Tony Lawrence wrote:
However if you have a spare computer around you owe it to yourself to give Linux a spin.  Its free. Easy to use overall.  Uses less system resources and is fast.

I've been using Linux since 1995 or so. My workflow is RawTherapee and Gimp, which for the trivial things I do suffices (though I'm certain I use perhaps 0.1% of the features). For batch programming I use stuff like ImageMagick and jhead, or PIL if I'm coding in Python, though I'm sure all this is cross-platform. A program is intuitive only if you've used it before, the brief time I spent in front of Photoshop I was completely lost (as someone once stated, the only intuitive interface is the nipple). It's certainly worthwhile to explore multiple options, especially if they don't cost extra (other than taking the time to try them out).

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Programs like Darktable are fantastic.  https://www.darktable.org/

Agreed.  I use mostly Darktable and GIMP for photography.  Both are extremely powerful, cross-platform and open source.  Darktable's Filimic RGB module makes things easy.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
While there isn't a program as intuitive as Photoshop.

Completely disagree.  User comprehension of software relies on its graphical user interface, and there is nothing special nor more "intuitive" about Photoshop's GUI.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Apple's M1 and M2 are great they are also expensive.

The Linux kernel supports those chips.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
A few years back I tried to get my Canon Tl1 to tether with my Windows machine.  (I triple Windows, Linux and MacOS) I grabbed a copy of Canon's software with no luck.  I then tried Entangle on my Linux install with instant success.

Yep.  There are lots of ways to tether with Linux and open source software.

Sablesword wrote:
I'm a Unix-hater from way back, having imprinted on VAX VMS and DCL back in the stone knives and bearskin days. I find Linux/Unix to be intensely user-hostile ("users are lusers") with this user-hostility being bred deep into its DNA.

When using Linux, even neck-bearded elder hackers can screw up horribly, and that causes me to see the entrance to Linux as a great bronze door, engraved with letters of fire reading "...ABANDON ALL HOPE, YE WHO PRESS 'ENTER' HERE." Only I know that it's a hallucination as my mind refuses to contemplate the true unspeakable horror; the actual words are something more like "Ia! Ia! Ph'nglui mglw'nafh L'inux R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!" (with the corresponding SAN loss).

Windows may be Satanic, but Linux is Lovecraftian.

Sablesword wrote:
I'm a Unix-hater from way back, having imprinted on VAX VMS and DCL back in the stone knives and bearskin days. I find Linux/Unix to be intensely user-hostile ("users are lusers") with this user-hostility being bred deep into its DNA.

When using Linux, even neck-bearded elder hackers can screw up horribly, and that causes me to see the entrance to Linux as a great bronze door, engraved with letters of fire reading "...ABANDON ALL HOPE, YE WHO PRESS 'ENTER' HERE." Only I know that it's a hallucination as my mind refuses to contemplate the true unspeakable horror; the actual words are something more like "Ia! Ia! Ph'nglui mglw'nafh L'inux R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!" (with the corresponding SAN loss).

Windows may be Satanic, but Linux is Lovecraftian.

That reminds me of the parody, "Who Will be Eaten First?".

Seriously though, I do enjoy having Linux all around me, including in the event I run into something I cannot do with Adobe products but also because it is the foundation to the LAMP stack, which is just as interesting to me as photography, and also because it runs my old desktop which has Ubuntu, my cheap Dell server which runs Rocky Linux, my firewall machine which runs pfsense, as well as my Raspberry Pi that I got a 64MP Arducam for, and if that's not enough, well, my ISP has more Linux where that came from.  Like photography, computers are fun and can be profitable.  Learning how to use them can be a rush.  With respect to Microsoft products and the Adobe Creative Cloud, I could not be happier and firmly believe this is because of having started with a reputable mother board and sticking firmly to the approved hardware list, being very generous with the hardware and getting the most possible RAM, and next to the top of the line video card (to avoid starting a fire, partly).  As a result, I have no problems, everything runs real fast and smooth, and I have finally moved to a new video game, which I play on a big thirty four inch curved monitor.  This is the life, enjoying both the worlds through this one big monitor, helped along by people everywhere.

