Linux Sucks: If It's Not Broken Don't Fix it

Should a System have basic Input out of the box?


  • Total voters
    18
So it's that time of year again, where classes are starting, it's time to put the games down, install my favourite Linux distribution and get on with my assignments and work. As always. I generally run Linux for my system, It's a delicate balance for me, Netflix works, has the driver support I need, and even allows me to sync my files to my freely provided OneDrive account by my education institute. I know, I know. I can do this on FreeBSD, though, as far as I'm aware, no app makes use of kqueue to sync my changes to one drive automatically. Though, I can always do it via the web app. Anyways, back to my main point.

Classes had started back up, after a massive summer of playing nothing but games to relax after a successful year in education and meeting all my targets, it was finally time to remove that distraction, pop back Linux back onto my machine and restore my backup. (Though I couldn't decrypt my full system backup on Windows, it just didn't like GPG). So I rush over to the ArchLinux website and grab the latest ISO to copy to my USB drive. Eager to things set up quickly, and get back to my work. Then, nothing but issues happened. (It had only been a month since college finished for the summer mind).

First copy to USB, and no good. Grub errors and won't proceed with the boot, though not unusual, I still had the USB drive in my USB 3.0 port which grub doesn't like for some reason, so again, I plugged it into the USB 2.1 slot, and still the same. I thought "Maybe it's because I copied it when I had it plugged into USB 3.0", so I copied it again. Still no go. No worries, I'll use DD mode to copy it... Again, still no go. Eventually, I switched application, as I had been using UNetbootin at this point. Switching to Rufus worked, I finally had a bootable CD, so I boot up, and I shit you not, the most idiotic thing happened, which I'll get into below.

So my machine starts, as usual, POSTS, as usual, num lock key lights up, I tap F12 to choose my boot device. Take note of the working keyboard here. Eventually, after SystemD worked its magic, I'm automatically logged in as root, I go to start trying to partition my disks, to my surprise, no keyboard. Weird I thought... I've been using Unix since around 2004, no issues with keyboards, but after some more experimentation, I realise it does not jut keyboard, but I have no mouse. Over 14 years without an input issue and I finally get one. I figured it was just a bug with ArchLinux, but after some digging, nearly all distros are having an issue with kernel 4.17 and above plagued with no input.

No input, I don't know about you, but to me, a computer takes input, processes it and generally gives you output. However, these cowboys who managed to sit and read a PDF of how to learn c in 24 hours and are submitting commits to Linux have done it, they've fucked up soo badly, you can't even do what a computer is intended, and that is to give it input.

Reading scourges of posted about how this version is meant to be the best, they've gutted loads of code, and they've tidied it up, it's the best release yet. Though it can't even do a simple thing like take input from a keyboard? What am I mean to do? Install a webcam and wink in morse code to give it input. Stupid. It is. So after all this time, out of the box, a simple USB keyboard doesn't even function on Linux. The same keyboard I've used for many systems.

I downgraded the kernel to 4.16 the one I used a month ago, and keyboard functionality was back, so I knew it was a kernel issue, so somewhere in the last month, they've cocked up soo badly, that keyboard functionality isn't even available out of the box. It was at this point I thought "You know what, f*ck this shit, I'm going back to FreeBSD" and that's what I did. Immediately, out of the box, I was wowed with keyboard functionality. I could tap away, give my machine instructions again, tell that cute little thing precisely what to do. I was in control again at last. Thanks, FreeBSD. I don't even know why I went to Linux in the first place, the ever-changing piece of crap that breaks when an idiot who doesn't understand what basic functionality is needed in a computer system gets to mess with it.

Typically, this wouldn't bother me, but after working for soo many years and this issue is present in the last TWO release, it's not just the latest kernel version, but the last two 4.17 and 4.18, and I even install the testing kernel from ArchLinux repository, and the same thing happened. It's the fact that they've broken it which bothers me, I have no idea what they've done, but imagine a new user, with no experience, trying for the first time. They may assume they are at fault when it's the monkeys spitting out shitty code over at linux.org.

After this little charade, it's safe to say, as much as I love Unix, I will never, ever go back to Linux ever again, it just doesn't have the professional feel that FreeBSD has, management or the solid foundation that it offers.

So it looks like my platform for achieving my studies on is now FreeBSD. So Hey guys.

I apologize for any language, i tried to keep it to a minimum, but this is truly stupid.
 
