Nothing's going to happen to Linux. The open source movement has millions of contributors around the world. If anything, Windows is actually more at risk: its continued existence depends on a single company.
Nothing's going to happen to Linux. The open source movement has millions of contributors around the world. If anything, Windows is actually more at risk: its continued existence depends on a single company.
"I just remembered something that happened a long time ago."
I was thinking right now that when Windows XP was released, people criticized its "high" resource usage and "spyware" (time synchronization, cover art downloads for WMP and a few others). Nowadays, it's considered a much lighter and spy-free alternative to Windows 8 and above.
We didn't know how good we had it, huh?
"I just remembered something that happened a long time ago."
We never had it good. Every Windows OS that was released was much worse than the previously released one.
People just got used to it and majority think that "it's normal". It's normal for them to spy, it's normal for the OS to come with more disadvantages than advantages and so on. I couldn't take it anymore when I made that jump. I was losing my damn mind with all their crappy changes, crap built on crap on top of other crap, similar to a house of cards.
Last edited by Master Razor; 12.06.18 at 09:17.
generally speaking, both linux and windows will change, for the worse, simply because people who steer their development are highly corrupted, consumed by greed and desire to control (the users)Originally Posted by anon
this applies to all areas of human activities, where such people rise to the top
the thing is, we never deserved any better (or any worse) than that what we eventually had
According this logic, Windows 1.0 was the best version ever released
Can't agree there on Linux. There isn't one person or a small group that can steer development of all distros to fulfill a particular goal or agenda. Their open source nature makes such a thing impossible in the first place. Torvalds and Stallman are very well known and respected people in the free software movement, but they aren't in a position to dictate which direction all of Linux will take in the same way Microsoft's CEO can decide the same about Windows.
As an example, look at what happened with Debian. They changed the init system to systemd, many people didn't like this choice and complained, but the higher ups didn't budge... so they ended up making a fork that's fully compatible with the original but doesn't include systemd.
On Windows, if you don't like the way something is done and Microsoft doesn't want to change it, all you can do is deal with it... maybe install a third-party hack if there many others with the same concern as you and someone's bothered to make one.
Provides a good summary of what I said about Microsoft's past in post #15.
"I just remembered something that happened a long time ago."
torvalds & co. steer (or steered) the development, which impacts all distros
corporations are heavily investing in linux and as such can steer the direction of its development, which impacts all distros
linux will be used to support the globalist corporate agenda (IoT and the like), which means developed to aid such goals
linux failed to seriously rival windows/mac regarding the desktop/laptop consumer market (1,66%)
no single distro displayed an ability to counter such issues, which is surely a change for the worse, regarding the end user
Ok how does this work? The kernel development team makes a change in the kernel then the kernel packagers in the distribution management team has no option whether to include that or not ?torvalds & co. steer (or steered) the development, which impacts all distros
Are you talking about something different ?
Sure linux as a software ecosystem suffers but not as much as closed source software.
The closest thing we have on linux is Red Hat but I will not expand on that now because it doesn't add to the discussion.There isn't one person or a small group that can steer development of all distros to fulfill a particular goal or agenda.
I don't know why but you are basically building up an ideological argument based on a simplified version of the kernel development process.
Even with Windows it would not be as simple.
Since I'm too tired to write something right now and want to post this here's a quote from a game. I also don't fully agree with your statement.because people who steer their development are highly corrupted, consumed by greed and desire to control (the users)
OK, so who runs Sovereign? Officially, the board of directors. But they have to do what the stakeholders want, or they'll be voted off and replaced. That's not a theory, that happens all the time. So they have literally no autonomy. They just execute the will of the stakeholders, no matter what. So the stakeholders run Sovereign, right?
Wrong. Well, partially. Because the people who buy stock in a company only really care about that stock growing. There are millions of them, with a million different ideologies and agendas, but when it comes to how the majority votes it's one hundred percent predictable: maximise profit.
The point is, that's not really a human will. There are lots of human wills involved, but in aggregate they act like a machine, or an unthinking force. It's just profit, for its own sake, zero other considerations. And that's what effectively runs Sovereign. No one person, not even a group of people, but a cold, unthinking force that emerges from their collective behaviour and the structure they operate in.
