Thank You, LTT, For Giving Linux A Fair Shake

[Novasty]

3 minutes ago, Aremis said:

they can give their reasons to only use one distro and if the linux tards are mad at it they can be pointed to phoronix or L1T.

Why don't they just do that to begin with and not give half-assed data points that don't mean anything?

 

If Linux benchmarks have to be provided, then it better be provided properly, or people will just make another piece of criticism of their benchmarking workflow which will again, just add to the overall workload. It doesn't financially make sense.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

I'm not commenting on GN Steve; heck I don't even know the guy. I'm just responding to the Linux negative comments based on misconceptions or other erroneous data.

Understandable.

[ARikozuM]

7 minutes ago, Novasty said:

Why don't they just do that to begin with and not give half-assed data points that don't mean anything?

 

If Linux benchmarks have to be provided, then it better be provided properly, or people will just make another piece of criticism of their benchmarking workflow which will again, just add to the overall workload. It doesn't financially make sense.

[gasp] You mean deal with ...

 

the scientific method ...

[gasp]

 

My worst nemesis! 

 

/s

[RonnieOP]

47 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Sigh! You still don't get it.

viable

adjective

 

US 

 

 /ˈvɑɪ·ə·bəl/

 

 

able to exist, perform as intended, or succeed:

The company had to seek other ways to remain viable.

He would be a viable candidate for any office he wanted to run for.

Not wanting to learn something new does not make it not viable.

 

Your not proving what i said as wrong here.

 

Not everyone has the time to learn a new OS as well as new alternative programs. Hence why its not viable for everyone. "Works as intended" that depends on the person and what they want or need from their OS.

 

If you have the time and patience to learn a new OS thats great. Not everyone does.

 

I dont have the time to learn linux. And if i had time to learn all the basics then theres going to be take even more time to learn how to get all my games/programs working or using alternative programs.

 

So linux is not viable for me (as well as a lot of people).

 

"Just learn it" is a horribke argument. 

 

Your right now everyone is happy with windows. That doesnt mean they will be happy with linux either. 

[Kilrah]

4 hours ago, Aremis said:

They don't have to build their channel on it, just a mention on the side would be enough.  See my above posts.

LTT somewhat and GN a lot more so have built their channels on comprehensive and accurate numbers. A "mention on the side" or a "quick run" doesn't cut it and would tank them becasue people expect that when they do something they do it right and thoroughly. What distro? Should you do it with 10 different ones or will you get comments from mad people when you didn't include their distro?

 

Business idea for you, start a channel doing that for your community. If it's worth it you should be successful. 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

19 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Your not proving what i said as wrong here.

 

Not everyone has the time to learn a new OS as well as new alternative programs. Hence why its not viable for everyone. "Works as intended" that depends on the person and what they want or need from their OS.

 

If you have the time and patience to learn a new OS thats great. Not everyone does.

 

I dont have the time to learn linux. And if i had time to learn all the basics then theres going to be take even more time to learn how to get all my games/programs working or using alternative programs.

 

So linux is not viable for me (as well as a lot of people).

 

"Just learn it" is a horribke argument. 

 

Your right now everyone is happy with windows. That doesnt mean they will be happy with linux either. 

  You aren't paying attention. First, the main issue here is you do not understand what viable means nor, apparently, do you want to learn what it means. Go back and READ the definition of viable.

 

Not having time to learn Linux is a valid reason. That does not mean it isn't viable. It means it isn't practical for you. Just because you feel you don't have time to learn it, doesn't mean it isn't capable of meeting your needs.

 

Second, I never said "just learn it". The closest I ever came to that was, "Linux is very much a practical and often better option if they are willing to unlearn Windows and learn how to use Linux from the ground up instead of expecting Linux to just be another version of Windows." That doesn't come close to "just learn it".

 

Third, I never said everyone is happy with windows.  There are a lot of people who are unhappy with Windows.

 

Fourth, you have made it abundantly clear you have no idea what Linux actually is, how it works (for example, you seem to think you have to use terminal commands for everything), or what it is capable of. These erroneous assumptions of yours are what I have been trying to address and you keep rejecting.

 

Since you are unwilling to pay attention to (or are incapable of understanding) what I'm saying, I'm through arguing with you. And, before you can say it, it doesn't mean you "won".

[RonnieOP]

4 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

  You aren't paying attention. First, the main issue here is you do not understand what viable means nor, apparently, do you want to learn what it means. Go back and READ the definition of viable.

 

Not having time to learn Linux is a valid reason. That does not mean it isn't viable. It means it isn't practical for you. Just because you feel you don't have time to learn it, doesn't mean it isn't capable of meeting your needs.

 

Second, I never said "just learn it". The closest I ever came to that was, "Linux is very much a practical and often better option if they are willing to unlearn Windows and learn how to use Linux from the ground up instead of expecting Linux to just be another version of Windows." That doesn't come close to "just learn it".

 

Third, I never said everyone is happy with windows.  There are a lot of people who are unhappy with Windows.

 

Fourth, you have made it abundantly clear you have no idea what Linux actually is, how it works (for example, you seem to think you have to use terminal commands for everything), or what it is capable of. These erroneous assumptions of yours are what I have been trying to address and you keep rejecting.

 

Since you are unwilling to pay attention to (or are incapable of understanding) what I'm saying, I'm through arguing with you. And, before you can say it, it doesn't mean you "won".

You make nothing but assumptions in this post.

 

Show me where i said linux was nothing but command lines? Not once have I brought up command lines.

 

Ive used linux. I am far from a linux expert (nor have i claimed tobe). but I have used it and have a few basic machines with various distros right now.

 

 

Im not confused at all on the definition of viable is.

vi·a·ble

/ˈvīəb(ə)l/

adjective

adjective: viable

capable of working successfully; feasible.

 

fea·si·ble

/ˈfēzəb(ə)l/

adjective

adjective: feasible

possible to do easily or conveniently.

 

You even say not having time to learn linux is a valid reason.....which proves that its not viable for a lot of people. Since if you dont have time to learn it, it is not capable of working successfully.

[Slottr]

-Locked-

While there *was* some decent conversation cooking here, if you intend to have a

war in someone else's thread, please take it to your pm's.