No offense intended but I get the impression you're blaming the tools for your own mishaps. I conclude as much from the topic itself: you blame "Linux" (which is basically only the kernel) while your mishaps seem to sit mostly with Arch. Or your own doing. I mean; when I read that you "automatically log on as root" then that seriously makes me shudder at the though of all the mishaps that could have come from that (and likely have come from it, but... that's my own biased assumption).

See: you say "Kernel 4.17" but what exactly does that mean? Do you grab the kernel source from the distributions own repositories or did you grab 'm from kernel.org? If the latter then the way you configure it will also have an impact.

I'm also missing (or overlooking) the part where you grab an Arch or Debian install/rescue disk and try to boot from it to see what happens next. You only seem to address your own system which, once again no offense intended, seems a bit tainted to me considering the comments above.
 
I think this problem just happens in certain configurations. But I understand this strong and bad feeling of being unable to do anything... But to stare the screen. :D

Also and mostly, it made me laugh. You have a good sens of humor.
 
Eventually, after SystemD worked its magic, I'm automatically logged in as root,
Don't blame Arch GNU/Linux blame yourself! I've installed it 5 years ago and it's still working without a glitch!

Code:
echo $(($(($(date +%s) - $(date -d "$(head -1 /var/log/pacman.log | cut -d ' ' -f 1,2 | tr -d '[]')" +%s))) / 86400)) days
1923 days
 
It's not a mishap on my own, it's a problem I could've resolved my self, but I shouldn't have to compile a kernel out of the box. This wasn't just ArchLinux, but also Ubuntu, the fact that there was no keyboard input (Which should be expected out of the box), unless I compiled my own kernel. So say it's all my fault, or blame me for this issue, and the "It's your fault, you just didn't do it properly". While yelling "LALALALA" with fingers in your ears. Though the issue still stands, keyboard is something you need working from all installation medium. How else are you going to install if you can't even type. I'll wait for you answer, i'm sure you'll be able to tell me a command to type into the terminal to fix my not working keyboard issue on kernel version 4.17 and 4.18. Oh wait...

Don't blame Arch GNU/Linux blame yourself! I've installed it 5 years ago and it's still working without a glitch!

Code:
echo $(($(($(date +%s) - $(date -d "$(head -1 /var/log/pacman.log | cut -d ' ' -f 1,2 | tr -d '[]')" +%s))) / 86400)) days
1923 days

It's my fault keyboard and mouse doesn't work on the installation medium? Yeah, If you beleive that it's my fault for these not working when booting an installation medium, then sure. It is my fault. My bad, for expecting basic input functionality from an operating system that has matured over years without this issue up until today.

No offense intended but I get the impression you're blaming the tools for your own mishaps. I conclude as much from the topic itself: you blame "Linux" (which is basically only the kernel) while your mishaps seem to sit mostly with Arch. Or your own doing. I mean; when I read that you "automatically log on as root" then that seriously makes me shudder at the though of all the mishaps that could have come from that (and likely have come from it, but... that's my own biased assumption).

See: you say "Kernel 4.17" but what exactly does that mean? Do you grab the kernel source from the distributions own repositories or did you grab 'm from kernel.org? If the latter then the way you configure it will also have an impact.

I'm also missing (or overlooking) the part where you grab an Arch or Debian install/rescue disk and try to boot from it to see what happens next. You only seem to address your own system which, once again no offense intended, seems a bit tainted to me considering the comments above.


I shouldn't need to grab the kernel sources as I don't want to have to compile my own kernel. and what else did you think "kernel 4.17" would mean? This wasn't a configuration issue in the slightlest, it's a kernel issue, and the fact that it is only present in kernel version 4.17 and 4.18, but not previous versions should indicate this, but hey, believe what you wish.


Offers a working keyboard out of the box:

  1. FreeBSD
  2. Haiku
  3. Beos
  4. Solaris
  5. ReactOs
  6. Windows
  7. Amigos
Doesn't offer a working keyboard out of the box in latest version of the kernel:
  1. GNU/Linux
 
Xorg or Xf86 for a past release of FreeBSD had a similar problem, where the default was for Xorg to not take in Keyboard input. I searched for the answer through a search engine, and I found it in a forum, perhaps this forum. I had to change an AllowEmptyInput setting in xorg.conf, which is no longer used by default. That problem wasn't with the console.

