What is it about autism that makes people refuse to move on from the past?

What is it about autism that makes people refuse to move on from the past?

Other urls found in this thread:

omgubuntu.co.uk/2016/07/linux-marketshare-reaches-2-percent
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

the autistic part

Autistic here. It causes people like me to have huge negative reactions to the smallest of changes. I've had therapies over the years to help me internalize it, but I still get a huge shiver down my spine whenever I see a huge change in something. Think of it as the fight or flight sense going off about every potential "confrontation".

I know that's a bullshit description, but it's the best one I can give.

I can tell you're serious about being autistic because you gave such a serious response to bait.

Linux is a kernel not an OS you do not belong in this board.

>Linux is a kernel when it suits me

>Linux in 1993
>Gentoo

Couldn't find an old picture?

>picture
>of ancient linux

>XML wasn't around until 1996
>Gentoo wasn't around until 2002
>Bash 4.0 wasn't around until 2009
0/10

cameras were a thing already in 1993

The only thing right about the picture is that the actual VT code in Linux isn't to different of the 1993 one.

Installing systemd will cure your autism.

Didn't expect to see a serious response here, but this actually gave me great insight into your mind, thank you user

>Let me take a photo of a random terminal in 1993, take a trip to the drive through at the local CVS to drop off the film to develop, come back to pick it up in a few days/hours, then wait a few years, scan it, and photoshop it into meme image.

You must be underage.

windows 3.1 looks comfy

No it just is.

can't believe im replying
but look opie, ui can be customized in linucks,
you can make it be normie like or tiling, or whatever you want, e.g. noone uses command line for everything
even I use gui for browsers

you can't compare linux to windows because linux allows you to choose and have whatever you want
windows doesn't, you're forced to use what they have

>windows doesn't, you're forced to use what they have

kek

Don't blame Autism for stupidity.

Is linux only a Sup Forums meme or do people actually use it in real life (not counting niche applications such as servers)?

Both windows and mac have worked to optimize their OS's to keep up with the current technologies and though both have their faults, they each have progressed over the year.

Linux however seems like it's stuck in the mud. Why do people feel the need to reinvent the wheel and face the same obstacles as users faced literally decades ago.

It would be akin to a car manufacturer going back to the scratch board to redesign fuel injectors each year.

I use it in real life. It has most the application I need and it's a better development platform than windows (except C#, but that doesn't matter)

Linux is ahead in technology, Mac and Windows just pour a lot of sugar for normies over it to make it seem decent

Weak troll attempt / 10

kek

I use it in real life on my desktop, only booting into Windows for Photoshop or autocad.
Ubuntu is by far the most practical os for machine learning, but I'm guessing you'll count that as a niche use.

Gpu drivers and whatnot can be tricky sometimes but I don't think I'm really " facing the same obstacles as people decades ago", that's just arch users.

No, Linux is just a fucking kernel. How retarded are you?

>1993
>portage
It seems guibabbies haven't evolved either.

I miss 3.1.

Windows was shit, at least it was evitable back then.

Come back when you can actually make a folder named "COM" with your piece of shit explorer of yours, pajeet

The*

I use Linux as my daily driver. Unlike the people who claim Linux is broken and windows works, I've had the opposite experience.

You are not really the uncommon. Sup Forums spills are very vocal during summer

...

Just to let you know..
Windows back then and now.
ah and.. don't forget the bluescreens, but you're right, they look much prettier now than before.

Stop teasing my nostalgiaboner, you slut

A kernel is an operating system since it manages memory and hardware :^)

...

IIRC O'reily's POS system is all linux based. Generally linux/unix is used in businesses because you can have a custom tailored OS for your business.

It's 2% now :^)

omgubuntu.co.uk/2016/07/linux-marketshare-reaches-2-percent

2016 YEAR OF THE LINUX DESKTOP

OP. You are comparing GUI vs CLI and are making yourself look like an idiot. The windows side should be showing DOS or CMD [even though CMD isn't a DOS environment it's the closest Windows 7 has to offer].

If it's autism to be afraid of change then what would you call someone who needs constant change?

Serious question here.