Sablesword wrote:
I'm a Unix-hater from way back, having imprinted on VAX VMS and DCL back in the stone knives and bearskin days. I find Linux/Unix to be intensely user-hostile ("users are lusers") with this user-hostility being bred deep into its DNA.

<snip-a-dee-do-dah>

Windows may be Satanic, but Linux is Lovecraftian.

Ahhh- Someone said "Linux" and woke up the energy creatures...

Opinions based on systems from the Paleozoic era might be suspect...If you are using a smart phone, with few exceptions, you are running an os that, at it's very kernel, is a *UX...carefully crafted to keep users out of places that they really, really have no business fiddling with.  Windows does the same thing through rights. 

PHPcat has the right idea...Linux for serious work (especially stuff that can be automated that you want to run in the background forever)....and Windows for gaming. 

However, he subject was "Photography and Linux" but most of the use cases are for applications that run ON Linux and there's a difference. Those free applications are Open Sores and, most all of them can be run on a Mac, too.  Sure, Linux is free, and it's powerful, but it cannot run a lot of commercial applications and the driver library for a lot of consumer stuff just doesn't exist.  MacOS is also free (well, included with the hardware), is well maintained, and is also a *UX at it's core.  So, it's the best of both worlds.  You can choose to use Darktable or ImageMagick or whatever if you like, or you can take advantage of commercial stuff to do things if it makes sense.  My captures are a proprietary format via a Firewire connector .  Given a few hours,  I could probably work out piping them through imagemagick to Darktable after finding the correct Firewire driver for my card and Linux distro...or I can just use the commercial stuff that "Just works". I do value my time and farting around for an hour to use an Open Sores solution doesn't make sense to me...and there is a Linux box running right next to my olde Mac Pro.

So, the expand the "Rule of PHPcat...."Linux for serious work (especially stuff that can be automated that you want to run in the background forever), MacOS if you just want (or need) stuff to work without hassle....and Windows for gaming

Studio NSFW wrote:
If you are using a smart phone, with few exceptions, you are running an os that, at it's very kernel, is a *UX...carefully crafted to keep users out of places that they really, really have no business fiddling with.

The kernel consists of core, low level workings that shouldn't involve the "UX" (user experience, user interface).  UX stuff should occur at a higher level than the kernel.

Studio NSFW wrote:
However, he subject was "Photography and Linux" but most of the use cases are for applications that run ON Linux and there's a difference.

Not sure what is the point of this statement.

Studio NSFW wrote:
Those free applications are Open Sores

Ha, ha! 
I find open source much more advanced and "cutting-edge" and exceedingly more secure than slow developing, opaque, privacy-invading, proprietary Crapple and Windbloze software.

Studio NSFW wrote:
and, most all of them can be run on a Mac, too.

Yep... and most of them can also be run on Windows.  Open source software is great!

Studio NSFW wrote:
Sure, Linux is free, and it's powerful, but it cannot run a lot of commercial applications

So, what?  Does that statement attempt to imply that commercial software is better than open source software?

By the way, Linux can and does run plenty of commercial applications, but it cannot run a proprietary application (directly) if the company doesn't port it to Linux.

Studio NSFW wrote:
and the driver library for a lot of consumer stuff just doesn't exist.

Huh?  Where did that information come from?  Linux has drivers for more devices than Windows and Mac combined.

I have been running Linux for over 20 years, and I cannot recall a single instance in which I was forced to manually install drivers.

Usually, the only time someone has a problem in Linux with a driver is when one tries to use the absolute latest version of a device, and the manufacturer doesn't (yet) provide a Linux driver.  In that case, the driver has to be reversed engineered.

Studio NSFW wrote:
MacOS is also free (well, included with the hardware), is well maintained, and is also a *UX at it's core.

Linux is actually free -- both "free as in beer" and "free as in speech" -- without the user being forced to buy an overpriced brand of computer.

