I gave Cinnamon a try shortly after your comment (I wiped my MBA's drive as I didn't have anything interesting on it under Kubuntu). I've got to say, I am impressed with it; it's a clean and friendly experience, and I haven't had any of the glitches I had under Kubuntu 25.04. Thanks for the recommendation!

I remain a little bit salty that even the most popular Linux distributions are still hit and miss; I'm wondering why it is that Mint Cinnamon can be so smooth while Kubuntu has so many rough edges. But at least it seems there's hope.

Well, what did you mean by "hardware that is explicitly not designed to run [Linux]" versus "parts that are designed/properly supported for Linux"? Every component in this laptop is recognized and supported by Linux, and yet the number of glitches make it rough to use. An Intel Mac is just a PC with a more specific set of components, and Linux has drivers for them.

I thought you were referring to hardware components which have been specifically advertised as supporting Linux (for example, some network cards say they work with Linux). These components are generally few and far between; it would be rare to find an older Windows PC that has Linux drivers for all of its components unless someone built it from parts for that purpose. Many Dells and HPs and Lenovos have some proprietary components.

Thank you for that! This may be the nudge I needed to try Mint; I didn't think it was very different (under the hood) from Ubuntu but I've heard good things. I'll go with the Cinnamon variant as that seems to be the most 'standard', but please do let me know if one of the other variants has been running smoothly for you.

Nobody has said that macOS is a good alternative for older PCs.

Meanwhile, people (like the person to whom I was originally replying, above) HAVE said that older PCs âoecould run Linux just fine.â Thank you for helping me refute that.

Now Iâ(TM)m curious, why is Ubuntu a dumpster fire and how is Puppy Linux so much faster?

Why should I try Puppy Linux? I find it hard to believe that Puppy Linux would be better supported, and would have fewer glitches on various PCs, than Ubuntu and its flavors.

I'm tired of hearing that Linux is a great alternative for older PCs. I recently installed Kubuntu onto a MacBook Air (2011) and:

* the current version's installer (25.04) hangs on boot, so I had to install a previous version and upgrade (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/2105402)
* it takes 20 seconds to wake from sleep (like https://askubuntu.com/questions/1434722/macbook-takes-20-seconds-to-wake-up)
* wifi occasionally drops out for a minute or two then comes back; I'm trying to update the BCM43224/brcmsmac driver but it won't install because it's looking for a domain that no longer exists (I saw a bug logged on this but I can't find it now)
* I get Qt errors displayed on the desktop when I log in, something about environment variables; the solutions I found didn't work
* any apps I install through the Discover app give me an error saying the installation failed, when it actually succeeded

This is similar to my experiences having installed Linux onto many PCs from 5-15 years old. Most of the experience is great, but it's those last few glitches that make it a pain to actually try to use Linux. And given that it's developed and supported by the community, the only way I can get these fixed is to research them, file a bug, and find other people affected by the problems. That's more than I have time to do - I only want to use it.

That was 12 years ago. A 12 year out of date critique of a web technology that has had ongoing language updates and two entire rewrites in that interval should be viewed with some suspicion. Also, are you really just citing the title of the article and none of the content?

I'm not even defending PHP here, just questioning lazy kneejerk, "but it sucked once, so now I hate it forever" thinking.

Prodigy is an excellent story ... with a caveat. Just like Star Trek: Discovery, the first few episodes are difficult to watch and have turned a lot of people away from the series before it gets great.

It answers the question "what if you put a Star Wars character into a Star Trek universe?" So it opens with a hotshot kid who bends all the rules so he can escape the mining colony where he's held prisoner. And he thinks he can do everything himself, and that he's cool and awesome. He's insufferable and all the other characters basically can't stand him.

By episode 5, he's gotten his tail handed to him a few times too many, so that's the point where he bucks up and accepts that he's part of a team ... and from there, the series beautifully goes into the principles of Star Trek, strength through diversity, boldly going, &c.

S1 is on Netflix right now, with S2 coming to it later this year. For anyone who's curious about it, I recommend watching it up through episode 6 "Kobayashi", which is a love letter from the writers to the fans. That should be enough to know whether it's to your liking.

I'll disagree a little bit: we have heavy lift rockets bringing mass to orbit at a greater rate than any time in history and new larger and more efficient rockets on the cusp of being brought to use, with next generations planned for the future. Space launch technology -- the actual raw launching of mass to orbit, where it can be useful -- has advanced. And mass to orbit means more fuel -- if we really wanted to get something out there faster.

And that's where our statements arrive at the same conclusion: there's little need to do anything but super efficient deep space probes. While I can quibble with your implied assertion about newer technology not making a difference in ability, in a practical sense given our funding of deep space research, the big tech upgrade has been to data collection devices and communication. We'll have to have way cheaper lift capability before extra fuel to cut time off a project makes any kind of sense. But it is now at least plausible as an option.

(Also, this appears to be the only thread that isn't making Trek or Aliens jokes)

I'm a veteran of the browser wars. I remember when Microsoft tried to snuff out its competition by including a fully-featured Internet Explorer with Windows, and justified this by saying that users wanted all the features of a best-in-class app.

I always wondered (sarcastically) why this didn't extend to their word processor, too. Why not include a fully-featured Microsoft Word with Windows?

Maybe now's the time to do that.

In 1998, Apple had recently purchased NeXT announced that Mac OS X would be built atop BSD Unix. There was talk about the potential benefits of Microsoft doing something similar with Windows, making the GUI a component on top of Linux.

I still think that would have been a good move. Microsoft would have benefited from getting a stable and proven multitasking OS (something which was only realized around the time of Windows 7, I'd say) with a broad set of drivers, and Linux would have gotten improvements it needed to provide better support to desktop GUIs.

Yep! Also the same Apple which refused to give the iOS source code to the Chinese government.

I don't mind Apple abiding by Chinese laws to make its hardware and software available in China. I am glad it hasn't bowed to pressure to make its hardware and software modifiable by China.

And not just Star Wars, but also Star Trek! Haven't any of them watched Picard season 3? Remember "Fleet Formation"?!

The fact that China is a surveillance state, whereas Apple has frequently and publicly resisted pressure to add back doors to its devices and software.

What are the other possible interpretations?