And what's scary about that is- I mean that's just scary. But what's scariER is, that means the company doesn't have to act in a way that benefits ANYONE involved in it. A director has to order an invasion because she'll be voted out if she doesn't. Her subordinate has to put people he cares about in harms way to get it done. Those people have to do terrible things. And no-one, no human, wants this to happen. The structure wants it to happen, and the humans have to obey. No-one can afford to lose their job. They're enslaved by a construct they created, an artificial intelligence that runs on the meat of a trillion human minds.
Last edited by sbfaggot; 14.06.18 at 23:25.
the point is that both tend to be run by corrupt people with goals revolving around greed and power, which is eventually proven by their actions, like the way linux ended up serving corporate interests, as a tool for further enslavement
another point is that contributors or users are foolish to put their trust in such people, it is a recipe for disappointment or disaster
on the contrary, this commercial distributor is an example of significant influence on linux developmentThe closest thing we have on linux is Red Hat but I will not expand on that now because it doesn't add to the discussion.
they still have a choice: do it or don't do it
their choices have led towards this construct, but the construct has no own intelligence, it only appears to have it - however, there is an intelligence which allows all this to function, which keeps them all manifested within the materialistic worldThey're enslaved by a construct they created, an artificial intelligence that runs on the meat of a trillion human minds.
I have a feeling that sometimes when you state things you think they are common knowledge or close to common knowledge.
How did you arrive at this conclusion and why do you think it fits to the current two models we are talking about ?the point is that both tend to be run by corrupt people with goals revolving around greed and power
I would like some examples and more specific wording. ( do not ignore this, I never think I'm 100% right but if you have a proper example I might change my mind / this is not bait )like the way linux ended up serving corporate interests, as a tool for further enslavement
Actually no, it's an example of significant influence in userland development. ( I can expand if you want )on the contrary, this commercial distributor is an example of significant influence on linux development
Even if I have a deterministic world view that quote was meant to underline a relationship matrix which emerges ( I hate this word ) in complex hierarchical systems. It is unlikely that lust for power and greed are the only possible success motivator for individuals. I think the construct is metaphoric.they still have a choice: do it or don't do it
Also write a little about the last part like your explaining to a five year old.which keeps them all manifested within the materialistic world
generally, such outcome is expected in this age or era, lets call it 'the age of corruption'
otherwise, one can look at their words, personalities, ethics, ideologies, supporters, connections, their actions and the results thereof
I would like some examplesCode:https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/images/iot/guide-to-iot-infographic.pngwhat kind of relationship matrix emerges is determined by those aforementioned choices - due to the 'the age of corruption' some are more common than others, namely those that promote some kind of corruptionEven if I have a deterministic world view that quote was meant to underline a relationship matrix which emerges ( I hate this word ) in complex hierarchical systems.
there are many motivators, though these are common to most people and especially to those on top positions (colloquially referred to as 'absolute power that corrupts absolutely')It is unlikely that lust for power and greed are the only possible success motivator for individuals.
was referring to the intelligence that is the origin of all creation (materialistic cosmos), that maintains this world in all its aspects, that is known under many names, like...which keeps them all manifested within the materialistic world
GodAlso write a little about the last part like your explaining to a five year old.
such an outcome is to be expected in any age or era if you look for it, I am asking for something with epistemic value
If I'm allowed to make a weird analogy human beings aren't inherently evil and dark just because you're Freud and there are wars around you.
There are no palpable sources. Just sites stated as sources. There's one article which is short, written by a firm which specializes in using buzzwords to create revenue and says that that firm is going to be succesful.Code:https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/images/iot/guide-to-iot-infographic.png
yeah noComputers smaller than a grain of sand can be sprayed or injected almost anywhere.
someday soon heh, just like in my movies, who cares about all that deep learning shit or that they pretty much do that already, lemme just put this picture here with some suited up television coffee buddiesSomeday soon, connected robots will have the ability to learn from each other and work in teams to increase efficiency and solve scientific problems
I can't say I was expecting anything better from jewtel to be honest.
