- > Things will only change when democratically elected governments across the world step in with regulation, drag Big Tech through the courts, and fine them billions of dollars.
How will that help you install Linux.
- How will it help anything, really? The law of unintended consequences will strike once again.
- Yep. Fuck laws. The fact that there are potential negative consequences means that we should throw them all out!
- It means we should engineer incentives rather than trying to regulate outcomes. Policy choices aren’t binary.
- Well, good laws should facilitate healthy incentives, also by restricting/discouraging bad behaviors, right? How do we engineer incentives for regulators to be willing to prioritize the broader and industrial engineering of healthier incentives?
- If we're praying for unicorns, they might also notice they're paying millions for licenses to software they can't self-support or even audit. Then reinvest money from fines into in-house, open development, and use that instead of closed solutions.
- Because they’re better than everyone else on the inside but are forced down to our level by minor inconveniences. But it’s okay because they know what we should do.
- With the funds raised everyone can be assigned a Linux expert to sit next to them.
- With the kind of funds raised by AI companies there should be 10 different ones sitting next to me competing with each other.
- Nobody should have to learn anything for themselves, paying with your time is grossly unjust, the world owes them a hassle free operating system
- I think the point is that if the corporations are morally kept in check by governments, then installing Linux wouldn't be necessary.
- how about the government keep people in check by forcing them to install Linux?
- Why is democracy so universally worshipped? Do they realize evil people with business interests ALSO participate in a democracy?
- I would love it if I could use Linux on the Desktop.
Windows 11 feels a practical joke played on humanity by Nadella.
The new Macbooks have amazing hardware, but the software quality has deteriorated considerably - even spotlight has bugs nowadays.
However, I need basic sleep/restore to work on my laptop - and it feels like this is a Mars-mission-effort level problem for Linux to solve.
If the Linux Software Foundation started a Linux-On-The-Desktop project that addressed core usability and stability issues, I would gladly contribute monthly towards it.
- > However, I need basic sleep/restore to work on my laptop - and it feels like this is a Mars-mission-effort level problem for Linux to solve.
Pick any model on this list that has all green boxes. There is no step 2. https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Laptop/Lenovo
(Sent from my thinkpad with perfectly working sleep)
- Sleep works perfectly on my Lenovos, and it fails miserably on my custom gamer laptop.
Supporting arbitrary hardware is hard for an open-source project.
Sticking to solid brands with well-tested models has other benefits.
- > I would love it if I could use Linux on the Desktop.
Not sure what you use your desktop for. If your issue is that you need certain professional applications that are not compatible with Linux you may be out of luck.
But if your complaint id "core usability and stability", I am not really sure what you are complaining about.
I migrated my personal laptop from Windows to Linux Mint around 3 years ago, and it's amazing how much more stable and easy to use it is in comparison - case in point, back in Windows days I would have to do a fresh install every year or so.
And don't get me started on OSX. I have to use it daily on my work-issued laptop, and I deeply loathe it how it is hostile to more technical users (I would sincerely prefere using Windows than that crap).
- I hate that this is true. I have 10 year old hardware and I still haven't managed to get suspend on lid close to work.
Also, power management? Linux seems really power hungry. I expect 6ish hours out of the battery I have, but with Linux doing browsing and coding I get 2 to 3ish hours, even with cpu throttling and the dimmest back light settings.
Have mainline Fedora or Ubuntu solved these issues?
- It all depends on your hardware and whether that is well supported. The blame lies with hardware manufacturers keeping secrets and proprietary software vendors. It is a reverse engineering effort to get this stuff to work properly.
- I'm on mainline Fedora on a Thinkpad Z13 (Gen 1). Sleep works unless I connect or disconnect a thunderbolt device while the machine is sleeping (which hard crashes the system); I would say it's noticeably more reliable than Windows. Power consumption is still poor in all states - usable, but generally worse than under Windows and pathetic compared to a Macbook.
- No distro solves problems by itself, the upstream kernel does. Fedora pushes upstream first, ubuntu much later if it does.
Because computers are complex, and there are many computers with many different hardware configurations nobody can answer if it solves the issues for you.
- > The new Macbooks have amazing hardware
Hm. You can't really repair or upgrade them, so you don't own the hardware at all. That's far from amazing.
- > However, I need basic sleep/restore to work on my laptop - and it feels like this is a Mars-mission-effort level problem for Linux to solve.
This has not been true for over 20 years. You just need to buy known good hardware.