In regards to the "core" of MacOS, that is generally considered to be the open source XNU kernel or the previously open source Darwin OS which encompasses the XNU kernel.  The proprietary Aqua graphics interface (the "UX") sits atop Darwin.

By the way, let the above passage about XNU sink in -- MacOS is open source at its very core!

Most active open source software is well maintained, with updates appearing more often and distributed more rapidly than the proprietary counterparts.

Studio NSFW wrote:
So, it's the best of both worlds.

MacOS is proprietary, like Windows.

Studio NSFW wrote:
You can choose to use Darktable or ImageMagick or whatever if you like, or you can take advantage of commercial stuff to do things if it makes sense.

One can do the same on Windows.

However, keep in mind that proprietary software is likely tracking the user, and almost all users are paying for each install of a piece of software.  Enjoy the registrations, pop-ups, limits on the number of installations and continual subscriptions!

Studio NSFW wrote:
My captures are a proprietary format via a Firewire connector .  Given a few hours,  I could probably work out piping them through imagemagick to Darktable after finding the correct Firewire driver for my card and Linux distro...

If this passage refers to tethering, it's built into Darktable.  Other Linux/Unix apps for tethering include Entangle, gphoto2 and Digikam.

Imagemagick is not something one would use for tethering.  That fact should be known by anyone who is familiar with Linux photography enough to speak with authority on the subject.

The firewire interface will work automatically with most Linux distros.  Here is someone booting the Debian Raspberry Pi Linux distro (somewhat obscure) from a USB thumb drive on a Macbook, to capture and batch compress footage from miniDV tapes.

Note that he just uses the dvgrab application for the capture through firewire, all of which happens automatically.

Studio NSFW wrote:
or I can just use the commercial stuff that "Just works".

Right.  Proprietary software always "just works."  /s

Studio NSFW wrote:
I do value my time and farting around for an hour to use an Open Sores solution doesn't make sense to me...

I value my time, as well, that's why I use unfettered and easy-to-use open source software, instead of having to register and deal with continual pop-ups and tracking of proprietary Crapple and Windbloze apps

Studio NSFW wrote:
and there is a Linux box running right next to my olde Mac Pro.

No doubt.  Is that the machine on which tethering with Imagemagick was considered?

Studio NSFW wrote:
So, the expand the "Rule of PHPcat...."Linux for serious work (especially stuff that can be automated that you want to run in the background forever), MacOS if you just want (or need) stuff to work without hassle....and Windows for gaming

Right.  Macs  NEVER  have  any  problems.  /s

Studio NSFW wrote:
If you are using a smart phone, with few exceptions, you are running an os that, at it's very kernel, is a *UX...

I use my phone for phone calls, text messages, and a very few other things where an absolute need for portability trumps everything else, including the miserable user experience. I do not use my phone for email, and I do not use the MM app.

That my phone runs a *nix variant underneath is not something that acts to endear *nix to me.

Studio NSFW wrote:
So, the expand the "Rule of PHPcat...."Linux for serious work (especially stuff that can be automated that you want to run in the background forever), MacOS if you just want (or need) stuff to work without hassle....and Windows for gaming

If only I could run MS Access on a Mac without hassle.  I know, there is PostgreSQL and MySQL and Oracle, etc. and then there is VMware but I would have seriously thought about switching to MacOS over a decade ago if I could run MS Access on a Mac like I can on a Windoze machine.  Also, if I could build my own machine, or get a used Mac without certain caveats I might try Mac OS, but it looks like too much of a hassle and I have never seen a Mac that was put together outside a factory.  I do have an apple phone, it does mostly work without a hassle, and I guess there is now an app I can use to SSH to my server, which is something I have once dreamed of having someday.  I am certainly not fed up with Windoze.  I just would not use it to run a server, and while it is my first choice for image editing, it's because I do rely on MS products like Access.  If I were a professional photographer, I just might use a Mac, but I am sure I would be paying way more for the hardware and feeling like I got less for my money.  Way less RAM, less cores, slower processor speed, smaller/fewer SSD, cheaper graphics.  I guess that's what makes my Windoze machine the best choice for gaming, but I would contend it's the best candidate for the Adobe Creative Cloud.  I would have to spend like fourteen grand to get a Mac Pro Tower with the capability of the machine I built for like half that.  In a way, that's also what makes Linux such a great candidate for some photographers, like those who don't want to spend much on hardware or software.  So if you have a old computer you are thinking of throwing out, you may want to watch a video or two about how to bring it back to life with Linux.  You might be surprised at how well it works but be prepared to spend plenty of time instead of money, at some point, and be prepared to start over and try some other approach at whatever it is you are doing, and be ready to consult message boards to see what worked for others in your situation.  If you have more money than time, choose Mac, unless you want to play video games or work on an Access db.

