>"Even if all 1 million downloads turn into real OS installs, it's a drop in the bucket compared to Windows installs."

True. But if even if a small number of those people then show someone else and that other person switches, and on, and on, awareness keeps spreading. That is a great thing.

Generally, I don't care what OS people use (as long as I don't have to support it), but I do care if they are unhappy. Having Linux as an option is really great and works fantastically for a large number of people willing to really try it. The fact that it is free, fast/efficient, has no licensing mess, is more secure, more privacy-oriented, more controllable, more customizable, more open, easier and faster to update, and without forced cloud crud, no AI creep, no ads or nagware, and very little fake/forced hardware "obsolescence" all make it a very compelling option for lots of use cases. Not all use cases, but a surprisingly large number.

>"However, after Microsoft's recent announcement their own updates have broken their own system [slashdot.org] combined with no longer supporting W10, this can only lead to good things."

Microsoft obviously has its own agenda that doesn't mesh at all with what many (perhaps even most) users want now. And it shows. As MS-Windows has gotten significantly worse and more hostile over the decades, Linux/distros have gotten significantly better. Even people who haven't tried it in 5 years are often pleasantly surprised.

I tend to point people to Mint, but Zorin might be just fine, as well (I just have no experience with it).

>"I need an OS that I can plug a sound card into, start up my machine and it installs the driver and starts working"

Generally, that is Linux. I have installed various Linuxes over decades on hundreds of various machines. For the most part, modern Linux detects all the typical hardware and just configures and uses it. There is no need to "install drivers".

>"I want GUIs for all common tasks and I want it intuitive enough the I'm not spending hours looking up"

Again, that is generally the case with modern Linux. All the good distros can be completely managed through a GUI.

Could you end up with trying to install a not-so-great distro on a machine that has some unusual hardware? And have to take a dive into stuff? Sure. But that is the exception, not the rule, at least not in 2025.

As I already said in the previous post:

"MacOS mostly doesn't really even use ~/.config, because, well, "Apple".

We don't know if Mozilla will do that on MacOS, which does not follow all Unix conventions. Especially desktop ones, of which this is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

>"Linux" appears ZERO times in the specification."

And yet, 99% of who this change will affect will likely be Linux users. MacOS mostly doesn't really even use ~/.config, because, well, "Apple".

>"This is a specification for UNIX. Linux copied from UNIX but is not UNIX."

If it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is probably a duck. Linux is Unix, in all ways that matter to anyone now (and for a long time before now). Worrying about exact Linux vs Unix vs UNIX vs Unix-like vs BSD vs POSIX is kinda no longer relevant.

>"Apps should keep their files in their own directories. Spreading them across a 1000 different directories makes no sense and just make uninstall a hassle"

It will still be in its own directory. Just in ~/.config/mozilla instead of ~/.mozilla

For example, LibreOffice stores its settings in ~/.config/libreoffice, GIMP is in ~/.config/GIMP, Thunar is in ~/.config/Thunar, VLC is in ~/.config/vlc, etc...

>"To date Firefox has just positioned all files under ~/.mozilla rather than the likes of ~/.config and ~/.local/share.

That is not technically correct. They have been using ~/.cache correctly for a very long time. So it is not *all* files. But it is true the other files have been in ~/.mozilla. I manage an ACTUAL multiuser system (something you rarely see today; yes, hundreds of different users each often running Firefox on that one machine), and even I don't care much that it is ~/.mozilla instead of ~/.config/.mozilla, but I will have to adjust a lot of scripts.

Sure. I would expect that each country would want to protect themselves from other countries.

>"This is about whether a hostile third party can affect a vehicle remotely because of manufacturer incompetence."

Oh, well, both are important :)

I have often wondered if it is reasonable to just find the antenna(s) and put a keyswitch across it/them, so you have absolute control over when/if they can be accessed remotely at all.

>"I will pause judgment until they conduct the same test on domestically made buses."

Most new vehicles have all kinds of spyware and remote control crap (mine certainly does). But, presumably, domestic ones are nowhere near as much of a threat than a foreign, potentially hostile nation-state.

>"12345" topping their list while "123456" dominates among everyone else.

Not a SINGLE system I use, and I use a LOT of systems, would allow such a stupid password. Granted, there are also tons of systems that go extreme in the other direction with requiring FAR too complex (which is also incredibly stupid). And the stupidest of all is password aging.

A reasonable password, coupled with rate limiting and lockouts, is very secure. It will not be broken by brute force on the "outside" of properly-configured systems.

>"I just had trouble looking at a comment on one of my posts yesterday because I can't get through the Cloudflare bot detector."

I had the same problem yesterday and this morning. I could not open any direct links to postings. Period.

Ironic because I recently posted on Slashdot about how dangerous it is that all these sites are handing over their accessibility to a single huge company like Cloudflare, and complaining that Slashdot was throwing bot checks against me all the time in the last few weeks (which it had never done before).

>"Ban the collection of these types of information about individuals beyond what is necessary for performing a service -and ban keeping any collected data longer than is necessary for performing the specific service. No database = no database searches."

+100.

My issue is that I don't believe they will abide by any data collection retention limitations, use limitations, or other limitations; regardless of the rules/law. Especially if the three-letter agencies have a tie-in, they will do whatever they want. The only real way to prevent abuse is to not have those in use at all.

I really think this is a losing battle. People will almost always give up liberty and privacy for safety and convenience.

>"I just bought a new Ford Maverick for my business. It came with built in cellular data hardware -not optional. They say it is for diagnostics, updates, maps, and wifi-hotspot. It comes with the 1st year of data connectivity included. They want me to pay for additional years (no thanks!)"

^^ This
I bought a new Ariya earlier this year. All the hardware is already there. 3 years of service included, then you have to pay. You can opt out of data collection, and if you do, you lose half the "connected" features.

>"Just an acknowledgement that there is more money to be made serving the rich."

Oh, there certainly is more money to be made there. But with far less volume. Most companies will try to have products of all ranges to cover all the market. That is true for most car manufacturers as well.

>"He's pointing out the obvious that there are lots of important issues and that isn't one of them."

It isn't terribly important to you or him (apparently). And it isn't all that important to me, either. But to many, it is very important.

>"Its being used to distract from those more important issues. Just as it is here."

His bringing it up here *is* a distraction. I am interested in the conversation about vehicle sales...

>"Yes. Why else do you Chinese cars are outright banned in this country? Plenty of people on Youtube drive these cars and yes they are better quality and literally half the price. Domestic auto makers are scared shitless."

Oh, I don't doubt that the banning of Chinese cars is protectionism but also security related. We aren't banning Korean or Japanese cars... or cars from anywhere else. Just China. More than one thing can be true at the same time.

I honestly don't know if the Chinese car ban is a net/overall good or bad. I can see both sides of the arguments are valid and neither seems substantially better than the other.