(Anyone know when exactly we first got reliable sleep on the early Thinkpads with APM?)
- Umm get a framework laptop. Sleep/restore works out of the box. Admittedly I only tried it on QubesOS and Nixos, but if it works in both of those places chances are pretty good that it will work for any distro.
THere’s a reasonable chance if you get a lenovo thinkpad or similar very mainstream laptop it will just work there as well, but get a framework anyway because they’re good and you deserve a nice laptop.
- They're not so available in the EU.
Some countries they don't export to.
Other countries the VAT + import tax just adds up.
- Yes, framework looks really good. Wasn't an option before due to extremely heavy import duty and they didn't bother opening ordering. (But hopefully changing now that Trump has raised the reciprocal hammer and revised trade agreements are being signed..)
- People simply can't have the same expectations of hardware as with Windows. You must select your hardware for Linux support.
They make heroic efforts in supporting a variety of hardware but if you have the choice it's better to use hardware with better support.
There are vendors like System76 and Dell who offer Linux support
Ubuntu has a certified hardware list:
I'm confused that people think it normal to go to Apple to get an Apple device to run Apple OS, but the idea of going to a Linux vendor to get a Linux laptop to run Linux is a weird idea.
- i use a framework 13 with nixos and have perfect sleep and wake
- > However, I need basic sleep/restore to work on my laptop
??? I've had 3 laptops over the last decade+ and sleep/restore has worked on all of them. You using some weird distro or DE?
- It depends on your laptop probably, I don't have any issue with sleep/suspend with my thinkpad.
I do think that power management isn't there yet though on the other hand.
- I always found it funny that my ASUS laptop has always functioned perfectly under linux... except that putting it to sleep would trigger a full shutdown every time lmao. I may or may not have lost some data once or twice by being overly gullible.
- Switching to Linux is not easy. You almost have to hit a wall when you are just done with the bargaining to keep something like Apple or Windows. It kind of takes a major jump.
You also need to be persistent after that jump and not retrench when you can't pull from the familiar.
You'll get there at some point just don't think or care about the awful people - think about how and in what way you want to operate directionally going forward and it will click.
- > Switching to Linux is not easy.
Which is a shame because in itself, most Linux distros _are_ easy. The ergonomics and the rationales are, imo, better/easier to understand than Windows or even MacOS.
In fact, even _installing_ a modern distro is easier than installing Windows 11.
What’s hard is not Linux, it’s switching. It requires to, well, think different :)
Having said that, I honestly think switching from Windows to MacOS is harder. I appreciate working with macOS and it can be pretty ergonomic but it’s honestly barely usable without installing and paying for half a dozen sharewares.
- I think that's personal preference and circumstances though.
I have used Windows on the desktop since 1994, I have used Linux on desktops since 1998 (work machines being 50% or exclusively Linux since 2010ish) and I got my first mac last autumn. (Planned Linux but some unimportant things stood in the way, so I gave it a shot).
Working on Windows is pure pain for me. I use it as my gaming/browsing machine and every time I have to touch code I hate it.
Linux is 100% fine for work, but I noticed I am having problems with games with my usual setup with tiling window managers (i.e lots of fullscreen usage and non-easily-resizable windows, also getting my Logitech's G keys recognized).
macos is... 90% fine actually. I hate some small things but otherwise it just works, the windows key as cmd is actually in a nicer position than ctrl, but that might be my weird hands.
So if I wasn't playing certain games with certain keybinds, switching to Linux fulltime would have happened like 10y ago for me.
- I still remember getting all amped up at taking the leap to Linux when I read this or that guide for doing so in a 90s issue of MaximumPC and I made it as far as realizing there weren't drivers that would work with my mouse (without _considerable_ effort) and noped right out.
- > taking the leap to Linux when I read ... there weren't drivers that would work with my mouse (without _considerable_ effort) and noped [sic.] right out.
That wasn't much of a leap you were planning it a mouse got in your way, especially given you seem to have planned this "leap" in the 90's - solidly within Windows 9X territory which was infamous for its instability and reboot-tendency:
You moved your mouse pointer, your PC needs to be restarted for this change to be implemented. . [OK] [Ignore] [Cancel]
- I've been entirely on Linux for over fifteen years now. And I used to develop for Win32.
- Same here! I'd love to know why the author keeps crawling back to Mac after trying Linux. I feel grateful that Linux exists and would never contemplate moving away from it. I totally understand that I am an esoteric techie and other people may have different experiences, of course. But in the ~14 years Linux has been my daily driver, it has improved so much.