/thread

To be fair, GNU/Linux has moved quite a bit forward since it was initially developed. Even in non-desktop applications.

Also, since the screenshot is from a terminal session, you might as well be comparing DOS from 1993 with the shitty terminal included in Windows 7.

Linux is used, but actually as desktop OS is absolutelly irrelevant. It's not because normies hate it or something like that, only unix wasn't relevant in desktop to begin. Linux was a late player in a platform where DOS/Windows and Mac where King and Queen, respectively. The balcanization tendencies of open sores doesn't help the situation.
You know to what OP is refering. :^)

Come on when you can compile software written 20 years ago without problems, Mohandas.

In the job I work in (Java programmer) most people in my team use Ubuntu, in the job before that (c++ dev) it was about 50/50, but the remote dev machines we connected to over ssh all had RHEL installed.

A hipster

I was just about to post something like this. OP is retarded

>Windows 7 is 7 years old

>Cancer cures autism

How about small changes? Nothing really big.

MSDOS and Windows 98 were the comfiest things of my youth

...

>niche applications
>such as servers

Works fine here :^) Probably because I know how to read unlike a computer illiterate hindu like you :-DDDD

Back to

Unity in 2009? No

>1993
>bash 4.0
You FAIL, microshill.

...

Your typical Sup Forums retard, everyone.

:^)

By that logic, early versions of Windows weren't operating systems since that low-level management was provided by DOS.

My peepee shrinks to half-size when a different team than mine wins the super bowl

t. Autistic basement-dwelling patriots fan

...

the problem is that Windows development was always focused on the end user(i'm ignoring Windows server here), while Linux(+GNU) development is focused on creating a multipurpose OS to suit many needs(server, desktop, embedded systems, computing clusters, etc)

I dont know. Linux is simply better and faster and yet people cling to malware ridden adware that is windows, and stupid remakes of old games. I just got back from fixing a laptop that got its AV ,camera and power management rekt by windows 10 stupid forced upgrades.
Turn this shit on , it boots normally and fast , connect to internet - 15 minutes of 99% disk usage for "system processes", laptop unusable in that time.

t. falseflag

Everyone in this thread is wrong and here's why:
Linux is a kernel and a kernel doesn't have any graphical userinterface.

does it have a command line interface? i mean can you communicate with it without bash or core utils etc? Is it even real? am i real?

I don't think it has an actual CLI, otherwise why would you need bash? Presumably it has an API, but any program that allows you to interact with the API would be a separate CLI shell.

The funny fact is that doesn't chage nothing. GNU/Linux uses the same tech of 10 years ago to got a GUI.

It also works fine on 10 y.o. hardware, and is compatible with old peripherals. Also how is age of tech relevant to anything , C is 40+ years old and used nowadays with some changes. Does it mean its bad? Is math bad because its old? Is wheel bad? What the fuck?

The problem that X.org has is that is old and also a steaming piece of shit.
Do you want to run X.org in your machine in the next 30 years?
The code is so fragile an crappy that if two key developers die, X.org is fucked.

I don't think this is bait user...there is something very wrong about the Linux community.

Programming languages are completely different to implemented software when it comes to age.

So full of shit.

Nobody will ever care about GNU. They wish they were Torvalds.

>Linux however seems like it's stuck in the mud.
Its not, and you couldn't actually back this up.

...

Thank God Wayland will be a thing

what a shitty bait
even in 1993 X was already available, twm was probably the first wm used in Linux

>Xfree86
>1993
OH MY GOD, THAT FUCKING NIGHTS, THAT HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE NIGHTS

>free stuff
>having only 1% of the market

And that's why the goyim are animals.

