why? They haven't managed to provide proper IT infrastructure to schools for example and now they want to make that switch?

Munich reverted for political reasons as much as technical ones.

There are good reasons for owning your own IT infrastructure. IT wares like operating systems are a 'strategic resource' in a way analogous to coal and steel and oil a century ago. Ultimately if you can't really trust your OS, then you can't trust anything in your IT ecosystem, and the same goes for cloud systems, productivity suites and so on. And if the Trumperium did nothing else, it's woken the other NATO nations to the unavoidalbe realisation that the US is less of an unconditional ally than it ever was, nor even one that can be relied on to act in its own obvious self-interest. And that's without even touching on China.

The EU absolutely has the resources to push digital sovereignty. Its a sufficiently large internal market that they can do so without repercussions, and it's hard for US companies to complain about 'discrimination' when that means open standards and transparency. It's something they should have started in earnest a decade ago.

I get the sovereignty part. I just doubt that Germany is in any position to do that. France, the Netherlands, Italy, Estonia? Sure. Germany? No.

What is the block, in your opinion? Germany has money and talent so what makes them uniquely unable to do something Italy could do apart from get pasta right?