It seems input is always needed, unless it is an end user terminal for displaying information only. If the keyboard doesn't work for the terminal, then making that intentional doesn't make sense. It would make sense if it's a problem with the driver for a non-standard like bluetooth keyboard: you said it works here, so that can't be the case.
 
Xorg or Xf86 for a past release of FreeBSD had a similar problem, where the default was for Xorg to not take in Keyboard input. I searched for the answer through a search engine, and I found it in a forum, perhaps this forum. I had to change an AllowEmptyInput setting in xorg.conf, which is no longer used by default. That problem wasn't with the console.

It seems input is always needed, unless it is an end user terminal for displaying information only. If the keyboard doesn't work for the terminal, then making that intentional doesn't make sense. It would make sense if it's a problem with the driver for a non-standard like bluetooth keyboard: you said it works here, so that can't be the case.

Yeah, Xorg can be a pain to get input sometimes, but this actually is a configuration issue, atleast you could drop back to the TTY and type still to try and resolve the issue, this wasn't possible at all on Linux, you couldn't even type into the terminal from the provided ISO which is my issue regarding this. The fact that the distributed ISO don't even offer functional working input to be able to even install.
 
The Xorg thing with AllowEmptyInput was a combination of being stuck with the very old release of Xorg because FreeBSD couldn't use the newer one until we got KMS and the related drivers into the kernel and misinformation about the setting on the net, even on these forums.
 
You installed a fresh installation of the older version that worked?

Everyone makes mistakes when code gets gutted and improved. When attempting to make something more efficient, something else often inadvertently gets left out. They have to troubleshoot, and figure out what it was. It happens when Clang is better than GCC, but most code was made for GCC, and there are parts that Clang hasn't covered. Others' and my problem with Linux distributions, is SystemD, and stuff like that.
 
Well, a system is like a big FSM. With no I/O it can be minimized to {0}, which you did. Good job, full marks.

And yes, others screw up also, everybody does. Since 11.0 the ACPI C states no longer work for me.

But I want to friendly remind the kind ladies & gentlemen here that flaming around gets stuff closed and deleted, especially when penguins are threaded up.
 
Your post seems to suggest that you think that Linux developers are some sort of group of blubbering idiots who don't understand what they're doing.

Clearly that is not the case. Most Linux developers are smart; probably smarter than I am. Has Linux (ecosystem as a whole, not just kernel) made some decisions that I think are unwise? Sure. But if you look at *why* those decisions were made then they often have a rational reasoning behind. Not necessarily a reasoning I agree with, but rational and well-thought out nonetheless. Sometimes reasonable people can disagree.

As for your keyboard not working, not sure what the problem is there. You could try toggling the "legacy USB mode" option that most BIOS settings have. There's also a iommu setting that some have reported that can help.

Getting something like the keyboard working sounds simple, but in reality Linux has to support 20+ years of hardware in which there have been a bunch of fundamental changes to how things work (DIN -> PS/2 -> legacy USB -> modern USB). There are tens of thousands of different mainboards in total,some probably have specific quirks that "happen to work" on Windows. I don't envy the people that have to support all that stuff.

It's not just Linux that has had issues with this. I remember FreeBSD (8 IIRC) having a bug with dropping characters in some cases as well, which is probably even worse than not working at all!
 
Your post seems to suggest that you think that Linux developers are some sort of group of blubbering idiots who don't understand what they're doing.

Agreed. Stating that Linux sucks in a topic title is provocative. I hope that you get your issues resolved
 
Lots of strange comments made by a few folks here.

So, a tiny bit of intro from myself. I have been using Linux since ... I think
2004 or so, so quite some time. My favourite distributions/concepts are found
in slackware, GoboLinux and Linux from scratch mostly. I compile everything
from source (well, almost ... 99% or so) with a set of ruby scripts, all
available online under a permissive licence (GPLv2.0 mostly; I use BSD/MIT
style licence too, LGPL as well - but I am not going into the why here, this
is just a little bit of intro).

Anyway.

I guess everyone knows IBM Red Hat's systemd, so I will not comment much on
it. Instead, Amzo made a few statements, and others made ... strange follow-up
comments, and I will reply to a few things.

First, the keyboard input situation:

(1)

> the fact that there was no keyboard input (Which should be expected out of the box)

Completely agree here.

sidetone wrote:

> You installed a fresh installation of the older version that worked?