- for me the main reason is that mac just works. I spent less time configuring my OS and tinkering around and just focus on my work.
- For low levels of "it just works".
Every major OS update Apple changes something that breaks either specific programs or restricts the OS further which leads to breakage.
The "too many files open" error could be fixed by raising the limit of open files (there are instances where a tool really does need lots of open files and isn't leaking) but nowadays I need to break the security of my own hardware to maybe be able to raise it as Apple adds hoops and is changing what to do every so often.
- you're right - lately mac seems to have been doing bad moves. In "lately" I mean since 5-10 years
- Is it just because you can't on a mac ?
- what do u mean?
- Have the author did the reality check exercise? What might seem as awful conditions by some westerner, might be great given other options. Once I read a post about working at Foxconn - assembly line for majority of hardware manufacturers. You might remember people were dropping off the roof because of hard working conditions. Yet they have a line of candidates. Because the other option is working at the same intensity but at no conditioned and barely ventilated clothing shop.
- The author lives in India, where Foxconn has multiple factories.
- Parodoxically, this aversion to convenience decreases his ability to make a positive impact. Much better to focus on improving your ability to make a positive impact instead.
Filling your mind with negativity makes you unhappy, outsources your power and attention ("minimize my impact", "do less bad"), and distracts you from doing good.
- The part about melding human and machine feels awfully pretentious.
Just use the tools that let you be productive. It's okay to separate the art from the artist. And if you really do care about the global well-being, then... force yourself to the switch (for the moral greater good, after all!) and don't complain about it on the internet?
- I switched to Linux 12 years ago and still use it daily, although I think the problem is bigger than that. Even though hardware support is getting better, some bugs are lingering for years, and Wayland took such a long time to be a viable option. Now, as desktop became more complex to support, new platforms are coming, VR and mobile.
Mobile: I own Librem 5, and it was the biggest purchase disappointment I have ever had. I've been ridiculed by my friends while I was waiting for it for years, and when it was delivered, it was too outdated to use. The only silver lining from this is that mobile support exists in GNOME and KDE now. Hardware is still not there.
VR: I have not seen any viable option.
I'm optimising, and hoping that with AI it would be easier to support all of this, but now it looks kinda gloomy.
- > Why am I in this state of tension with computer products when I use a multitude of non-computer products made by corporations that cause much more harm to people and nature?
> I drive a Hyundai car, shop at Reliance stores, wear clothing made by Zara. Why am I not concerned about the poor behavior of these other organizations? It’s not like they’re any better than Google, Microsoft, or Apple.
> Honestly, the reason is not entirely rational.
Honestly I don't have the answer and it's a great question. There seems to be a mix of passion, trends, media, social exchanges and probably tons of small parameters making this happen in our heads.
- There’s this modern affliction where people believe they are morally responsible for the actions of every person they buy anything from.
For your own sanity, please let this go. You are responsible for your own actions. If you buy a pen from a psychopath and he uses the money to buy a bullet and shoot someone, that’s not your fault. He’s responsible for his actions.
It’s like everyone somehow forgot that other humans are sentient beings with their own agency. Main character syndrome run amok.
- you can be pragmatic and choose not to buy from certain companies whose behaviour you consider egregious, while at the same time not having to worry about each single expense you make.
Deciding what bank you will get your home loan from -> not something you do every day, it's ok to do some research
Deciding what cafe you will get your next lungo from -> not worth your time
- Isn’t that the same as “just avoid things you’re morally opposed to as time and energy allows”? Why even bother with taking a moral stand if you only do it when it’s convenient?
- It's less of 'when it's convenient' and more 'when it's worth the effort'. Perfection is the enemy of good and all that.
- The definition of slippery slope, right here.
- I feel the same. It may be because it's easier to feel virtuous by not buying a company product than to actually be virtuous by going out doing virtuous things.
- Giving up something you'd otherwise enjoy or find convenient because it would indirectly bring harm to other people feels a very virtuous action to me. I wish more people (including me) had the ability to do that more.
- Yes, you are morally responsible for your own actions. But those actions don't happen in a vacuum. They happen in a world that you are able to observe and make predictions about, however imperfect those predictions are. If you don't know that you're enabling the shooter, sure. But if you do know and do it anyway, you are responsible for knowingly enabling the shooter.
This doesn't mean that the shooter doesn't have his own agency and his own responsibility for his actions. It just means that his responsibility for his actions doesn't diminish your responsibility for yours, even if your actions involve him.