Studio NSFW wrote:
And, so far as "Do I know what ImageMagick does??!!" YEAH, I DO.  I used ImageMagick for a vBulliten forum I used to run for transcoding too large images into forum friendly sizes, sort of like MM could do if they gave a crap, Now, doYOU know what a "pipe"  (looks like this -> |  ) is?? Remember I said "Pipe it through ImageMagick to Darktable??"

Okay.  So you know what piping is, and you meant that you would adjust the images through ImageMagick and then send them into Darktable, captured by an unnamed piece of software.  Interesting... but not sure why one would do that.

Studio NSFW wrote:
Here's the deal, Darktable cannot read an .IIQ file, which is raw format for Leaf Credo and Phase One.  Image Magic, being a transcoder app, could maybe be put into an injest stream from whatever Open Sores software actually did the capture out to a format that Open Sores Dark Table could manage. So, that's three pieces of software to do what Capture one just does (and it's Free as in Beer if you are working in IIQ format, too)....Pity, Capture One doesn't run on Linux....

.IIQ files are supported in Darktable 4.2.x (current version), but that format has been supported in Darktable since at least the 2.6.x days.

So, one can tether, display and adjust the captured image -- all in Darktable.  No need for bloated Crapple nor Crapture One.

Studio NSFW wrote:
And driver availability.  Sure, there might be some Open Sores driver that would deliver some level of functionality...

Again, there are way more drivers for Linux than there are for Crapple and Windbloze combined.  There's also a lot of hardware that is incompatible with those two proprietary OS's while being automatically compatible with Linux.

Studio NSFW wrote:
but show me a linux driver to support my Roland VS-700 (R and C ) and maintain functionality of the faders.,

By the same token, I could ask you to show me MacOS running a Lionstracs Mediastation.

As I mentioned, if a manufacturer doesn't release a driver for an OS, that means that the driver would have to be reverse engineered for that OS.  Nobody is likely to bother reverse engineering a driver for something as obscure as the Roland VS-700.

Also, when you criticized Linux above for alleged lack of drivers, you specifically referred to consumer hardware.  A Roland VS-700 is hardly a consumer item.

Additionally, there are physical mixers compatible with Linux, but if you want your computer to control the audio adjustments, why is a hardware console necessary? 

Furthermore, Roland has discontinued their MacOS drivers for the VC-30HD, the VR-3 and the VR-5.  So, Crapple users who stuck with those items are SOL, unless they downgrade their OS from Big Sur and never upgrade.  Boo hoo!

Now, if Roland had simply released Linux drivers (or the source code) for those discontinued items, that hardware would have been indefinitely supported by a modern, up-to-date and secure OS.  Vendors who refrain from eventually releasing driver source code for discontinued items likely don't care much about their customers nor about their gears' longevity.

Studio NSFW wrote:
and support expanding onto my Octa-Capture and get the dB correct on the preamps for the Octa.

I think that there is some unfinished development for the Linux kernel in regards to the Octa-Capture, but, again, this hardware involves an unaccommodating manufacturer who doesn't release the necessary OS driver for a special, non-consumer product.

Furthermore, there are plenty of audio interfaces that work perfectly and automatically with Linux, especially the ones that are properly USB class compliant.  Here is a nice one.

