This is a primary reason why I2P (Invisible Internet Project) exists. Its much less centralized than Tor, mixes other peoples' traffic with yours by default, and over the years has typically used stronger encryption than Tor. Its just more private and secure overall.

The people who make the TAILS distro recognize Tor's shortcomings which is why they include I2P along with Tor. I2P isn't built to outproxy to the regular web (although it can), but you do get the ability to do fully decentralized/anonymized messaging and torrents, for instance, along with hidden websites. On top of being more private than Tor, its a protocol that's meant for general purpose use.

https://geti2p.net/en/

Its demonstrably UNtrue, otherwise Apple and Microsoft would not still be viable companies. "Plenty of people" apparently does not define the whole consumer electronics market.

That you think Chrome OS belongs in the Desktop Linux category is instructive... But Google doesn't even identify Chrome OS as Linux. They could switch to a different, closed kernel and hardly anyone using Chromebooks would notice or care. That's because a Chromebook is a type of mainframe terminal or client, not a personal computer (it may be converted to a PC, but that's not its design).

The tragedy is that you can't even give a Desktop Linux distro away for free despite how awful that Windows experience has been.

Perhaps I should start using stronger words than "numbskull" for these true believers.

The reasons why GP is far from an excellent reply:

1. Anecdotes are not data. Doubly so if its someone who lives with you.

2. Native apps still matter because they attract a wide-ranging ecosystem of talented people who move between native apps and the Web, and...

3. ...That range of people between grandma and kernel developers form networks of support and advocacy. If the Power Users don't like your pile of bytes called an OS, the more creative ones won't start writing interesting apps for their non-techie friends and colleagues, and they won't recommend the OS either.

4. People depend on the 'look and feel' of software environments. Its what enables tech support staff to deliver *usable* instructions in a way that doesn't feel threatening to users, and also to get reliable answers from those same users. Having a well-defined GUI is important, but Linux is very slippery in this area.

There are many more reasons why GP represents nerdy myopia and wishful thinking. Perhaps the most important one is that Apple and Microsoft laid down, by example, a de-facto definition of what Desktop Personal Computer is. The FOSS community actively sabotages itself whenever it tentatively tries to reverse engineer the *concept* of the desktop PC; I think most of those numbskulls would define it as some kind of aberration that needs to be stomped out. Where "platform" is supposed to evoke (feature) stability and recognizable surroundings, the Desktop Linux crowd instead create this.

The obligatory Slashdot-Linux-enthusiast defense of "Desktop Linux for my relative" never ceases to make me chuckle. I can always spot the authentic ones, because they contain the "we have the Web so who needs a native UI or native apps" meme.

I think Chris is talking about this: https://www.trulyergonomic.com...

I've wondered for a long time how nice it would be to have keys without the horizontal staggering. What deters me is the impossibility of getting the same built into a laptop.

I would buy a Unicomp if they still made the spacesaver model; the usual 104 key boards are too wide for me.

The Matias mini I opted for is a pleasure to type on, however. I can see why the OP likes them.

Modding down. Leaders of an organization are not just random rank-and-file members.

Anyone who looks back in my posting history will see that I have long, LONG advocated for tackling the UI and packaging paradigms on FOSS desktops because they choke-off interest from the type of creative person who develops apps. (Even worse, they scare away people who would like to experiment and become budding app developers, so those people cut their teeth on OSX or Windows almost as a rule.)

PC tools are supposed to link the user with the power and features of the underlying hardware, making them at least discoverable in the GUI; In other words, there must be lots of vertical integration. Also... the GUI must have a 'gist' or feel consistent because this is a sign of feature-stability in the OS.

What FOSS has is a bunch of developers who tinker with the OS itself (I include the GUI in this, as it rightfully belongs in the category of OS) and assume that anyone who understands how a system works internally can trivially design GUI features... a big, big flaw in what is not so much an articulated belief as an unhealthy attitude. This is part of the subconscious of the FOSS world, and it results in maladies like not being able to describe fixes and workarounds (or just general usage instructions) as GUI snapshots and walkthroughs (almost always, the user will be directed to the CLI); It means even seasoned tech support personnel will struggle to interpret DEs and other UI features they are not very familiar with. Just getting to the point where your cousin or boss can try out your creations is hell.

App developers should have the power to create exceptions for UI features in their *apps* (I said apps, not OS), because that embodies the two things app developers subconsciously look for: power and feature-stability. The default behavior is always the OS way (i.e. ONE way) out of respect for all users in general; If the default behavior/appearance is ten possible ways, then the app developer feels like they are managing chaos instead of power.

My 'remedy' for the FOSS OS problem would be for a distro like Ubuntu to shed its identity as a "Linux distro" because the Linux moniker just confuses people at this point; and to take full control over the UI design so that it conforms more to a single vision (something that is apparently already under way). Pretty much all of the OS except the kernel should be original to the project or forked and, as Google did for a while with Android, Canonical should threaten to fork the kernel if that is necessary to improve the UX.

I'll also point out that Ubuntu has gotten some meta-features that were typically missing from a Linux distro, like a full-blown SDK and extensive whole-system hardware compatibility tests and searchable database. What would remain to be done beyond this is to standardize on a GUI IDE (with capabilities like Xcode) and extend the hardware program to include a certification process (with licensed emblem) that system and peripheral manufacturers can use in a straightforward way.

Also, packaging is a whole other cup of worms, though I personally think emulating OSX app folders would be a good foundation for easily-redistributed apps. This means that an OS repository would have to stop at some well-defined point instead of trying to mash all the apps and OS together along with the kitchen sink.

It probably has something to do with letting Rupert Murdoch and his cronies run the country, too. Seriously, he controls about 70% of the media there and Abbott would not be in power now if Murdoch hadn't declared war on the Labor party.

You forgot AppArmor, which is one of the most widely-used on Linux. Of course, I'd much rather have Qubes' isolation mechanisms so that my banking, work and leisure activities (and even my NICs) don't even share the same virtual machine -- My data sets are kept separate and the interfaces between those domains are simple and very strong.

It would be interesting to see a Xen hypervisor implemented in silicon, as that is what Amazon EC2 and Qubes OS base their security on. Qubes doesn't even use kernel-based permissions for its single-user desktop model; It gives you the means to control dom0 and everything else resides in VMs.

Easy. For both the homeowner checking his gutters as well as a airplane pilot flying overhead, self-preservation is a big factor.

OTOH, third parties flying vehicles around other people is an inherently callous (and cowardly) act.

'Denial' isn't just a river in Egypt.

Quadcopters are dangerous, and those are just the toys that don't carry packages across town.

This is a question of public safety being sacrificed to suit Amazon's corporate goals and customers who will pay premiums for faster service.