It seems to be a common idea that we can just overlook the abuses committed by the other people we deal with, as things "I'm not responsible for", regardless of our actual ability to do something about them. I have no special insight, but I think it's a common idea because it lets us feel better about ourselves while we do nothing. But "feeling good about oneself" isn't a solid way to build or evaluate a moral framework.
- Your purchasing decisions are one of the more significant ways you impact the world and it makes sense people want to be cognizant of how they are effecting other people.
Though I recognize depending on people's mental health it can be stressful to think about and if you can't then it's okay, one of my friends in particular was worrying about what she was buying to the point where it was a significant source of stress in her life and that wasn't good (though therapy for her general anxiety helped a ton so she's now concientious about what she buys while not stressing over it. It took her a while to get there though).
- It makes sense if consumerism is your only connection to human society.
It is a form of trained helplessness to fixate perpetually on consumption.
If someone wants to do good in the world, go out and do it. help someone for real. I think it is lack of real connection that leads people to navel gaze about the third order consequences of their clothes or software.
I think this substack [1] summed it up perfectly:
>I was 16 when I realized I had to kill myself. I was in a Denny’s with my friends, looking at an empty glass of Diet Coke. The glass was produced by taking the raw resources of a foreign country, exploiting its workers in horrible factories, and sent to me to drink out of. And I didn’t really have any other option for getting liquid from a nearby water source into my body, it had to travel through moral atrocity along the way. It wasn’t just one glass, of course. It was everything. It was the shoes I was wearing (shoes were a big deal in those days) and the flooring I walked on and the food I ate. The only moral act was to kill oneself, and failure to do that meant you accept your role as a vicious monster. (The depression helped, but maybe the depression/guilt causality was reversed.)
https://deathisbad.substack.com/p/does-the-omelas-kid-have-a...
- Wrong. It's not about morality (or "main character"), it's about caring for your own and your beloved ones current and future. Ignorance, apathy and indifference keep the buyers/consumers/followers encouraging the unhealthy yet very "focused and efficient" morons (big and small) to ruin the world for everyone while they accumulate enormous power to further abuse the rest.
__If you buy gold from someone who poisons a river (to extract the gold more "efficiently"), soon your whole forest will suffer from deceases and degradation.__
You may feel tiny and powerless but it's sane and healthy to care for the whole ecosystem and think about aftereffects of everyone's actions.
- wrong about wrong. if you go down that path, you are powerless. we live in a society that is imperfect. but you cannot live on a pedestal alone and be perfect either.
you should shop at "walmart" or where-ever your dollar is the most effective. and that gives you the most stability and and position to challenge whether the current Walton regime's love of China is a good thing or not. but cutting your nose off to spite your face does nothing useful.
- Right, and you posted this reply because you do care that others in the forest know that you deem something "wrong" (actions or ideas) and maybe there's a healthier way to pursue (while reminding to have realistic expectations). The river starts with many single drops gravitating to go somewhere )
- We have a government to enforce laws to protect the commons. If someone is poisoning the river, the government should fine them and shut them down. They should be inspecting gold producers to make sure they are complying with regulations so that all gold is produced in a sustainable way that doesn't destroy the environment.
If that's not happening, then we need to fix the government so it does happen. Expecting each individual person to be their own EPA and research how every single item they consume is produced idiotic and doomed to failure.
- Governments are pushed to do things to protect people by the people. Seat belts were not a thing (i.e., required by law) until there was sufficient public pressure to make them so. Heard of Ralph Nader? Food is made in unsafe conditions and governments are fine with it until there is pressure - have you ever heard of "The Jungle"?
- Yeah, you'll notice that we didn't get seat belts in cars by boycotting car companies until they promised to add them.
- Yeah, that's the theory, and by any mean we definitely need to pursue that as well. I wish we had the luxury of making it work on its own. But since we do not, we need to pull all the levers we have, not just one.
> Expecting each individual person to be their own EPA and research how every single item they consume is produced idiotic and doomed to failure.
That's a false dichotomy. There are many middle grounds between researching every single item you buy and dropping the problem as a whole. You can focus on items which are most likely to bring negative impact, you can draw information from journalistic reports and material produced from dedicated associations. There are many ways to be sensitive to economic externalities of the things you buy without getting insane and without considering the whole problem moot on general phylosophycal principles.
