Well, I did have the issue of horrible range on my Qualcomm WiFI Drivers under linux leading to shitty WiFi range overall. Eg. Laptop just below WiFi router and it shows 90% range.
I upgraded my Intel system to AMD today. And I didn’t have to reinstall a damn thing, because my existing Linux installation Just Worked™. It really is to the point that I could never imagine going back to Windows.
CPU vendors are usually pretty seamless to swap on Winblows, other than the fact that Windows will possibly whine that you’ve modified your system too much and need a new license 🤓
Windows will possibly whine that you’ve modified your system too much and need a new license
If the MAC address changes, Windows activation will always fail. I just don’t see any of that as worth the trouble anymore since The Windows Difference™ is just telemetry overhead and updates that need to happen while I’m trying to get something done.
Yea I have a 2011v3 haswell e proc that isnt supported but the mobo has a tpm slot so I got a 7 dollar tpm2.0 module on ebay and was able to install win11 last year. Its fine for basic gaming.
I try using Linux on my desktop PC from time to time. Whenever I buy a new rig, I try Linux, as I want to reinstall the system anyway. It never worked. I always tried with brand new hardware -> something is not properly supported -> install current windows. Rinse and repeat every 4 or 5 years whenever I get my hand on a new desktop or laptop. That never changed for the last 20 years.
Most likely. There are distros that just works namely Mint. Follow the official guide and the computer is ready for use in less than an hour. And ‘for the last twenty years’? I just don’t believe it.
I struggle to believe it, too. I can think of four laptops I’ve installed Linux on - one Macbook, two Dells, and one Lenovo, and all four of them worked perfectly without additional tinkering. Even the touchscreens on two of them worked without intervention. I’d talk about my desktop and server, but I haven’t upgraded the hardware in them in …a long time. 8 years would be my guess. I’ll have to look it up.
I mean it’s not surprising if theyre not actively trying to troubleshoot their problems. I run Linux on both my desktop and laptop and I never had a perfect experience with either. On my laptop a few years ago I tried installing Ubuntu but my trackpad sensitivity on linux was way too high with no easy way to change it. I also needed fractional scaling and at the time Ubuntu used X11, I found some command on the Ubuntu forums to enable scaling in the settings and it gave me screen tearing. After a few hours of playing around with different commands I gave up and weny back to Windows.
On my desktop I use Nvidia and have two monitors with different refresh rates. That causes a lot of issues and I just have to put up with it.
Edit: I use Arch on both of them now and have found solutions to my problems but especially my laptop issues were very annoying.
Desktop linux was my daily driver from about 2006 to 2016, then I was dual booting from 2019 to 2021 or so before it became my daily driver again. Choosing Linux-friendly laptop hardware is a compromise.
From 2006-2009, I had a few issues with a shitty wifi driver. Then I bought a “built for Linux” laptop that worked well enough for my purposes, but still had a few minor limitations: shittier battery life, no Bluetooth, and a video card that NVIDIA eventually dropped support for. Even when using the proprietary driver, I couldn’t use Wayland or KMS. During that era, it took a while for font rendering to look as good as Windows, and it never quite caught up with font rendering on Macs.
Then I bought another laptop and had to deal with trying to get the user experience with High DPI screens not to suck (it’s OK now, but took a while to get here). I don’t have a Wifi 6E access point yet but I’ve seen from the forums that it’s sometimes buggy with the 6E channels.
Basically, Linux support for laptop hardware and experience seems to lag behind, and actively selecting for best Linux compatibility is also a seriously limiting filter when buying hardware.
One thing to note is that there are different distributions some of wich use older software an focus on stability (debian for example) and some use bleeding edge software (arch for example)
Linux is open source and often only donation financed. They can’t always support brand new hardware. If you want support for your hardware you have to pay a company to do it for you (or do it your self if possible)
Nah. The OS is not important enough to me. I buy according to specs and price/performance-ratio. If Linux won’t easily run, I will just run windows on it. It’s only the OS after all.
