They’d use it for something else. Certainly not to keep jobs they believe are useless anyway. Someone up there will decide that the project their niece is working at requires more funding, and a few company cars.

No thank you. :)

Would a non-linux user visit any such sub-community though? Perhaps Linux news and discussions would be better off in a sub-community? Actual users are more sensible to such distinctions. Many potential new users have a hard time choosing a distro already. Adding yet another choice might be detrimental to the cause.

Every single story saturates the perception-pool a bit more. The more normal it appears, the more people will realize that windows isn’t all-present anymore, and that it’s not a weird thing to do to try Linux.

To me, that would be more like “I stopped eating junk” posts. The world needs more of those.

That is how I see it, at least.

I back up my homedir and data with regular tools. I am trying to come up with a reason why my whole system might need one. 95% of that is basically the standard stuff.

I guess I believe that backups and file systems should be separate things.

I had to look that up. Never became an issue for me on any distro. How do you get a broken system when updating? Does it really happen that often? I might just have been lucky.

It could be done for tech. It is impossible for vegans. That was all I was saying. Or wanted to say.

I was referring to the spectrum computer, which can’t run Linux. It wasn’t about people on the Spectrum, which are probably all of us, in some fashion?

Ah, that makes sense. Inwas hung up on the word, interpreting it as a single guy, not an entity. Thank you.

Shared containers work beautifully for a lot of things, though, many programs aren’t all that sensitive either. Making snaps for the tricky ones makes sense. Having snaps for all of them is ridiculous.

I can count the software requiring repo-pins on one hand on my desktop. For those, snaps make sense, replacing the need for any pins. Snaps are less confusing than pins. IMO.

It reminds me of Python programming, with requirements pinned to version ranges. Some dev-teams forget, and their apps won’t work out of the box. Sometimes, software still works ten years later, if they only use the most common arguments and commands from the packages.

Snaps <==> Virtualenv.

How is “the dev of the app” defined, exaxtly?

Bad analogy really. Vegans aren’t completely self-sustainable in the wild.

Isn’t nix mostly for multi-system install? I did the nix thing a few years ago, spent a month on the config, and then never needed it again. Personally, I don’t see a use-case for single desktop installation ;)

I was told that linux doesn’t work on the Spectrum oO

I’ve had serious trouble with pop and usb devices waking up from sleep. Tried for weeks. Also had trouble with many flatpacks. Most help pages and tutorials were outdated or plain wrong, too.

Changed to arch eventually. Never regretted it. Mostly coding and gaming. Eventually deleted windows, because, well, everything just worked. I must have reinstalled pop like eight times. Am still sporting the first arch installation. Well. EndeavourOS, really.

Exactly the point I apparently failed to make. It never worked. Yet we are holding on to it. Just with the added caveat that the weapons are now money, and the wilds are gone.

You do? I wonder how that would work. Can’t see it, personally.

A light form was tribalism. If you didn’t go with the flow, you were expelled. With enough expelled ones, new tribes were formed. It kinda created human diversity for a while. There was only so much room on the river, so at some point more elaborate systems emerged. And the people with the biggest huts made those rules. Rules were made so that they could keep those huts. Extremely simplified.

We now don’t have places to banish people to. That’s why the cry for housing is emerging. Someone took the wild away. They should provide an alternative. I believe that’s the whole idea behind wanting the rich to pay. For some reason they were allowed to own everything. Often for centuries.

It makes little sense to people today. How was anyone allowed to walk somewhere, stake a claim, and own it forever? Even defending it with lethal force? Why aren’t we anymore?

Well, it takes some time to grow up to be able to find food and water. How long until we can walk even?

Food, water and means to provide an upbringing until offspring can care for themselves, those could be considered basic rights.

Housing is so far into the technological advancements, building up on so many other systems, I fail to see how that can be a right.

Air and food on the other hand, and sensible means to acquiring those. Well. There certainly is room for discussion. When people start owning land, keeping others to effectively do those things, they should have to provide alternatives. Or we have to abolish ownership of natural resources at all. Both can’t work together. That’s ineffective, of course, and makes planning and advancement difficult.

The price of capitalism and ownership of nature should be compensation. Nothing natural about social structures. If they want to continue those money games, they need to play by the rules of nature. Or they’ll go down with chopped-off heads at some point.

Absolutely. So instead of building up on that, declaring everyone may own something, making them mini billionaires in principle; yeah, make owning land illegal. That would be the natural conclusion.

You are basically saying: other people owning things and keeping me from building a house and a live should be illegal. Your solution: Make everyone own something, so they can build a house! Houses for everyone, hurray! But hey, my family is twice as big as yours, my house should, by right, be bigger. And hey, my farm supplies for ten families, it should, by right, be bigger. You don’t want to farm, let me buy your land and provide for you. And so the circle begins.

I’d say, that thinking is what got us here in the first place.

I haven’t read up on official human rights. Who made them? Did someone bother to ask most humans?

This is a Sunday-morning coffee post, not a detailed world-view. Feel free to ask, but refrain from shooting things down. It’s not like I’ve spent hours on this.

How are they defined, human rights? I’d say anyone in my way to spread my genes keeps me from being a human.

As a pragmatist, I’d say breathing and eating, and perhaps warmth and caring are human rights. We can’t do any of them on our own after being born, and without them some really crappy humans emerge. Breathing should be top tier. Anyone disturbing that should be under heavy focus. Can’t do anything without air.

After that, once we are fairly independent, doing things to keep people keeping me from growing up and procreating should be my right.

Killing someone else would keep them from doing that, so not being killed by other humans seems like one. Killing others would disqualify me from being human, and I would give up my rights by that act. Straightforward stuff.

Mix in social structures, and it becomes complicated.

Being homeless? Build a commune somewhere. Why insist on being near that techno-tribe with internet. It’s nothing but a tribe, has nothing to do with survival or being human. Having modern amenities can’t be a right. Other humans invented them at some point.

Which leads to something no human should have a right to: owning land. Because owning land keeps humans from realizing their purpose and keeps them from being free to be human.

Housing is a right? That’s ridiculous. That’s a technological achievement from other people. So is monetary wealth. How can those be a right. If nobody came along inventing them, nobody would have them. Can’t be a right. At all. That is just the consequences of capitalism and ownership of natural resources.