- > If you buy a pen from a psychopath and he uses the money to buy a bullet and shoot someone, that’s not your fault. He’s responsible for his actions.
If you know upfront that's what's going to happen, why wouldn't you have a degree of responsibility?
- You don't know up front what's going to happen. Seeing the future is not an ability humans have. Unless the pen is being sold as part of some murder fundraiser and you're going out of your way to specifically buy it there than from any better options the person doing the murder is the one responsible for the murdering.
- If that's the rebuke then the whole comparison is silly. Since if you buy clothes at some chain like Zara you know before hand what the conditions are which they impose on their workers. You don't need "future sight" for that.
- You personally know the conditions? You know that the workers would be better off not having the option of working in the Zara factory? I don't mean a choice between working for Zara and a hypothetical fantasy option of them working in an office with 40 hour work weeks and air conditioning, I mean their actual other option like subsistence farming or whatever they did before there was a Zara factory. You feel you are more entitled to make that choice for the workers than they are themselves?
- And how does that same reasoning apply to your first example? Giving money to someone who you know is going to buy a bullet to murder someone.
"You don't have all the details, he could be murdering a bad person"? Something like that I guess?
- While I agree with the sentiment, just out of curiosity, would you buy a Tesla if it meets your needs and even if you disapprove of Elon's actions?
- Yes. If you determine a Tesla is the best car to fit your needs, there are far better ways to influence Elon's actions than depriving yourself of the best car for you. You could write your Senator / Congressperson to support laws that would curtail Elon's actions. You could speak publicly and propose better things than what Elon is doing or publicize how and why they're harmful, etc. Buying or not buying a Tesla is very unlikely to influence Elon at all.
Also consider: There are thousands of employees at Tesla and thousands of shareholders. Do you also need to individually vet every one of their opinions before you enrich them by buying a Tesla? What if they don't all have the same opinion? Are you supposed to take a poll and go with the majority? This is silly.
- I would buy a "tool" that solves a problem significantly better than its competitors, but I usually ditch options that are marginally better o cheaper if I feel a personal moral conflict.
Just to honour the Godwin law, take the Eduard Pernkopf anatomy manual as an example, a fascinating example of this discussion.
There is always a tipping point where practicality beats purity, and I think it's ok trying to stretch it, respecting other's choices in the way of course. No need to judge.
- I think it's more rational to fuss about buying a Tesla than about buying a Windows license for a few reasons:
* It's a heck of a lot of money to send to any company, so it makes more sense to pause and consider what you're funding. I can't put that much effort into every <$100 purchase without going crazy.
* Tesla is far more about Musk than Microsoft is about... whoever runs Microsoft these days. There's a very specific person tied to it.
* Driving a Tesla is seen by the world as a statement of some kind in a way that running Windows simply isn't. It's worth considering if that's a statement you want to be making.
- I feel similarities to the trolley problem[0].
- I would. With some modification. If it was cheapest vehicle on market that meets my needs I would probably buy it. But it is neither cheapest or gas...
- Hmm, this doesn't track with history. Boycotts, and more generally collective economic action (strikes, etc), are an incredibly powerful form of protest. People have shaped the world through refusing to buy from oppressive forces - case in point, the boycotts of South Africa during apartheid successfully pressured South Africa out of apartheid. We got our collective rights as workers (40 hour work days, etc) through strikes, boycotts, and more.
It's not easy, but if you're serious about it is best done in community, with support and strategy. So, the opposite of main character syndrome, I would say.
It's also very odd that you take an analysis that is fundamentally systemic and translate it into purchasing from an individual psychopath - under what assumptions is that a valid comparison, one with any merit? It's not like corporations exist in a vacuum, only to emerge from the void to casually sell a single pen, the money with which they use to buy a single bullet. We as individuals, as communities, exist in feedback with the systems that we are a part of, including (surprise) corporations. So, yes, we have power to shape them, though (again) not easily.
- Boycotts are a different thing. A successful boycott targets a specific company about a specific issue that that company has the ability to change. When the company changes the thing, the boycott ends.
The bus boycotts in the US Civil Rights movement are a good example. "Hey bus company, we're going to stop riding your buses until you end your racist seating policies". It's clear what they wanted to happen, and it was in the power of the boycotted company to make that happen.
This new thing is something else. Just a general "don't buy from this company because ... uh ... vague noises about evil". Like, what is it exactly you want this company to do? How will you not buying from them force them to do that? Do they even know what you're asking for?
