Skip to content

Linus Torvalds and Bill Gates Meet for the First Time Ever

Technology
226 110 7.3k
  • Keep in mind this status quo is already the result of decades of oversimplification. I am not saying everyone needs to compile the Linux kernel in order to have a computer. I'm saying you should have a basic level of familiarity with the computer you're using, same as any other tool.

    You should know how to check and top up your engine oil, change a tire in an emergency, etc, if you're going to own a car.
    You should know how to safely handle, operate, store, transport, and clean your firearm if you're going to own a gun.
    You should know how to empty the chamber or bag, clean the filters correctly, what not to suck up and how to troubleshoot if you do, if you're going to own a vacuum.
    You should know how to operate it, when and how it should be cleaned, and what not to do while it's running, if you're going to own an electric range.
    You should know the difference between a web browser and your computer's filesystem, the difference between RAM and storage, and that you can Internet search most errors to judge whether you're comfortable trying to fix them yourself or not, if you're going to own a computer.

    There will ALWAYS be a point where it's more worth paying someone else instead of learning something yourself. But it's about the cost-benefit analysis, and the threshold for what's considered "intricate" is a depressingly low bar where computers are concerned. As I'm sure you are well aware.

    you should have a basic level of familiarity with the computer you’re using, same as any other tool

    Obviously not, they can use it without that understanding just fine for whatever they want to do. That is enough understanding for them. If their computer explodes, they just buy an other one.

  • No, it's not. We have other shit to do and very limited quality time.

    Though, if we compare nowadays distros like Bazzite with Windows 11..

  • It's actually the perfect analogy, you just can't see it because you're stuck in the bubble.

    If you think big tech doesnt cut corners and offloads the work to the users you are in a bubble; there's software that is secure, performant, pretty, doesn't break on its own, and doesn't have an obsolescency clock ticking inside. Oh, and doesn't spy on you dismantling society by the minute.

  • Name one bad historical person that didn't do at least some good.

    Your moral compass is broken.

    The charity did more than some good though.

    Also, name one good historical person that didn't do at least some bad.

    It is almost like things aren't black and white but more like Yin and Yang.

  • I've said this before here, but techy people vastly overestimate both the ability and the patience of the typical user, and it's the reason so few people use FOSS products.

    Products from big tech aimed at private individuals are designed to be as simple to use as possible, which is why they're so popular.

    And this in turn led to the younger generations being less tech-literate.

  • His pr firm really works well.

    Check out when elon ditched his pr firm. He went frm that loved lil crazy fun type to what he really is.

    Sure, and where is your proof that Bill needs one, let alone uses one?

    And don't come with a list of actions the majority of people don't care about.

  • I've said this before here, but techy people vastly overestimate both the ability and the patience of the typical user, and it's the reason so few people use FOSS products.

    Products from big tech aimed at private individuals are designed to be as simple to use as possible, which is why they're so popular.

    Nah, I have worked in IT education and in helpdesk. Average user doesn't have a better time getting into Microsoft products, it's not easier for them than FOSS. The reason for Windows domination is Microsoft spending money and lobbying power to put it in front of every user.

  • That has to be one of the most out of touch takes I've seen in a while. You're basically saying that things should be intentionally more complicated, and you expect the result to be people just power through and getting used to things being that way, instead of just stopping.

    Or instead just not hiding things that need not be hidden, like file extensions, despite your OS relying on them for identifying types.

  • Both Torvalds and Gates are nerds... Gates decided to monetize it and Torvalds decided to give it away.

    But without Microsoft's "PC on every desktop" vision for the '90s, we may not have seen such an increased demand for server infrastructure which is all running the Linux kernel now.

    Arguably Torvalds' strategy had a greater impact than Gates because now many of us carry his kernel in our pocket. But I think both needed each other to get where we are today.

    But without Microsoft’s “PC on every desktop” vision for the '90s, we may not have seen such an increased demand for server infrastructure which is all running the Linux kernel now.

    Debatable, in my opinion. There were lots of other companies trying to build personal computers back in those times (IBM being the most prominent). If Microsoft had never existed (or gone about things in a different way), things would have been different, no doubt, but they would still be very important and popular devices. The business-use aspect alone had a great draw and from there, I suspect that adoption at homes, schools, etc. would still follow in a very strong way.

  • Do you hunt for all of your food and cook it from absolute scratch?

    I bet you sometimes use a grocery store.

    Yet you still better know how to cook, despite convenience food existing. Hunting is more analogous to calling kernel interfaces.

  • That has to be one of the most out of touch takes I've seen in a while. You're basically saying that things should be intentionally more complicated, and you expect the result to be people just power through and getting used to things being that way, instead of just stopping.

    To add to subignition's point, there is a value in learning useful software. More complicated software means that there is a learning curve - so while you are less productive while learning how to use it, once you gain more experience, you ultimately become more productive. On the other hand, if you want the software to be useful to everyone regardless of his level of experience, you ultimately have to eliminate more complex functionality that makes the software more useful.