Studio NSFW wrote:
Show me a linux driver for ANY commercial microscope that can handle simple z axis moves with micrometer precision.

I'll take your word that Linux drivers don't exist for those microscopes that are evidently controlled by a computer.  However, we are again talking about a special product in which the manufacturer simply refuses to make the proper driver available.

Studio NSFW wrote:
Hell,  Or  my silly little Shuttle Pro controller that I use for a Jog wheel when editing video..  None of those exist.  I could spend X number of hours mapping the shuttle pro to a keyboard

Here you go.

Studio NSFW wrote:
Still and all, It doesn't affect me at all if you choose to limit yourself with an Open Sores OS intended for servers for your creative output.

Likewise, it doesn't affect me at all if you choose to limit yourself with the bloated, privacy invading, walled garden, Crapple OS intended for a single-button mouse.

Studio NSFW wrote:
Good luck with that

Same to you.

Studio NSFW wrote:
I'll be over here shooting while you are re-compiling your kernel to get all the stupid HAM radio stuff out...

That's a real funny joke, but there is absolutely no need to ever compile anything with Linux (as anyone familiar with Linux should know), and there happen to be a few MM Ham operators who might take issue with your notion that their pursuit is "stupid."

phpcat wrote:
So if you have a old computer you are thinking of throwing out, you may want to watch a video or two about how to bring it back to life with Linux.  You might be surprised at how well it works but be prepared to spend plenty of time instead of money, at some point, and be prepared to start over and try some other approach at whatever it is you are doing, and be ready to consult message boards to see what worked for others in your situation.

I find that my Mac and Windows friends spend more time than me on message boards and at the "Genius" Bar, trying to get their computers to behave.

Studio NSFW wrote:
Interesting. So, the folks that build the systems in the TOP500, as well as the product managers for every commercial Linux based appliance I can think of (Nimble Storage, HPE Alletra, Pure Storage, Dell Isilon, DDN are a few that come to mind) don’t know anything about Linux?  Since every one of them chose to recompile the Kernal?

No.  My statement regarding the fact that it is unnecessary to compile a Linux kernel was a direct response to your statement in which you established the context of an end-user running Linux.

You said:

Studio NSFW wrote:
"I'll be over here shooting while you [an end-user] are re-compiling your kernel to get all the stupid HAM radio stuff [userland apps] out..."

So, since you don't seem to be able to keep track of context, I will clarify:  There is no need for 99.99% of end users to ever compile the Linux kernel.

It goes without saying (or at least I thought so, given the end-user context that you established) that distros compile their own kernels as do some sys admins and manufacturers.  Furthermore, since you brought up compiling, I would like to point out that the ability to compile the OS (and apps) is an obvious advantage of Linux and open source over proprietary OS's and proprietary software.

Studio NSFW wrote:
Maybe apply your Googling  skills to terms like “Attack surface reduction” and “Linux optimization “.

For end-users, optimization is already done by their chosen distros, and such generic Linux optimization makes most distros (and apps) snappier and leaner than MacOS and Windows.

For instance, a user who wants to do audio production might choose AV Linux with its high performance Liquorix kernel and its default collection of polished, professional audio apps.  On the other hand, a user may pick a sleek, minimal distro such as Tiny Core (which needs only 16MB to run with a graphics desktop!), to use on embedded systems, SOC boards, and older hardware.  Too bad such fundamental and advantageous optimizations can't be achieved with MacOS nor Windows.

In regards to "attack surface reduction" most Linux distros are significantly less vulnerable than MacOS and Windows.  Additionally, you can't see the code for those proprietary OS's nor for their proprietary apps.  Also, as I have mentioned, MacOS and Windows are tracking users.

Studio NSFW wrote:
Still, I am not surprised that someone who doesn’t understand the difference between an operating system and an application, cannot understand how you could possibly use an application built for transcoding for transcoding, and has trouble grasping the concept of a customized file processing pipeline...