I actually switched my desktop from Windows 3.11 to Linux. It’s always worked fine to me (even if it was a bit hand on at the start) on vast numbers of hardware configurations. I’ve never used Windows for actual data since, only for games (not really an issue nowadays).
when you say “something is not properly supported” what do you mean? like nvidia/amd haven’t released graphics drivers yet for linux? or some peripheral isn’t recognized?
basically, by buying new hardware just after it launches, you’re effectively one of the very first people to boot that hardware with linux. you can usually make it work but most hardware manufacturers don’t work with the linux devs to make sure support is in place. so devs have to get ahold of the hardware retail and then fix whatever is broken. the exception to this is AMD and Intel - both companies have people working on linux so they will merge support for new hardware into the kernel before that new hardware is even announced to the public. so if you stick to cpus and video cards from those two manufacturers, you’ll make your linux life easier.
even then, though, the support might exist in the latest version of the kernel, but the last Ubuntu or Mint release is still several versions behind. so you’re effectively forced to use a distro that releases updates much faster (ie rolling release), or be willing to make modifications to the system post-install to get it to work.
tl;dr: you’ve got a constellation of requirements that can’t all be met at the same time. either give it 3 to 6 months after release of new hardware or be willing to learn how to make it work. expecting software to work with hardware it hasn’t yet been designed to work with is always going to be a recipe for failure.
either give it 3 to 6 months after release of new hardware or be willing to learn how to make it work. expecting software to work with hardware it hasn’t yet been designed to work with is always going to be a recipe for failure.
No thanks. I can’t be bothered with that. I’ll just run windows.
I did the same thing starting probably around the same time as you except that did it start working for me 5 years ago and I haven’t gone back to windows.
Actually they tried the normal way, where they didn’t shoot and asked the poachers to surrender / tried to arrest them. But the rangers would get shot and the animals would continue to get poached.
Seeing this as a problem, a new executive order / law was passed allowing shoot at sight orders at national parks / protected zones.
Poaching has reduced, the number of rangers getting shot has reduced. The number of poachers getting shot has reduced (they don’t wanna fuck around anymore).
Murder is bad, but humans are the problem. And humans being stupid chaotic creatures, it often devolves in to dirty things like killing. You can say all you want about right and wrong but this is a messy situation and this is the solution they have been forced in to using, after trying the peaceful method for years
I used to think that way until I had my own baby. I understand the parents a lot more now. We don’t bring our babies in flights/places to annoy anyone (some parents might do it, Idk :v). It’s a complicated situation where we want to stay with our loved ones and at the same time don’t be yelled by strangers who can’t handle baby noises, trust us, we try to calm them down, if we could, babies wouldn’t annoy so much, but they kinda have a mind of it’s own 🙂 (stubbornness at its peak) I don’t expect anything to change, specially in the terms lf having patience with strangers, but… idk :v
I think perhaps you misunderstand. Most people don't think parents bring their kids along to deliberately disrupt travel. At least, I certainly hope that's not what people think.
But, intent is irrelevant. It doesn't stop it being annoying for some/many people.
As for the picture here. I suspect the reason more people are looking this way than usual. It looks to be a business class cabin. I know many people book business class because it more likely puts you at some distance from the noisier cabins. This looks like they probably have a dedicated business class boarding door. So they likely realise they're coming to sit in the same cabin.
If you book in economy, you're used to and expect it more, I think.
Yes, and I'm agreeing with you. But the animosity is a general illogical (but human) thinking of "Why did you bring them on MY flight?"
Like I say, when people reflect, they're not angry at the people, they're angry at the situation they're in. At least, I hope that's what normal people are doing.
Believe it or not, we’re not all despondent nihilists, hell bent on self fulfilling prophecies of negligent apocalypse incapable of empathy and compassion for those who still gently carry that same flame that brought us all here, not yet lulled like so many into a dark shroud of self doubt and loathing by gluttonous corporations who grow fat on the grief and despair of those who are content to take what is given and slip through life soundless and meak, refusing to create change, however individual, however small, so sure that three hundred thousand years of humanity is unquestionably doomed to the darkness you choose to wallow in.
Some of us want to fight and we love our kids (and yours) and this world, and yes, we even love you nihilists, and we’ll fight for you too.
I’m one of those nihilists but it doesn’t mean I’m apathetic, it just means I’d rather help other people survive this shit than add another number to the count.
Also damn, are you the reincarnation of Hemingway or something? here I am checking out lemmy and you wrote a full on award winning post.
