Why would you want a majority of people using the same distribution?
I don’t, necessarily. I just think it’s the only way we will ever see widespread adoption of Linux on desktops. But, maybe I’m wrong. Honestly, I hope I am. I hope through changes in the culture and more education, people will make the switch. But, I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t skeptical.
they will complain that MSO, Photoshop, Premiere doesn’t work
That’s true. They will. But maybe if enough users switch to SteamOS, Adobe, and other software developers might port their software to it. That’s really the only hope for widespread Linux desktop adoption.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe more people will be willing to endure a learning curve for the freedom and openness of Linux, but I think that path to widespread Linux adoption would take a long time, if it happens at all.
Yeah, one more with the name recognition, like you mentioned. People don’t know what Silverblue is, they don’t know what an immutable distribution is, and, frankly, I don’t think they’re interested in learning. But they know Steam. Sad, perhaps, but true.
there are already a lot of immutable Linux distros
Exactly. There are a lot, and that’s confusing for most people. The fact that people have so many choices makes them less likely to switch. Most people want ease, simplicity and convenience.
Until there is one, single distribution that the vast majority of people can install on their existing hardware, that just works, easily and conveniently, Linux will remain a relatively niche desktop OS. I think when Valve finally releases the desktop version is SteamOS, that might do the trick.
Linux will really take off when Valve finally releases the desktop version of SteamOS.
I’m sure it’s true for some women. But I wouldn’t be surprised if most working women were either married or in a committed relationship. Plus, a lot of households have two incomes out of necessity. Both partners need to work full time just to make ends meet.
Gnome
Fedora for life.
That’s fine, but you really don’t need a wealth tax to fund education and infrastructure. A sovereign currency issuer can create their own money. There’s no reason why the US government couldn’t just create $5 trillion to fund those things you mentioned. And I know you might say that would cause inflation, but I don’t see how $5 trillion being created would cause more inflation than getting the $5 trillion from a wealth tax. Either way, the same amount of money is being spent on education, health and infrastructure. Plus, with the wealth tax, the billionaires would have to liquidate a lot of assets to get that money to pay the wealth tax, and that could cause a crash in asset markets.
No, money is a medium of exchange. Assets are worth what they can be exchanged for, that’s why wealth is measured in money.
But what I’m saying is, if you had that much money you would be wealthy. You would be one of them, you’d be in the top 1% of wealth holders.
But, ok, let’s say wealthy really means everyone who has over $1 billion in wealth. Well, if we forced all the people who have more than $1 billion in wealth to liquidate all of their wealth above $999,999,999.00, and we redistributed that to every household in the US, each household would get about $36,000. And I’m not talking about $36,000 a year, I’m talking about a one time $36,000 check. Now, that’s not nothing, and for some folks that would definitely help a ton, but you also have to consider the inflationary implications. If all of the sudden every household in the US got an extra $36,000, a lot of those folks would want to spend it. And why not, right? Get a car maybe, take a trip, put a down payment on a house. But if everyone were suddenly looking to spend all that money at once, prices would go up, so your money wouldn’t go as far.
But I’m not saying we shouldn’t do it. I think there are a lot of good reasons to have a wealth tax over a certain amount. I’m just not sure it would make that much of a difference.
Of course I want money to live well and get what I need and want.
How much money is that? $1 million? $1 billion? If you want a house that costs $500 thousand, that’s what you’ll need for that. Maybe you feel like you could live well on $100 thousand a year, buy some decent things, take some trips, etc. Well, $100 thousand a year over 50 years, is $5,000,000. That plus your $500,000 house and you’d have enough money to be in the top 1%.
They hold a lot of money in assets like stocks and real estate because they want to be rich. They want a lot of money so they can buy things, and the more money they have the more things and/or nicer things they can buy. I mean, you probably want the same thing, right? Who doesn’t.
Wealth isn’t money, it’s stuff. It’s land, a home, stocks, gold, etc. Money is just the medium of exchange, so we price the stuff using money. There’s no real point in hoarding a fiat currency like the dollar, because the US government can create as much of it as they want. You don’t hoard something that is infinitely reproducible, you hoard the physical stuff that is inherently finite. For the physical stuff, ownership is definitely zero-sum; the more I own of a finite good, the less anyone else can own.
If driverless taxis ever go mainstream (and that’s a big if), it will be from companies like Waymo, not Tesla. Tesla shouldn’t be seen as a serious company. I mean, they do sell legitimate products, but their $1.6 trillion market cap isn’t based on what they sell today, but what their cult member investors think they’re going to bring to market in the future. You know, all the stuff that will usher in the post-human, techno utopia. It’s all nonsense, and someday it will all come crashing down, though that could take a while. People can stay delusional for a long time.
Look, maybe you will be able to get another 30 years out of your car, and if so good for you, but eventually we have to stop using fossil fuels. That’s all I’m saying. The longer we keep using oil, the more impacts on the climate. But also, the more oil we use, the faster it runs out. And once it’s gone, it’s just gone. Forever, no more. Sure, we probably won’t run out in 30 years, but it is a finite resource so we run out eventually. I just don’t know why people are in such a hurry to completely use it all up as quickly as possible, especially knowing what it’s doing to the climate. I just don’t get it.
Good! Whatever people can do to stop using fossil fuels is what needs to happen.
It’s fairly straightforward: they don’t want restrictions placed on their rights to own and carry a gun, but they absolutely want restrictions placed on the rights of their political enemies.