> Everyone makes mistakes when code gets gutted and improved. When attempting
> to make something more efficient, something else often inadvertently gets
> left out. They have to troubleshoot, and figure out what it was. It
> happens when Clang is better than GCC, but most code was made for GCC,
> and there are parts that Clang hasn't covered. Others' and my problem
> with Linux distributions, is SystemD, and stuff like that.

Yes, we are all aware of this. The various different build tools are a wonderful
example - meson/ninja, cmake, GNU/autoconfigure. They all behave differently
and allow the end user different things. And often don't allow for feature
parity.

So we all end up with this:


But actually, 200 different standards and all having their own subtle bugs and
oddities.

It's quite annoying if you think about it. Should software development be so
brittle and error-prone?

Carpetsmoker wrote:

> As for your keyboard not working, not sure what the problem is there. You
> could try toggling the "legacy USB mode" option that most BIOS settings
> have. There's also a iommu setting that some have reported that can help.

> Getting something like the keyboard working sounds simple, but in reality
> Linux has to support 20+ years of hardware in which there have been a
> bunch of fundamental changes to how things work (DIN -> PS/2 -> legacy
> USB -> modern USB). There are tens of thousands of different mainboards
> in total,some probably have specific quirks that "happen to work" on
> Windows. I don't envy the people that have to support all that stuff.

> It's not just Linux that has had issues with this.

I think you misunderstand what happened, so I can give you an example.

I have tried out some linux distribution recently, some based on systemd.

That one went straight into xorg-server, but there was a problem in the
setup where the mouse was working (in xorg) but the keyboard was not
working properly.

So I, as a user, would be locked down in such a system. Every time I would
try to modify the system to my needs, systemd would act as a barrier
of complexity. It provides nothing I need, yet it causes issues, with
something simple as above. If the default boot would be to runlevel 3,
which systemd aggressively eliminated, we could log in to a non-xorg
server terminal and try to fix things or look at what is wrong.

I am somewhat ok at figuring out what I have to do with xorg-server
to get mouse + keyboard working, but with systemd I have to figure
out what is going on, where things are going wrong. All for functionality
THAT ALREADY IS KNOWN TO WORK RELIABLY ON THE VERY SAME HARDWARE that
I have been using.

So from this point of view, I can completely understand Amzo.

I guess the whole point of systemd, as it is used, is to hide as much
information as possible from the user. To me this is a hostile idea
to Linux as a whole.

I disagree with Amzo that one should move away from Linux because of
systemd. Quite the opposite, you need to oppose corporate clowns such
as those paid by IBM Red Hat (which admittedly pays a lot of developers
who, SURPRISE SURPRISE, will cheer up any stock increase they can get).

Linux works perfectly fine and it is important to remain flexible and
open, which is another reason why systemd should be rejected. But the
issue is not "just" about systemd alone; it's also how upstream
developers and distribution creators abused downstream users. It does
not affect me since I can use non-systemd variants of linux just fine.
But semi-casual users? They are sort of stuck. It's like the ultimate
trojan horse on a boat ride for them.

ShelLuser wrote:

> No offense intended but I get the impression you're blaming the tools
> for your own mishaps.

I don't think so.

You can use this straw man attack from you on EVERY component available,
no matter the complexity - you can always say "hah, you fudged up because
you are a clueless noob". So who is wrong now - the person who does
not have enough knowledge? The corporate hackers who create an increasingly
complex system that becomes more and more brittle, with an ever-increasing
attack surface?

I believe that ultimately tools should be simple, as simple as possible,
but also should cover useful use cases sufficiently well.

The xorg-server is admittedly a pretty crappy piece of work altogether.
Wayland has its own problems, look at KDE plasma support and the problems
here or nvidia drivers.

> you blame "Linux" (which is basically only the kernel)

That is just pointless nitpicking. When people use the word Linux
colloquially or what else do you think will people refer to when
they use FreeBSD? Do they refer only to a kernel? Only to a server
system? If not, and you include xorg-server, then why would you
draw this distinction with "Linux" and not include the ecosystem,
but would do so for freebsd? How many applications would you then
include as part of freebsd? 100? 200? 5000? Why would any number
here be better or more accurate?

So sorry, that is just nitpicking.

> while your mishaps seem to sit mostly with Arch.

While individual distributions are largely at fault (Arch killed
itself, quality-wise), there are recurring themes. One is systemd;
another one is admittedly the xorg-server.