See, I disagree with you basically at the start at the age of corruption thing. 1*what kind of relationship matrix emerges is determined by those aforementioned choices - due to the 'the age of corruption' some are more common than others, namely those that promote some kind of corruption
I'm also a fedora lord.was referring to the intelligence that is the origin of all creation (materialistic cosmos), that maintains this world in all its aspects, that is known under many names, like...
God
[1]All humans have an inherent need for power. The humans at the top of hierarchies are the ones which have that need most manifested in their identity. With a high enough amount of social or economical power you no longer are kept in check by other individuals and this corrupts you as in you stop giving a shit ?
What is the definition of corruption here ?
Last edited by sbfaggot; 16.06.18 at 10:47.
that doesn't change the fact that ages are differentiated by the amount of corruption occurring within them and this age (called Kali Yuga) is the worst of all 4 within a cycle
even without such information, you can observe all kinds of problems in the human society, which culminate in wars, disasters, deceptions, injustice, disease, pollution, perversions and debauchery; as well as negative occurrences in other species and the environment
they are born in a fallen state (which translates as: corrupt), they are educated in a corrupt system, live in a corrupt society and the current age is favorable to such things, which makes them common and widespreadhuman beings aren't inherently evil and dark just because...
thus their actions, psychological and mental processes result with the problems mentioned above
which means they have a high probability of ending up quite evil and dark in such living conditions
the image shows where development is headed (steered), which means linux already is and will be developed to comply with such needs, used in the attempt to achieve all thatThere are no palpable sources.
your disagreement about the presence of corruption in all ages is not an argument against the presence of corruption in this ageSee, I disagree with you basically at the start at the age of corruption thing.
the idea that you may be a lord of something, lording over something is a corrupt view - you're not even the lord of your own thoughts, let alone something elseI'm also a fedora lord.
they have the tendency to desire power, which can be changed by shifting the desire to something else, something positive and virtuousAll humans have an inherent need for power.
in their (false) identity called the false ego, through the process of nurturing (reinforcing) such desireswhich have that need most manifested in their identity.
you are always kept in check, but since (as an observable net result) other individuals seem to be aiding you in your pursuit, you may falsely assume to be above their reach or above any influenceWith a high enough amount of social or economical power you no longer are kept in check by other individuals
the idea that you may be above morals or ethics is also a corrupt viewas in you stop giving a shit ?
any lack of virtue may be viewed as corruptionWhat is the definition of corruption here ?
any erroneous statement may be viewed as corruption
any assumption may be viewed as corruption
living with (the contamination of) a false ego is a corruption
etc.
sighthe idea that you may be a lord of something, lording over something is a corrupt view - you're not even the lord of your own thoughts, let alone something else
Fedora lord is internet slang for atheist.
You are arguing from a eastern religious perspective without being emphatic or charitable.
For everything which appears wrong to your there are already better modern models than old scripture.
The image shows nothing but bad PR made by some undergrad shit. We are just jumping around terms of your choosing.
I yield on the corruption side of things since this will get us no where and I gain nothing. Concentrate on giving me a clear and clean example ofif you can with mailing list examples and direct consequence towards ALL linux distributions.torvalds & co. steer (or steered) the development, which impacts all distros
well, that is unfortunate
being emphatic or charitable means providing genuine eastern religious and spiritual knowledge, so one can learn and improve his current fallen conditionYou are arguing from a eastern religious perspective without being emphatic or charitable.
all modern models are built on assumptions by research from a state of ignorance, whereas (sacred) scripture is produced by divine revelation from a state of knowledgeFor everything which appears wrong to your there are already better modern models than old scripture.
modern models have no capacity to go beyond the stage of theory that is hopefully good enough to roughly describe the materialistic world in a usable fashion
how good these models are can be seen from the current disastrous and unhealthy situation in the world in virtually all fields of human activity, since it is mainly based on implementing and pushing such models
more like intentional and fairly professional boasting, due to being all fired up and assured of successbad PR made by some undergrad shit.
major corporate involvement in linux development ought to be enough to raise anyone's brows, but if this is a situation like that of Thomas (christian 'slang'), no evidence will sufficeConcentrate on giving me a clear and clean example of...
further proof will be provided by the future, as we witness the results of such involvement
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks