Windows and Linux have long taken different approaches to memory and the majority of the linux crowd has never understood it.

In linux, you've only had to deal with the memory actually requested by and allocated to applications. It's always been focused on servers and not the desktop. Windows has taken the view that unused memory is wasted memory. So, it's pre-fetched a lot of things into memory to keep the desktop experience smooth. These differences have made straight comparisons on memory usage between the OSs a futile effort for a very long time.

Yes, windows does have a baseline of what it considers a modern desktop experience that linux doesn't. So, you can get by with less on linux than you can on windows. You will also have faster boot times because you're loading less, have less polish, etc. But, at the end of the day, the overall experience is what matters to most people....which is why linux has never been a slam dunk for the majority of people. It's not just how fast the system boots, but the experience of using it. The PCs on the shelves take the current baseline requirements for Windows into account. So, it's usually years after buying the PC that linux becomes a reasonable proposition to some and the rest upgrade to a new PC.

Go to https://stallman-report.org/ and go down to the section on sexual misconduct. It's all been reported before. You just may not have seen it

People have always overlooked the fact Stallman is a nut because he also advocated for linux and did a pretty good job of it in the early days. But then I think he did a lot to sideline himself by appearing too extreme. When someone can see themselves in you, you can lead by example. But, people stopped seeing anything they had in common with Stallman.

The fact he always tries to coin juvenile little catch phrases doesn't help his case any: "internet of stings", "forbidden sharing", etc. Of course, the whole sexual misconduct thing stuck a fork in him, but he was already done.

I switched to linux in 1997 or so. You could find copies of Redhat Linux in CompUSA alongside Windows and, I believe, BeOS. It's hard to find a technical user who has never tried linux.That has never been the problem.

Now, let's see what these bloggers are running in a year. That has always been the issue. Right now, it's new and they are glossing over all the bugs and downsides. Let them run into apps not working or not available that they want to use...updates breaking things that they depend on... software they use being abandoned or being carried in directions they no longer like.. persistent bugs just not being fixed because the developers would much rather work on new features..

then, we will see if they stay with linux. Getting people to try it has never been the problem. Retaining those people has always been the problem. People get sick of Windows and jump to linux all the time. At some point, they begin to think "If I spent a tenth of the time in Windows settings that I spend maintaining my linux setup, then I would have probably had a nicer time in Windows" and they go back.

Um, just how much pee in the lemonade is too much?

Where is the dividing line between "This is a perfect amount of pee in my lemonade" and "this is too much pee in my lemonade"?

I wasn't aware anyone wanted to drink any amount of pee in lemonade. Now I have to revisit my recipe

Remember, Krita did it in the Windows store and was able to hire additional developers because of the success for it. A lot of people will pay to help the project on platforms where they're used to paying for software even if they know they can download it for free on the website.

Would be better if we had a link to the current report instead of just to the 2020 study

By that logic, every single person who tries to overclock their hardware is now "greedy".

I think a lot of people want to blame cryptominers so badly for the chip shortage, that they're failing to just step back and look at the actual situation.

I honestly fail to see how this makes them greedy. That's even casting aside the fact your whole point is only a point if both versions of the cards were available. They're not. We're in a chip shortage. You get what you can get.

Then, I fail to see how someone trying to get extra performance out of their purchase is greedy. If you buy an old laptop because that's all you can get, then install linux on it because it's faster than Windows on the hardware, are you now greedy?

This makes no sense

I fail to see how the majority of miners - people trying to pay for their cards and maybe put a little extra money in their pocket are "greedy".

Everyone likes to blame miners for the chip shortage and point out the big mining outfits, but miners had nothing to do with the chip shortage and it's affected every industry

It's not just Shakespeare either. The industry needs to realize that they're not just employing narrators. They're employing VOICE ACTORS. The best narrators don't just read the book, they bring the book alive. I currently go through 1-2 audiobooks a week during my commute. If they change to AI, I will change to only buying books narrated by humans. When that's no longer possible. I'll use my own software to narrate it much cheaper than the price of an audiobook. I'm not paying 3-6 times more for a voice to read a book to me. I'm paying for that voice to act out the book for me. I read 1-2 books a week as well in my free time. But, there are books and series that I will not read myself. I'll only listen to the audiobooks because the voice actor brings that much more to the table and the series wouldn't be the same without them.

It may be how humans approach the problem, but that doesn't mean it's an intelligent way to approach the problem or the right way.

If the decentralized nature of cryptocurrency allows you to move consumption to areas where waste is happening, then it's very plausible that cryptocurrency could be a more eco-friendly alternative to the current system, for example.

Or, like they're doing in Texas where they're beginning to mine cryptocurrency so solar power can remain connected to the grid and doesn't have to be switched out of it. This increases profitability for the solar generators and helps the switch to renewables. Remember, crypto is decentralized. You can ramp mining up or down easily to keep a minimum load on the grid.

"That's about 3800 times more credit cards transactions, which makes credit cards around 1500 times more energy-efficient than bitcoin."

Well no... you can't say that at all based on the number of transactions. The only way you could say that is if each method's energy consumption was proportional to the number of transactions it does. That's not the case with bitcoin and may not even be the case with the bank. What you can see is that they're manufacturing concern over bitcoin's footprint when having a footprint themselves that is 2.5x larger

I just listened to episode 441 of Linux Unplugged a few days ago and it brought much needed perspective to this. I'd recommend everyone head over to the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index put out by Cambridge University to really put things into perspective.

Basically, mining gold uses as much electricity as mining bitcoin. MANY things do. For instance, the current banking system consumes TWO AND A HALF TIMES more energy than bitcoin. But, more bitcoin transactions aren't a 1 to 1 comparison to energy consumption. So, why the focus on bitcoin?

It's easier to get payments around the world with bitcoin. Bitcoin is very popular and is a threat to the banking system's monopoly on currency transactions. So, take things out of context, demonize cryptocurrency and profit....

Actually, in the late 90s and even into the aughts, Linux was referred to as a "windows killer" and this article from 2000 makes reference to it commonly being called a windows killer