It's no problem when you can work around it, but just the above
example of infinite boot loop lockup when you get booted into
a running instance of the xorg-server but your keyboard is not
working, you can do ... what exactly in this setup?

So I think you are missing his point a lot.

> Or your own doing. I mean; when I read that you "automatically
> log on as root" then that seriously makes me shudder at the
> though of all the mishaps that could have come from that

Ah, really? What is going to happen? Aliens will abduct him because
he has as user id the value 0? Really?

Or do you think that the keyboard not working is connected to
him being the superuser?

I can happily tell you - I am the superuser here and xorg-server
works fine. The keyboard works too AMAZING! No green aliens
hijack my system.

The thing is that his problems have NOTHING to do with him being
superuser or any other lower user id. You just focus on it because
it annoys you. Of what concern is it to you?

The problems he described have nothing to do with the arbitrary
number he is using as the user ID.

> (and likely have come from it, but... that's my own biased
> assumption).

It is not just biased - it is flat out wrong and you should apologize
for assuming this.

> See: you say "Kernel 4.17" but what exactly does that mean?
> Do you grab the kernel source from the distributions own
> repositories or did you grab 'm from kernel.org?

Does it matter?

Keyboard support should work out of the box. It does so for sane
distributions. Granted, he is using arch rather than the true
successor to arch (voidlinux) so it is his own wrongdoing anyway.
And he is basing his comments on his experience with arch
mostly - arch went downhill way before systemd, ever since
judd left. New people change projects and often to the worse.

> I'm also missing (or overlooking) the part where you grab an
> Arch or Debian install/rescue disk and try to boot from it
> to see what happens next.

Quite frankly - I think a system needs to be WORTH your time in
trying to fix it. And many systems are really setup incorrectly
out of the box (or crippled - see debian systems; why is mkmf
removed from ruby out of the box, on debian?).

> You only seem to address your own system which, once again
> no offense intended, seems a bit tainted to me considering
> the comments above.

No, I think your analysis was very wrong.

You need to realize that a lot of complexity was added into the
linux ecosystem as a whole, for barely any real benefit.

There is, of course, hope on the horizon - e. g. projects such
as linux from scratch and beyond linux from scratch. Now THAT
is actually what is really helpful - and they went a dual-route
e. g. have information both for systemd-free and systemd-tainted
systems.

I guess you may be more likely to be able to compare it the
moment freebsd will become dependent on systemd. When I wear
a mischievousness hat then I think this is precisely what
freebsd needs - if only to get the freebsd folks to understand
the larger problem domain here.
 
I guess the whole point of systemd, as it is used, is to hide as much
information as possible from the user. To me this is a hostile idea
to Linux as a whole.

No, it is very important to hide some information from the citizen, because such information might unsettle them.
This is totally in line with most other social and cultural proceedings in the current western world.
 
Linux powers one of the fastest supercomputers on this planet. It powers most of the servers on the Internet. Google runs Linux. It's an incredibly powerful system in the right hands. If you dismiss it on these grounds then - oh, dude - I can point you to so many surprises in FreeBSD you will be running away like there's no tomorrow. Besides, bashing Linux doesn't show this forum in a good light at all. Many smart people use and love Linux.
 
Linux powers one of the fastest supercomputers on this planet. It powers most of the servers on the Internet. Google runs Linux. It's an incredibly powerful system in the right hands. If you dismiss it on these grounds then - oh, dude - I can point you to so many surprises in FreeBSD you will be running away like there's no tomorrow. Besides, bashing Linux doesn't show this forum in a good light at all. Many smart people use and love Linux.
I agreed. Linux is wonderful.
 
I disagree with Amzo that one should move away from Linux because of
systemd.
Why? Well, I wouldn't ever say someone should do anything when it comes to choosing one OS or tool over the other -- but at least, moving away from Linux is a viable option. I moved from doing everything with Debian to doing everything with FreeBSD quite some time ago and found many things solved better that I wasn't too happy about with Linux, but I have to admit that for me, systemd was the trigger to finally try something else.

That is just pointless nitpicking. When people use the word Linux
colloquially or what else do you think will people refer to when
they use FreeBSD? Do they refer only to a kernel? Only to a server
system?
This might be nitpicking, given the fact that people very often refer to Linux as a whole system including software distribution, so it's wrong, but you have to live with it and everyone understands the meaning. Not a huge problem. It's just a bit unfair in terms of credit.