>The code is so fragile an crappy that if two key developers die, X.org is fucked.
>xorg
>freedesktop
>red hat
Nah, they have tons of developers available, Red Hat is on par with MS or Apple
Worst case scenario theyll make a systemd of graphic interfaces, but thats what wayland is becoming anyway

Yes, as a software developer, I use it every day. And no, software development isn't a niche application. I'm slowly transitioning to using Linux as my everyday OS just because I'm so sick of stupid shit in Windows like explorer.exe crashing when it tries to access a network share that has gone down.

i actually use wayland on fedora gnome. And i see no wrong with xorg too, last time i had problems with it was when using ubuntu 8-10 ,and when i wanted to upgrade nvidia drivers on arch without setting dkms before. Its performance is not extremly shit to the point of constant breaking, and it will be needed as a dependency for some time. You can be angry about it because you need your game performance fast, but wayland is here if you are willing to ditch X this badly. Xorg may be bad from developers view but to end user its okay'ish , at least no normie told me that unity/gnome is sluggish.

Don't pretend X wasn't always terrible, because it was (and still is)

I use it as the exclusive OS on my desktop and laptop.

What did you understand user?

xml didnt even exist in 1993 you idiot. get a real screenshot

Sort of.

There's the magic system request key, which I guess is a (very limited) shell. It lets you set the console log level, reboot, crash the system, send various signals to all processes, run the OOM killer, unmount file systems, and a bunch of other stuff, depending on precicely how you've configured it. As far as I know, as long as you can access a VTY, serial console, or the /proc/sysrq-trigger file, you can directly communicate with the kernel.

ITT: people hate linux because they cant ditch windows because of:
>games
>professional software without a license that you really need on that home pc
>fear of cli

really though, just being able to browse the net without having to have an active AV, windows defender prompts , and around 5 different autostart updaters.
Not having to deal with automatic updates and manually installing new drivers/software, and software in general for literally hours is a big deal to me. There are alternatives to most software if you need it for hobbyst use,

Im not telling anyone to yell at their boss to change their workstation to linux if they need some software thats not on it.

>implying that everyone wants to left Windows
That beautiful projection.

>wants to left
go back to work pajeet.
If windows was so great i wouldnt have to fix everyones "slow PeecCees broken by viruses from games" and donate the little money i they give me to my favorite distro/projects.

Windows is great. Those problems are entirely end user and marketshare problems that would be just as prevalent if linux were mainstream and everyone logged in as root or used sudo with no regard to security to install their 1337 game cracks. Deal with it freetard.

when you boot the machine, it goes straight to console
and it can function as an OS as-is -- pass your program as the init, done

stallman seems to have the weirdest idea of what an OS is, one that never gained traction outside of 80s academia

Of course they fucking weren't. They were little more than GUIs.

this is simply wrong based on this scientific research: 3 out of 3 pcs i had installed ubuntu on for someone with an explanation on how to install/upgrade software are getting no complaints aside from one laptop that needed some packages to play drm protected DVDs on Lubuntu. And people who use them cannot really tell apart a web browser and search engine.
Actually scaring people into thinking about if they should install something and making the process "you need something - you install something" instead of "you see something on the net - you install something" is having good results.
Also im not a freetard actually, i just like using linux.
There is literally nothing great about windows itself, and its a pain to use , it just has the most software and is forced on to new pcs.

They're making it way too easy for people to diagnose themselves as autistic nowadays

Are you really this fucking retarded? It's about market share. If desktop Linux was as popular as Windows, you can sure as hell bet there would be tons of malware written for it and retards would just enter their root password at the drop of a hat, or get hit with ransomware since all it needs is access to the user's personal files anyway.

you dont understand. Malware affects windows for one main reason: you install software from random sites. Here is where the package manager comes - you install software from a repository that is maintained either by the creator of the OS - or - in a situation where a single linux would have alot of market share - by software developer. So you possibly cannot install malware unless the developer created in on purpose and the maintainer would accept it without multiple antivirus scans after some time of testing. As i said, it basicly encourages people by default to install only what they need safely.
This is the most basic difference between a linux distro and windows in term of usage. sure there would be alot of people writing malware that would atack the system through plugins and web browsers and stuff like that, but then again you have what you didnt had on windows for long years - real user account control. It will simply not rekt any system files if the user wont enter the root password. This is still not really implemented on windows well enough. As for people who pirate shit from stupid sources, well there is no cure for stupid poor people is it? No best antivirus can help when a 11 y.o. is trying to get that super game and cant be bothered to read the alerts.