One of the best things about moving here from the bad place was how their senseless, rabid hatred of young people didn't carry over. It's heartbreaking to see sentiments like this starting to spread.
Come on. It’s not that bad. Plus “maybe don’t take babies on plane trips” doesn’t equal “kill all babies” or “fuck Dem kids”. There are many subtle levels.
I definitely recommend revisiting this post about 12 hrs later. It’s kind of wild in here. Saw a comment with 19 upvotes referring to children as “cum pets.”
I don't think I could bear it. Activism for the rights and freedoms of young people has been such a big part of my life for such a long time that that kind of anti-child attitude burns my soul.
I’m sorry your family was too broke to ever leave whatever shithole you come from. If your parents were good at your job you wouldn’t be threatening to hurt children.
Yea good idea. This way I wouldn’t have to yeet the fetuses off the plane. They can cry all they want when the climate change accelerated by my use of private planes eventually kills them.
This isn’t actually true though. Most dinosaurs have been named in the last 100 years. In fact 85% of them have been named since Jurassic Park came out.
Sidenote: if you’re pretending shit for internet points, at least try for 10 seconds to put yourself in the shoes of the person you’re pretending to be…
Okay, I’m gonna bite the bullet and say it. This is disheartening. I’m not one to clutch pearls, but come on. Would you say this about anyone else? Dogs? Cats? Anything at all? Do you understand how fucked up it is? I just don’t get it. It was the same in Reddit, and it’s fucking same in here. Why do you hate children? You don’t wanna have them, that’s fine. Why would you say these things?
Maybe you’re joking. Even after assuming that you are, this is in poor taste and a fucked up thing to say.
Do shitty parents and upset children exist? Absolutely.
Yet everyone seems to ignore that maybe, just maybe, that child is being “shitty” despite having good parents.
Maybe the kid has a medical issue causing pain and discomfort and there’s not a damn thing the parent can do except get on that flight to see a specialist.
Maybe she’s fleeing domestic violence and needs to get to family to safe.
Maybe the mother has postpartum depression and unfortunately cannot properly care for her child so she’s seeking help elsewhere.
Fuck maybe the kid has an undiagnosed brain tumour that’s going to kill them. I know people that happened to.
If you go around assuming everyone else who inconveniences you in the slightest is a shit person, you will be a shit person.
So get over yourself. You might have a slightly less comfortable flight while that poor parent might be going through the worst time in their life.
Of course these things do exist but most of the time(at least in my experience) the problems are shitty parents.
For example I had 2 kids crawling under my seat for the whole flight(takeoff and landing included) and the parents just watched something on the phone.
See, here’s the neat thing about things. You get to choose what you do and don’t care about. Empathy should not go so far as to cost. Your baby is not my problem and it’s your responsibility to keep it that way. I have my own, I didn’t take them to public places till they were able to have some self control. Is that always possible? No, but it’s really obvious if you are the type of person who doesn’t even try.
Part of using public transport is that you need to share it with the public, which is why I broadly detest it and cannot comprehend the fuck cars weirdos.
That said when I do use public transport I fully expect noisy children, insufferable karens and the occasional nut job.
Your concept of empathy seems to be severely lacking.
Part of using public transport is that you need to share it with the public, which is why I broadly detest it and cannot comprehend the fuck cars weirdos.
Couldn’t agree more. The anti car movement among young millennials and Gen Z is weird as hell to me. I’ve lived in a large city and taken well designed public transit for years. Compared to living in a small city and driving, it’s awful - so I left. There’s a literal loss of freedom and autonomy that comes with it, and I can’t fathom why the younger crowd wants to live in crowded apartments and post angry screeds to r/fuckcars. I like walking and hiking and biking too! I have no desire to do it in a city, so I have to drive somewhere uncrowded to do it. If public transit served those places, they would be crowded.
If you live in NA, you haven’t lived in a walkable city designed for people over cars. You can find clearer explanations of the rationale from Strong Towns or NotJustBikes.
Your concerns are not unfounded, but they would benefit from some context.