But your comparison is of the apples vs pears kind. FreeBSD includes a userland, even in the same source repository as the kernel, delivered to the user as a whole and runnable OS. This is already a huge difference, Linux indeed "only" delivers a kernel, so you need quite a lot of other tools to make it a complete OS. Additionally, FreeBSD also delivers the ports tree, that's used to build all the packages of third party software. So, that involves all the work that distributions do in the Linux world.

Neither Linux nor FreeBSD include e.g. Xorg. But FreeBSD distributes Xorg packages ready to run on FreeBSD -- Linux doesn't distribute any packages.
> Or your own doing. I mean; when I read that you "automatically
> log on as root" then that seriously makes me shudder at the
> though of all the mishaps that could have come from that

Ah, really? What is going to happen? Aliens will abduct him because
he has as user id the value 0? Really?

Or do you think that the keyboard not working is connected to
him being the superuser?
Are you serious here? Sure, I doubt this keyboard problem is related to running Xorg as root, but I wouldn't even bet on it. The point is: someone running Xorg as root proofs that his knowledge still needs some improvement. And indeed, running things as root can trigger unexpected problems, e.g. because there is some software out there trying to protect the user against unintended consequences by just deliberately refusing to work as root.
 
Linux powers one of the fastest supercomputers on this planet.
Correction: It runs every single one of the 500 fastest supercomputers on the planet. As of roughly a year ago, there is no serious supercomputer that's running an OS other than Linux. (I should add a footnote here: this only applies to machines whose existence is publicly known; it is possible that the secret intelligence agencies have even faster computers, and don't run Linux, but I find that very unlikely.) One should also add the next category, namely ...

It powers most of the servers on the Internet. Google runs Linux.
In particular, Linux runs on the vast majority of large cloud providers or internet data centers; most of those machines are not visible to the public.

I agreed. Linux is wonderful.
I wouldn't go that far. I use Linux, heavily at work, somewhat at home. It has many advantages, and some disadvantages. Some parts of it really annoy me, but most of it is fine to use. For many jobs, it is the correct solution. Other operating systems have different advantages and disadvantages. I use FreeBSD for my home server, because there are fewer things on it that annoy me, and it does that job really well. This doesn't imply value judgement, nor do I claim that it scales to all other uses.
 
Linux powers one of the fastest supercomputers on this planet.
Those are highly modified custom versions of Linux.
Google runs Linux.
When asked why, one of the founders said, "Cause it's what we used in school. It was what we were used to." And no other reason.
If you dismiss it on these grounds then - oh, dude
Most complaints about Linux are directed at desktop usage by every day users. Because it's so popular, you get 80% kids on reddit exclaiming how glorious Linux is and, therefore, everything else sux.

At one time, years ago, we on this forum, and those before this one, considered Linux a cousin of ours and there was always friendly banter back and forth about technical issues and considerations. Owing to my remark about the kids of reddit, and elsewhere, too many people read the headlines and not the facts. Such social media is poison and is the sledgehammer that has destroyed any chance of civil discourse in the world.
 
I think it is incorrect to expect human input as a part of the basic system. Of course, most use cases require some kind of input. However, there are surely embedded scenarios that should be run without any kind of input - for example, billboards and other kinds of non-interactive displays. Refreshing the information on screen triggered by a timer or something.

With that said, the input capability should be configurable and definitely present on an installation medium. That's for sure! But bugs happen, that's life.
 
Most complaints about Linux are directed at desktop usage by every day users. Because it's so popular, you get 80% kids on reddit exclaiming how glorious Linux is and, therefore, everything else sux.

I certainly agree with this. Seasoned sysadmins using Linux day to day are still some of the most knowledgeable and technical people I know and I very much enjoy my conversations with them.

However Linux gamers / consumers just want more! More games, more speed, more GUI effects, more Wayland, more bootup speed, more, more, more!!!11
They do not consider that there may be use-cases for Linux other than hobbiest gaming toys. Thank god that many of them still live in the Windows world. I actually hope Microsoft keeps their successful desktop PC reign and the users locked behind their walls; away from us and what remains of GNU/Linux.
 
I actually hope Microsoft keeps their successful desktop PC reign and the users locked behind their walls; away from us and what remains of GNU/Linux.
You don't have to hope, they will! It is the users that keep themselves locked behind those walls, not Microsoft.
 
Back
Top