This is not about trying to effect any sort of change. It is just plain virtue signalling so you can appear righteous to others. There is zero chance of anything happening in the world because of this.
- Sounds cynical. Sure, people are not organized. They lack strategy and insight. It takes time to get there.
Sure, there is definitely a performative thing out there, and maybe this is that.
My point is this - now is a time when we need more collective action, not less. So, rather than taking up space putting down someone who may simply not know what the next step is, why not give the world the energy that it so desperately needs? Now is a time to encourage people. What you (yes, you) put out in the world matters.
- Sure, I am responsible for my own actions, and buying something is an action I (can) make. Therefore I bear responsibility for the side effects of my buying actions. Not the same kind of direct responsibility of those that directly make bad actions, and I don't think I should become insane over evaluating the impact of every single thing I buy, but there's a middle ground between that and ignoring the side effect of anything you buy.
There's a better viewpoint on that, though: ignore moral responsibility, think in terms of agency. Choosing from whom you buy is one of the few ways you (as an ordinary citizen) have to make the world a little steer towards a better form of itself. My own choice alone won't change much (which is correct, otherwise we'd be in an economic dictatorship), but if many people consistently care about that capitalism will work its magic and make wonders happen.
- "if you don't like it, vote with your dollars or quit whining"
- I feel the opposite. I feel I am responsible if I know the psychopath will use the money to buy a bullet and shoot someone.
I think what you're not realizing is that most people don't care. They don't care and they don't think about it. They just scaffold really weak logic to justify the whole thing and then go about their day. So when you ask them they have convoluted reasoning why they're ok with it. This blog post is that convoluted reason.
Ultimately the real reason is that we just don't care.
- Most people think the comparison to an actual killer is hyperbole. These institutions are flawed, not evil.
(And if you’re going to jump in the comments about them being evil, check your privilege. None of these tech companies operate literal death squads as several non-tech companies did as recent as a few decades ago, and probably still now.)
- is linux made by good people?
- The tools I love are made by flawed people
- Stallman is interesting personality. To put it politely. Does he belong to good people? Somewhat orthogonal question. And goodness of his stances on software is also well something that can be debated validly.
- Yeah I first tought that this was rant about how Linus Torvalds is asshole.
- Mostly by corporations: https://kernelnewbies.org/DevelopmentStatistics
- its not. People are people. Only the incentives are different.
- soundtrack to the post https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8Igmd424X8
- PEBKAC. Install Arch.
- We're all awful people, every one of us. Some are better at hiding it than others.
- the overwhelming majority of people, 95%+, are wonderful awesome people.
probably you too. awesome people sometimes screw up, but that's OK. if you really still think that "everyone sucks" then maybe you are in the 5%
- Sounds like projection to me
- I've been using Linux exclusively for 15 years. Went through my entire university degree using only Linux.
The biggest issue people face when switching is the desire for it to be the same as their previous OS. It's not. It never will be. It's different (and IMO better).
Like GNOME Shell, so many people hate it. No dock, no way to minimize Windows, etc... Until you actually try to learn it a little. Launching apps is super quick with the search, you can bring up overview with 3 finger swipe up on the touchpad, scroll virtual desktops with 3 finger sideways swipe, arrange your windows with meta + arrow keys, etc... Its nearly as keyboard driven and quick to use as a tiling window manager yet my wife can use it as well (she's very much not technical).
As for apps, there's an app for everything normal people need to do. For developers, it's easily the best OS. Games, it's got most of them. I guess if you're an accountant forced to use Excel don't bother (and if you're not forced to use Excel, Gnumeric is better anyway).
- Switching to Linux won't help either, because Linux (at least the kernel) is developed mostly by the same corporations: https://kernelnewbies.org/DevelopmentStatistics
- The genius of capitalism is in its unique ability to harness the energy of sociopaths* to produce valuable products and services**.
If there was no freedom to amass fortunes, these people would still exist, and they would do even more damage in whatever theoretical social structure we would have.
* And to a lesser degree, the self-interest everybody naturally possesses.
** Minimizing negative externalities is the responsibility of government accountable to the people.
- Articles like these always lack perspective despite desperately trying to seem woke. These "awful people" are the people that stepped up in the system and were forced to make the hard decisions. You can either be the guy paying strike breakers to kill your striking workers or the guy whose business failed. Do you really think you are any less awful for deciding to minimize your participation?
Who am I kidding, progressive economic theory hasn't progressed passed "lets kill everyone who is better off than me"
- [flagged]