No.  As I said earlier, I understand you meant that you piped the images through ImageMagick to format them so that Darktable could access them (after using some unnamed tethering package).  What is difficult to understand is why you would go through all that rigmarole, when you can simply use Darktable to tether, read your IIQ file and make the desired adjustments -- all in on fell swoop.

Studio NSFW wrote:
... also doesn’t understand that the greatest strength of Linux, and what differentiates it from the other *UXs , is the fact that it has a modular kernal.  Because no one who knows anything about Linux would care about that, right?

Not sure how you got that notion which you seem to imply about me.  Of course, one can never change the MacOs nor Windows kernels to ones liking, like they can on Linux.  However, 99.99% of end users never need to compile a special kernel, as that work is already done for them, depending on the distro one chooses.

Studio NSFW wrote:
You don’t even understand the operating system you are limiting yourself with.

Actually, I do understand Linux, and it sure seems like I understand it more than you do.  However, one of the major points that I am making is that one doesn't need to "understand" Linux to use it.

Studio NSFW wrote:
Using Linux for a desktop OS is like pulling your boat with a snowmobile…it might work and in some corner case even make sense, but you are not using it for what it is actually built for.

Such statements reveal an utter ignorance of Linux.

Linux is "built" for a lot of varied use-cases, not just for some narrow function in which a Mac fanboy would like to pigeonhole it.

If you want to assure yourself that you made the right choice by using a proprietary walled garden, that's fine, but it is usually a good idea for one to refrain from making snide remarks on a topic of which one is unfamiliar.

By the way, I will take it that you concede all of your earlier disparaging remarks and innuendo regarding Linux, as you abandoned those arguments after I addressed each one.

Studio NSFW wrote:
Sounds a lot like every other Linux fanboi.  Particularly the nonsensical attack on MacOS.

You came into this thread criticizing open source and Linux with name calling and innuendo.  I am simply responding in kind, but also with facts.

Studio NSFW wrote:
Funny because you jdont even understand the difference between an operating system and an application.

How so?  You keep saying that I don't understand Linux, yet you don't explain how.  Please be specific.

Studio NSFW wrote:
“Designed for a one button mouse!  My mouse (trackball) has four buttons, ball, and scroll wheel.  Worked from the moment it was plugged in. No editing a .conf file to make that happen.

Good for you!  I have a 5-button wireless mouse with a scroll wheel, and it automatically works when I plug it into a machine running almost any Linux distro.

However, the one-button mouse "feature" of Macs was commonly known for many years.  Apple didn't produce a mouse with more than one button until 2005 -- the "Mighty" mouse.  Laughably, the left and right "buttons" on that mouse were both set as "left clicks" by default. 

A InDesign (a native Mac app) instructor even wrote an article about the ridiculousness of the Mac single-button mouse.  In the author's words, the reason Apple avoided making a multi-button mouse was, "Because Apple thinks Mac users are babies, fragile nincompoops who don’t have the manual dexterity or brain power to figure out how to use more than one button."  Certainly, there also must have been an element of Apple complacently "knowing what's best for the end user," which is why MacOS is not very configurable to this day.

Studio NSFW wrote:
Further *Linux* was not designed for a mouse at all.  It’s strictly command line.

Not that I agree, but I'm not sure what is your point, as MacOS relies on a form of Unix, which also "was not designed for a mouse."

Linux is actually just a kernel.  Like any OS, it's not very usable without some interface (bash terminal, GUI).  Just like Linux, MacOS's graphics stack sits atop the kernel/OS core.

Studio NSFW wrote:
“X” (which is an application, system will run just fine without it) and then whatever whinfow manager application you want to run on top of that (guess what, another application) adds mouse support.

Right, and MacOS's set-up is similar, but Mac graphics are not as portable, as Mac Aqua will not run "fine" without Darwin.

Actually, it is not necessary to run a window manager to use a mouse in X.

Studio NSFW wrote:
X , btw, wasn’t even developed on Linux, it was ported over from BSD.

Yes.  X was designed to be portable -- a substantial advantage.  By the way, X is not the only graphics system that works on Linux/Unix OS's.