I’m reluctant to litigate something unpopular on the internet for the purpose of collecting downvotes, and I think there’s low probability we’ll agree on the issue, but I’ll explain my rationale:
I lived in NYC. NYC is not exactly designed for walking or bikes, but there’s a strong case to be made that it has become a city in which cars are much less feasible than transit, walking, or biking. The sidewalks are all double-wide. If you order delivery, the delivery guy is on a bike. Nobody I knew owned a car, and none of us would have been able to afford the parking if we had. We walked to get groceries. It has subways, busses, and ferries that run very frequently. The subways run 24/7/365. In terms of density, NYC should be a best-case scenario for public transit.
The fact remains that if you wanted to LEAVE the city and go somewhere green with the ability to get away from people, it was 3x as long by public transit than it would have been by car. Minimum. And those places are far away. It’s a place designed to keep you there. And that’s just my point: I don’t want to feel like a sardine in a city packed with people, I want to get out into nature where I can be the only person for miles around.
Amsterdam is the city I see cited most often as being the model for a /c/fuckcars-approved world, but my basic thesis is that living in a place with 13,670 people per square mile, greatly diminished personal space (densified housing), and greatly diminished personal autonomy (the ability to leave), is approximately my definition of urban hell.
I submit that the population of the Northeast Megalopolis (containing NYC, DC, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore) is the stuff of dystopian hellscapes - FIFTY MILLION PEOPLE - and with an average population density of only 6.4% the density of the Netherlands (in other words, the same as Europe). It’s really hard there to find land in its natural state, which isn’t owned by someone - the best you can do is city parks or the equivalent. And while that’s a matter of personal preference, I see a feverish, unrelenting push by the younger generations, who didn’t grow up with cars-as-personal-freedom like the Boomers/GenX/Xennials did. In the US, young Millennials, gen Z, and beyond have decided that ultradense cities are great and cars are evil. I understand how they got to that conclusion, but to me it just looks like Eco-Austerity derived from urbanization, human overpopulation, and the lack of liberating personal-vehicular-experiences as a late teen and early adult.
Edit: When I was in high school, you could buy a well-used economy car that got 35mpg for $500-1k. Gas was a buck a gallon. Traveling 100+ miles to another state to explore rural areas with <1 person per SQ mile, for $3 in gas, all in a couple of hours was empowering. Being stuck in a manmade urban jungle is confining and I think people who lacked the opportunities I had will never understand.
Hell, I believe so much in personal vehicles and the autonomy they enable, I obtained a pilot’s license – something that is overwhelmingly difficult and expensive to do in overcrowded Europe, but for the time being still remains something you can achieve as a middle-class American in some places. I can go places far away without regard for transit schedules, routes, or finding hordes of people there when I arrive. It’s a very non-European experience, and I prefer it to being just another person in an ocean of continuous human habitation.
Single-family homes vs densified housing is an adjacent topic, and I don’t want to get too sidetracked, but suffice it to say that it was the yardstick of middle-class wealth in postwar America. To have your very own land and space, that was private, green, and notionally yours forever. And now thanks to perpetually ballooning city populations and demand for land in historically-occupied places forever outstripping supply, the younger generations are idolizing what amounts to apartment living. Personally, I couldn’t get away from apartments fast enough once my income allowed it. I still don’t know whether I’ll ever own a house, but if I never share a wall or floor with someone again, it will be too soon. I’m frustrated by this newfound need to do away with the tools of our personal independence, and at some level, I fundamentally can’t understand it. It frustrates me almost daily to run into anti-car, pro-urban zealots online, and I think they’re misguided. They’re all either mega extroverts, or don’t have a clue what they’re missing through lack of personal experience.
You almost wonder if these opinions are a product of very clever propaganda. “You will own nothing and you will be happy”. No personal transportation, no public land, and rent an apartment forever to enrich corporate landlords. Stuck in the city, owning nothing of substance, with limited personal freedom because there are just too many people. Just more consumers for capitalism.
noisy children, insufferable karens and the occasional nut job
but that doesn’t mean I have much empathy for them.
Being loud in public imposes a cost on the people around you. In our society parents with babies are generally allowed to impose such a cost, but so are raving lunatics…
Yet everyone seems to ignore that maybe, just maybe, that child is being “shitty” despite having good parents.
If you’re bringing an infant onto a plane, you’re a shitty parent.
Maybe she’s fleeing domestic violence and needs to get to family to safe.
You don’t need a plane for this
Maybe the kid has a medical issue causing pain and discomfort and there’s not a damn thing the parent can do except get on that flight to see a specialist.
