kyub

Just remember to always vote for the least worst, because there is no good, so that's the best you can do. And fascists are always the worst, by a mile.

The problem lies deeper unfortunately. Vance and the other thugs and grifters will just continue. I mean it would help overall, but still. Too many of the population still support this abomination of an administration.

Technically, nothing you use in tech is ever really "simple", there's tons of complexity hidden from the common user. And whenever parts of that complexity fail or don't work like the user expects it to, then the superficially simple stuff becomes hard.

Docker and containers are a fairly advanced topic. Don't think that it's easy getting into this stuff. Everyone has to learn quite a bit in advance to utilize that.

To play games, you went into the wrong direction when fiddling with wine directly, or even just indirectly by using bottles You COULD do that, but you've literally chosen the hardest path to do so. You should use something like HeroicGamesLauncher, Lutris or Steam in order to manage your games, install and launch them fairly easily. These will take care of all the complex stuff behind the scenes for you.

I use Arch since approximately 2006 or so. I like its stability (yes!), performance, rapid updates and technical simplicity. It never stands in my way and it's fairly simple to understand, administer and modify. It's probably the most convenient OS I've ever used - sure it takes time/effort to set it up but once you're past that it's smooth sailing. It also doesn't change dramatically over the years (it doesn't need to) so it's easy to keep up with its development. Plus, I have a custom setup script for it that installs and sets up all of the basics, so if I ever need to reinstall, I'm not starting from zero.

I am eyeing NixOS as "the next step" but didn't yet experiment with it too much. Arch is just too comfy to use and the advantages that NixOS brings aren't yet significant enough for me to make any kind of switch to it, but I consider NIxOS (as well as its related technologies like the Nix package manager) to be the most interesting and most advanced things in the Linux world currently.

If you're reading this as a newbie Linux user: probably don't use any of the two mentioned above (yet). They're not considered entry-level stuff, unless you're interested in learning low-level (as in: highly technical) Linux stuff from the start already. NixOS/Nix in particular is fairly complex and can be a challenge even for veteran Linux admins/users to fully understand and utilize well. Start your journey with more common desktop distros like Mint, Fedora, Kubuntu.

• 1. There is no universal definition what a technology needs to achieve in order to be "successful" or "failing". Linux, in particular, depending on perspective, could have either "failed" literally all the time because it hasn't (yet) achieved desktop dominance, or it could have been massively successful on the other hand because it has been dominant on servers and mobile phones (in the form of Android). Now if we look at desktop Linux in particular, it has also somehow "not failed" at the same time, because it has continued to grow. It was stagnant for a very, very long time at around 1% market share but recently it's been steadily increasing up to about 5%. Again, depending on your definition or vibes, you could call this either successful or failing. Which is why these terms in isolation are kind of meaningless.
• 2. Microsoft is a company, Windows Phone was a product by that company. If a product from a company "fails", the company will abandon that product. It's that simple. Sure, gaining foothold against established iOS and Android is super hard. Which is the reason why Microsoft's effort failed. But, they are just a company. Linux, on the other hand, is at its core a world-wide community-developed open source software project (as well as most of the software that runs on top of it) and so it doesn't really matter if it grows up to Android or iOS size. It's still being developed as long as people want to develop for it. There's no single CEO looking at some statistics and calling to cut that project because it doesn't serve his definition of success.
• 3. In general, any project that strives to eventually rival established software products within a market has a steep uphill battle. It's the network effect. Developers develop for iOS and Android because 99% of the user base uses those two mobile OS. Only very few developers will be like "oh there's this new thing currently at 1% market share, sure, let's help it grow!". This alone prevents lots of apps you'd like to see on mainline Linux based mobile OS to ever exist for it. So you need to fall back to some workarounds like Waydroid, to run Android apps on Linux in the meantime, while Linux on mobile continues to grow and continues to attract developer attention. This can take a long time! On top of that are anti-competitive and monopolistic strategies and tactics being used by Google and Apple to ensure they remain on top of the mobile OS food chain. One such example is Google's so-called Play Integrity API, which is basically a form of DRM. Some app developers have been misled by Google's marketing to believe that they should implement it to ensure that their app is running on a "secure" device or environment. What they fail to realize is that Google uses that to basically label every non-Google-sanctioned Android distribution (like Graphene or Calyx or Lineage or many others) or Android runtime environment (like Waydroid) as "insecure" or other negative terms, which then prevents the app from being run at all. Furthermore they plan to restrict "sideloading" which means they want every app to only be distributed via Google's app repository. This means Google wants to exert a ton of control over the developers, the platform and every single app that runs on it. Developers are usually being lured into this via marketing tricks that this would much more secure than it was before or similar nonsense. What they fail to realize is that this also destroys flexibility and freedom for the users to choose what they want to install, and from where. On desktop PCs, you have had these freedoms for forever (even Windows(!) is much more open and neutral than iOS or Android are these days) - you obviously also should have these freedoms for your mobile OS because it's also just a computer with an OS on it. It's simply none of the business of the OS developer to tell the user which apps he should install and from where. OS and apps are completely different things from completely different developers. Choice is being limited significantly when Google centrally controls what apps are being distributed at all, there's 1 company telling you which apps you can and can't use. This is obviously bad and should NEVER happen, but many developers, users and other people confronted with this are easily lured into Google- and Apple-operated cages by fake security talk/marketing. That means they help establish Google's and Apple's monopoly on mobile OS. This, combined with the network effect for app developers, is why it will take lots of time and also not a commercial product (because no commercial product will have the amount of money or time to compete with Apple or Google) to rise up to these monopolies until a third viable option is on people's radars. Linux, due to its open source nature, is the only project that CAN achieve this because it can't fail. It can only grow. But we also need to ensure that at least Android remains a somewhat neutral and open platform. If Google becomes more like Apple controlling literally everything, it gets even harder for alternatives (and for Android users in general).