Studio NSFW wrote:
“Tracking” - Puhlease…the most popular Linux distro by number of users is Chrome..which introduced the concept to the world,

Not sure that ChromeOS is considered the most popular Linux distro (even with it's use in schools) nor is it clear as to what you mean by, "..which introduced the concept to the world."

Using similar criteria, Android could be considered the most popular Linux distro by number of end users.  If we limit the set to desktop Linux distros, I have a feeling that Debian along with all of it's derivatives might have more desktop end users than ChromeOS.

Now, I would like to point out that the version of Linux that you chose to make your point is not open source.  ChromeOS has closed source, proprietary code along with Linux, and it relies heavily on the invasive, closed source, Chrome web browser.  So, yes, ChromeOS tracks users.

By the same token, closed source versions of Android along with MacOS, IOS and Windows track users.

Next time, see if you can find a fully open source OS to make your point on tracking.

Studio NSFW wrote:
What tracking IS in MacOS is strictly opt-in…a MacOS system will work just fine if you choose not to opt into all of that Stuff.

Ah... so you can verify that one can completely opt-out of tracking, because you have seen the MacOS source code?

Furthermore, what about all the MacOS apps that phone home?  Have you seen all of that source code as well?

Studio NSFW wrote:
Yeah, you hopefully are not using ChromeOS, but the belief that you are specially invisible from tracking because of your OS choice is a fallacy.

Actually, I bought a Chromebook years ago, on which I immediately installed a Linux distro (open source).

I have never used ChromeOS because it is a closed source, privacy invasive monster.

Studio NSFW wrote:
What is the most popular browser on Linux?  Right.

I don't know, and it sounds like you don't know either.  I'm not sure anybody knows those stats for sure, as most distros ship with the developer's choice of browsers.  If you are implying that Chrome browser is the most popular in Linux, I would disagree, as a lot of distros have open source Chromium browser in their repositories instead of closed source Chrome.

Studio NSFW wrote:
Don talk to me about “tracking” in fact, you’re easier to track because your browser application is, by percentage of users, a real oddball choice.

Well, that point would contradict your apparent point about Chrome browser being the most popular Linux choice, but, again, where do you get your information?

Studio NSFW wrote:
“Walled garden” - you are thinking of iOS, which is a different operating system.  My system can run just about any piece of Open Sores software I choose, same as yours.  But, I also can run industry standard tools of the trade effortlessly, which you cannot.

Well, yes I will give you that one -- I was thinking more of IOS.  On the other hand, CrappleOS's have very little user configurability compared to Linux and even to Windows.  Remember, Apple knows what's best for you!

Studio NSFW wrote:
I win

LOL!

Studio NSFW wrote:
Like I said, this sounds like a caricature of every Linux fanboi who finds some distro, figures out how to boot the .iso, probably clicks the “default” button on all the options on be installer because they don’t understand why they would deviate, gets it to work, overcomes an issue or 20 along the way, and is now an “expert”…

Well, perhaps someone is projecting and also needs to work on their reading comprehension.

Furthermore, this point of yours about clueless Linux users contradicts your earlier portrayal of open source users constantly compiling the Linux kernel.  Please choose one argument or the other.

Studio NSFW wrote:
Did you check if your motherboard has a TPM module? Why or why no?  Did you choose the default partition layout? Why or why not  Did you put /home on a separate partition, or under / in the same partition?   Why or why not  Same question for /var.  Did I get its own partition or did you put it under / in the same partition? Why or why not?  We already know you can’t compile a kernal,, so I won’t bother asking.

This sounds like someone trying too hard to show what little they know (or what they just web searched) about a topic.

Studio NSFW wrote:
By the way, I am not bashing Linux…

Yes.  You are.

Studio NSFW wrote:
I use it every day, have for years,

Right...

Studio NSFW wrote:
I’m specifically bashing the Linux Fanboi trope that it is somehow the best choice for a desktop OS, and the 97% of the desktop market that doesn’t understand that are stupid.

That's projection.  You came into this thread (in your very first post) disparaging Linux and open source with innuendo and name calling, while implying that MacOS is better for photography and is more reliable than Linux.

