No? I just said it would be nicer if you precised the name of the distro when you have an issue. This way I’m less likely to recommand an unstable distro. That’s it.

You obviously can’t be expected to know what distro is stable or not, I don’t either

You should give the name of the distro rather than just say modern. Ubuntu is “modern” and they broke the auto-updates for everyone some months ago. It’s more about stability than modernity

It’s similar in that it has an application launcher at the bottom, a windows-like start menu, and aims to be simple.

Zorin has a modern UI where Mint is more windows-7-ish. They don’t have the same file explorer, settings app, app store, generally the core apps are different.

Look they’re quite different, it’s hard to make a full comparison, just run a Mint .iso in gnome-boxes if you’re curious.

I meant, what part of rust feels like

fix things by adding more putty and let the compiler sort things out

I’ve been using it for a while, and I don’t know what the compiler is sorting out. It’s blocking me from doing things, not making things work. Unless you’re talking about traits or macros? But then they mostly remove lines of code, not add some. Confusion ensues.

If he did, it wouldn’t make things any better. Don’t even give them the idea. “Look, I have nothing to fear from the cops because I agree with the cops, be like me, and nothing bad will happen”

Aren’t they getting, like, at least a tiny bit of backlash for this shit?

I don’t see what you are talking about with the whole putty thing, do you have an exemple in mind?

That statement that people who know that Ubuntu sucks don’t know that it is a Debian derivative is incredibly unlikely

What’s your least interesting story?

No, the issue is that their anti cheat requires a level of control of your computer that Linux doesn’t allow. They could just lower the security, but they instead decided that nobody on Linux could play, apparently thinking that the losses due to cheating would be more than the revenue of 3% more users

This does not mean that any performance issue that arise will be fixable (unless you’re one of those guys)

But yes, this is how I ended up using Linux. I spent weeks trying to fix a major visual glitch on Windows, and Debian got it right the first time. The app store sucked (even more than now), but installing things in cli was far easier than using Windows

Do you actually feel your computer slow down? I would guess your 20 unused tabs would get swapped out and the rest should run relatively fine

fyi, both of your exemples would fall under wp:fringe

He is discussing a page’s content, not “being in charge” of the page. I actually think it would be a good thing if board members spent more time as “normal” editors, maybe they would be less disconnected from the community

Yes, Debian stable and testing are two very different things. Testing is essentially a slower rolling release that only takes packages that have been tested in Debian unstable, which is a very fast rolling release. Similar thing with RHEL, Fedora is a quasi-rolling distro that takes packages after testing in Fedora rawhide.

The old bugs will not send your ssh keys to an unknown network address. If they did, they would get patched or not published. These bugs are known in advance, they are not risks, they are issues. You can make a decision to use them or not, and then you’re set for 5 years. Like, they are both bugs, but they work out very differently if you want to rely on your system.

The thing is that Fedora or Debian testing (and derivatives) bring the latest version fast-enough for the vast majority of people. They don’t make bugs last longer like Debian stable does. When an app is bugged for two weeks, you encounter the bug one month after Arch users, then you get the fix two weeks later. The total bugged time stays the same, but the risks of something really bad happening is much lower. The downside is being one or two month late, and most people don’t care about this kind of delay. (obviously when bugs are found, it can be much more than one or two months)

I mean, they distributed the xz attack, and then rolled it back when a debian sid user signaled it. This is just not a viable way to do things, especially if the number of users increases. You need a stronger testing policy before the update hits the users, you shouldn’t just assume everything can be fixed by further updates. Debian stable is a bit on the extreme side of that, but Debian testing or Fedora feel much more reasonable long term to me

"c'mon I just checked that three lines ago"

I didn’t even know they could have a usb hub, none of mine ever had. Huh.

Way too many wires on that screen. And they move too