You don’t need a plane for this
Maybe the mother has postpartum depression and unfortunately cannot properly care for her child so she’s seeking help elsewhere.
You don’t need a plane for this
I think you can figure out the pattern for the rest of your points.
It’s usually the air pressure causing the kid some pain from mild barotrauma / airplane ear. They can’t help it. No amount of good or bad parenting changes the pressure differential in the inner ear.
No i wouldn’t think this about dogs and cats etc. As those are not annoying 24/7. Of course there are dogs and cats that are but the majority is well behaved… unlike Babies
You can train dogs and cats to be quiet and sit still. Not all of them will be happy doing it for a long plane ride, but you can do it. Babies on the other hand? Babies don’t give a fuck.
Hungry?
Scream.
Tired?
Scream.
Happy?
Scream.
Mad?
Scream
You can do everything right and the baby will still scream.
See, I have this speculation that early humans were fucking dumb, had no object permanence, couldn’t keep track of their kids, and generally pretended they didn’t exist unless they were being annoying. So their babies had to fucking scream as loud as a firetruck for their parents to not lose them.
That’s the other thing too. The sound of a crying baby will drive anyone who doesn’t have antisocial personality disorder or has been driven deaf by the wonders of childcare completely insane. Why? Because while the sheer volume of a baby’s scream might not be as loud as a barking dog on an objective decibel scale, but when it comes to perceptual decibel levels, babies are loud. Our hearing sensitivity varies based on pitch. The higher the pitch, the more sensitive our ears are. On top of that, our brains are hardwired to have a reaction to a screaming baby, which can manifest itself as irritation, annoyance, frustration, and other negative emotions, because our primitive monkey brains are screeching, “WHY WON’T YOU TAKE CARE OF BABY!?” but we can’t do anything because it’s not our baby.
That’s why people like to make jokes about dead babies, infant abuse, etc. Because babies are annoying as hell and literally everything they do is designed to make sure we know they’re there at all times.
Edit: AND ONE MORE THING, have you ever wondered how a parent can love their baby when it’s quiet but hate it when it’s awake? Yeah, that’s almost certainly a result of primitive humans trying to take advantage of the fact that the annoying poop demon was finally quiet and wasn’t ear-fucking their monkey brain into guilt-tripping them anymore, so that they could ditch their babies when they were sleeping. So you can probably thank the negligent, sociopathic protohumans for babies being annoying as shit.
I love this theory that early (and current) humans were so incompetently stupid that we evolved to fucking scream all the time just so they don’t walk away and forget us.
Considering how many kids get left in locked cars in the summer, as well as no other species of animal has annoying ass babies I have to canonize this as the Truth.
Consider this as well: if you’re a primitive human and you have to take your baby somewhere, you’re going to be praying to whatever deity(s) you believe are watching over you that your baby understands the severity of the situation and doesn’t start screaming in the middle of the jungle. 'cause if it does, every predator in a 5 mile radius is going to hear your baby screaming and dinner bells will start going off in their heads. Our only major survival traits are our near-infinite stamina (if properly trained) and ability to magically fuse or deform useless objects into something useful. Additionally, the usefulness of both of those traits diminishes with the size of the group as a single human with a spear is far less likely to survive a tiger attack than two humans with spears. To put it another way, your baby will actively alert predators that you’re burdened with its existence and that you could be free food so that you get removed from the gene pool if you’re stupid or unlucky enough to travel alone.
As a parent of two boys, i feel that much of the annoyance of no-children-having people is due to parents not putting boundaries for children in place.
Children scream because of attention. It means they are not getting it.
Start walking around with the kid to calm it down. Its your job as a parent. You cannot stay seated and act like “what are you gonna do? They are children ! They scream!”
No. You are a bad parent for letting them just scream.
Having said that, babies sometimes just scream without reason. Perhaps, and I mean this, if you have a baby that is prone to doing this, do not travel in confined spaces, or dine at restaurants until that phase of screaming is over.
Would you say this about anyone else? Dogs? Cats? Anything at all?
What an odd comparison, given that pets are crated and put in (a warm/pressurized part of) the cargo bay. Is that better then hiding under a seat or the overhead bin? It seems about the same to me.
lemmy.ml
Newest