Studio NSFW wrote:
Loudmouth Linux fanboi are why people like that Windows Luddite above who dasn’t read email on his smart phone “because *UX” developed their perception the Linux people think “users are lasers”

That sentence is mostly incomprehensible, but who is the actual loudmouth of the thread who started an attack with name calling?

The Other Place wrote:
However, the one-button mouse "feature" of Macs was commonly known for many years.  Apple didn't produce a mouse with more than one button until 2005 -- the "Mighty" mouse.  Laughably, the left and right "buttons" on that mouse were both set as "left clicks" by default.

Digging pretty deep there. 18 years ago? Sad to be that desperate to "win" a pointless argument.

People use what they use, all assumed and proclaimed advantages used in interwebz arguments aside.
The last thing most of us want on our computers is another learning curve.

I guess if one just wants to argue, this would be the thread to post in. Meh...

Studio NSFW wrote:
So you installed Linux in a platform built around a TPM chip, (Chromebook)?
And you don’t feel recompiling a kernal is necessary?

Chromebooks aren't "built around" a TPM chip, but many include that component.

Again, where do you get your information?  If one running Linux really wants utilize the TPM functionality, it is already included in the kernel of most distros -- there is no need to compile a kernel.  TPM control is commonly handled by the tpm-tools package in most distros' repositories.

By the way, I do not enable the TPM chip nor secure boot.  If I want encrypted data, I do it on a file-by-file basis with software-based encryption, so that I am not SOL if a hardware encryption chip craps out.  Also, doing so avoids encryption bottlenecks.

Studio NSFW wrote:
you should not be giving advice on things you clearly don’t understand, particularly around tracking or anything involving security.

Ha!  You mean like suggesting that one compile a new kernel when the needed capability is already in the stock kernel?

Here is some security advice for Mac users:  if your machine has a T2 chip, disable secure boot!

Shadow Dancer wrote:
Digging pretty deep there. 18 years ago?

If one reads the thread more closely, one might discover that the "one-button mouse" trope was mentioned twice by me as a reaction.  The first instance of its use was in response to a similar "deep-digging," tired, old notion that Linux is a server OS.  The second mention of the one-button mouse was simply a clarification that established the problem as a fact  and not just an opinion (such as "Linux is a server OS").

Shadow Dancer wrote:
Sad to be that desperate to "win" a pointless argument.

Not desperate, just responding in kind with an actual fact (as explained above).

Whether or not the argument is "pointless" is utterly a matter of opinion.  I and another poster think that there is a point(s) to the argument.

By the way, you fixated on only one of the many points made.  Care to comment on some of the others?

Shadow Dancer wrote:
People use what they use, all assumed and proclaimed advantages used in interwebz arguments aside.  The last thing most of us want on our computers is another learning curve.

Agreed.  And that is why Macs are most definitely not better (nor worse) than Linux nor Windows machines.

The Other Place wrote:
Agreed.  And that is why Macs are most definitely not better (nor worse) than Linux nor Windows machines.

Anything beyond this is worthy of ignoring. I've no more comments, prefer to stay out of the weeds.

Shadow Dancer wrote:
Anything beyond this is worthy of ignoring. I've no more comments, prefer to stay out of the weeds.

Thank you for your opinion!

Studio NSFW wrote:
Linux is for when you want your computer to do work

MacOS is for when you want to do work on your computer.

Apparently, Mac fanboys keep repeating such nonsense in an attempt to feel better about spending so much money on their beloved, proprietary, computer brand.

Meanwhile, we keep happily creating on our non-proprietary *nix machines, using cutting-edge, open source software.

Studio NSFW wrote:
Someday you will understand the difference between an operating system and a program.  Or probably not.

That's a real funny joke, but, given your misguided notions, it is doubtful that you will ever understand the many and varied capabilities of Linux and of open source software.

Studio NSFW wrote:
Do you have a spare claw hammer so I can spread jam on this toast?

Yet another "knee slapper."