Linux phones are usable right now, but of course you have some limitations in practice... many apps aren't available or you have to use workarounds. If you mostly use open source applications you could be fine though. Although it's likely that you still need a secondary, small Android-based phone that you turn on just for those rare cases where you absolutely need a certain mobile app and it's only available for Android. At least while Linux mobile OS usage is still low. It's probably going to grow faster in the future, because those monopolistic companies usually enshittify their products and services at some point (Google is already well on it) and then regular Android/iOS users become so annoyed at what they're using that they also open up more for alternatives. It's basically what's happening in the desktop OS space right now - Windows continues to become more user-hostile and annoying to use, and desktop Linux passively (as well as actively) becomes more popular as a result. At some point, these companies forget what made their products popular in the first place and are only operating in the mode of milking users for data and profits, because they don't need to work hard anymore to improve the product - it's already popular enough. At that point, regular users who normally don't care about things like freedoms, privacy and ethics in the product they use will notice that things became worse and might switch simply because of inconveniences they didn't have before.

Another very good option beside Linux-based mobile OS these days is GrapheneOS. It's the best Android-based distribution you can have currently, nothing comes close (not going to elaborate here because long post is already long). But you still should be prepared for increasing hostility from Google towards unofficial Android distributions, and some apps which use the Play Integrity DRM to not work. If you encounter this, make sure to let the app developer(s) know. They need to realize that they are only serving Google's interests with this, not their own.

AI will just add more mountains of garbage to the web, on top of the already existing ones. But users will still find what they're looking for because they first need to filter out all the slop. It will probably take longer to find the useful stuff, but the useful part of the web will continue to exist as a part of the whole web.

Not sure about the removal thing but first every commercial software is going to get enshittified with forced AI additions that are only semi-useful and introduce lots of errors and tons of privacy issues (on top of already existing privacy issues of course). It will still wow some people who assume intelligence and assume accuracy. As long as it still wows some people, the bubble is still growing. Unfortunately this tech industry has become so similar to the fashion industry, it's so sad. If you don't have AI these days you're SO out of fashion. But what does it get you? Inaccurate / low quality output which a subject matter expert needs to review anyway, so it can't replace the experts. At best, it speeds up prototyping and generating examples for those experts. Oh, and in doing all that it accelerates the problem of resource wastefulness and climate disaster. And if the AI isn't self-hosted and under your own control, then it also massively breaches all of your data protection efforts because employees will use it for probably everything, including sharing all sorts of documents and data with it. And every AI-enabled commercial software will also spy on the content of everything you're doing, because its (probably) cloud-based AI needs to receive all the data to be "helpful".

At this point, being on this planet is a losing cause.

I strongly disagree that unpopular things are automatically a losing cause though. I use and do some unpopular things because it's more ethical or more beneficial overall, but I'm not at all troubled with it. I just try to be a somewhat decent citizen where many others would just be like "lol I don't care about any consequences, just give me the cheapest or most convenient option". I'm not like that. And I think more people shouldn't be. But, again, at this point... it's definitely a losing battle. But I still do it because then I can tell myself that I at least tried to do the somewhat right thing. It's kind of just to have a clean conscience, whereas some others are completely fine burning the world for their own short-term gain. That's basically the difference.

The current tech/IT sector is heavily relying on and riding hype trains. It's a bit like the fashion industry that way. But this AI hype so far has only been somewhat useful.

Current general LLMs are decent for prototyping or example output to jump-start you into the general direction of your destination, but their output always needs supervision and most often it needs fixing. If you apply unreliable and constantly changing AI to everything, and completely throw out humans, just because it's cheaper, then you'll get vastly inferior results. You probably get faster results, but the results will have tons of errors which introduces tons of extra problems you never had before. I can see AI fully replacing some jobs in some specific areas where errors don't matter much. But that's about it. For all other jobs or purposes, AI will be an extra tool, nothing more, nothing less.

AI has its uses within specific domains, when trained only on domain-specific and truthful data. You know, things like AlphaZero or AlphaGo. Or AIs revealing new methods not known before to reach the same goal. But these general AIs like ChatGPT which are trained on basically the whole web with all the crap in it... it's never going to be truly great. And it's also becoming worse over time, i.e. not improving much at all, because the web will be even fuller with AI-generated crap in the future. So the AIs slurp up all that crap too. The training data gets muddier over time. The promise of AIs getting even more powerful as time goes on is just a marketing lie. There's most likely a saturation curve, and we're most likely very close to the saturation already, where it won't really get any better. You could already see this by comparing the jump from GPT-3 to GPT-4 (big) and then GPT-4 to GPT-5 (much smaller). Or take a look at FSD cars. Also not really happening, unless you like crashes. Of course, the companies want to keep the illusion rolling so they'll always claim the next big revolution is just around the corner. Because they profit from investments and monthly paying customers, and as long as they can keep that illusion up and profit from that, they don't even need to fulfill any more promises.

Two words which every internet-using person should know about because they tend to be forgotten: proportionality and sophistication.

Just because there is some element of crime within a specific group within a society, doesn't mean that the solution is to completely exterminate the whole society.

This is what the word "extremism" means - if you're an extremist you find extreme measures at least OK because you've stopped differentiating and thinking about proportions. And when doing extreme measures to a specific group of people (usually a minority group, or even a whole weaker country), then you're right-wing extremist.

You wouldn't want those things to be done to yourself when you're part of a subgroup that's under attack. You wouldn't want to be a victim of extreme measures. That's one reason why these extreme measures shouldn't exist in the first place.

It's just a tendency, not a hard rule.