    Software is increasingly being distilled down to more and more basic elements, and ultimately, I think that means that people are able to get less done with them these days. This is just my opinion, but in general I have seen computer literacy dropping and people's productivity likewise decreasing, at least from what I've observed from the 1990s up until today. Especially at work, the Linux users that I see are much more knowledgeable and productive than Apple users.

  • Buddy, if I open Photoshop it's gonna take me hours to learn how to do one thing too, what a horrible example lmao. There's like so many easy slam dunks you could've said too.

    Agreed. People just think the first tool that they learned is the easiest to use. I've been a longtime Gimp user and find it pretty easy to do what I want.* The few times someone asked me to do something in Photoshop, I was pretty helpless. Of course, I'm a pretty basic user - I wouldn't dispute that Photoshop is more powerful, but which one is easier to use is very subjective and the vast majority of the time, it just boils down to which one you use more often.

    I've seen the same with people who grew up on Libreoffice and then started smashing their computer when they were asked to use MSOffice.

  • Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds have apparently never met in person before, despite their pseudo-rivalry.

    Genuinely kind of surprised they only met now, one would have thought that in over 30 years they would have run into each other at some point at some conference or other.

  • Top comment on that page is perfect:

    One wrote their own operating system incorporating others ideas on operating systems, the other's mom bought theirs.

    Torvalds wrote the kernel, not the operating system. It's a part of the GNU/Linux OS 😉

  • The charity did more than some good though.

    Also, name one good historical person that didn't do at least some bad.

    It is almost like things aren't black and white but more like Yin and Yang.

    That's not how it works, it's not like "I do some good, now I can do some bad". It does not even out.

    Bad people doesn't become good because "some good things came out of it".

    If you do bad, then you are bad.

  • Sure, and where is your proof that Bill needs one, let alone uses one?

    And don't come with a list of actions the majority of people don't care about.

    Let me google that for you.

    It's like asking for proof there is sand in the desert

  • It is the perfect analogy, because you are a techy, not a survival hunter.

    You buying at a grocery store is out of convenience, the alternative is learning how to hunt like a survival hunter.

    Just like how the average user wants the convenience of easy to use software, because they don't want to learn the alternative like you.

    If everyone was like you, then easy to use software wouldn't be selling so much.

    You buying at a grocery store is out of convenience, the alternative is learning how to hunt like a survival hunter.

    At some point that was an alternative, but today the natural ecosystems have been so encroached upon by human civilization that we can't just decide to become survival hunters - we'd simply starve. Grocery stores are all you have if you're living in a high-rise apartment in most cities, for example. Most suburbs can't support enough wildlife to then be hunted for survival by the humans living there.

    Vegetable gardens might be a better analogy than survival hunting. There are even some initiatives being taken to break the cycle of dependency that grocery stores encourage, which I suspect is what @subignition@fedia.io is getting at: collective effort is needed beyond just letting the techies do their thing in their own corner, otherwise we all suffer. Everyone needs to move beyond their comfort zone at some point, for some amount of time - be it the techies teaching others, or the others learning a bit more about how their tools work.

    the average user wants the convenience of easy to use software, because they don’t want to learn the alternative [...] If everyone was like you, then easy to use software wouldn’t be selling so much.

    I can't tell if you are simply stating how the world currently is or claiming that it is destined to always be that way, but in either case I don't see how "people prefer convenience" is a good argument against trying to help them get over that preference. I don't think convenience is nor should be the end-all-be-all of existence, in fact it can be actively detrimental to life when prioritized.

    Unless I'm mistaken, the average user wanted asbestos in their walls, lead in their paint, and asked their doctor for menthol cigarettes instead of regular ones when said doctor was prescribing them for stress. The average user in the USA couldn't tell that their milk was full of pus and mixed with chalk to the point it was killing their babies, all for the convenience of still owners and milk producers. Their society had built up so much around the convenience of drinking milk in places that couldn't produce it locally, that it took an Act of Congress as well as the development of technology to safely transport milk long distances before the convenience stopped killing people.

    Don't get me wrong, convenience is great when it doesn't come at the expense of our well-being - in those cases it tends to dramatically improve our well-being. I tend to agree with @subignition@fedia.io that currently the software market is overly delivering convenience to the point that it is negatively affecting our collective well-being - with regards to software, at the very least.

  • I said in another thread about this, he looks like an older Tom Scott.

    About that, Tom Scott is also old now.

  • Now powered by Copilot!

    CoClippy?

  • But without Microsoft’s “PC on every desktop” vision for the '90s, we may not have seen such an increased demand for server infrastructure which is all running the Linux kernel now.

    Debatable, in my opinion. There were lots of other companies trying to build personal computers back in those times (IBM being the most prominent). If Microsoft had never existed (or gone about things in a different way), things would have been different, no doubt, but they would still be very important and popular devices. The business-use aspect alone had a great draw and from there, I suspect that adoption at homes, schools, etc. would still follow in a very strong way.

    I remember that IBM was famously missing the trend in the late 80s/90s and couldn't understand why regular consumers would ever want to buy a PC. It's why they gave the PC clone market away, never seriously approached their OS/2 thing, and never really marketed directly to anybody except businesses.

    Microsoft really pushed the idea that regular people needed a home PC which laid the foundation for so many people already having the hardware in place to jump on the internet as soon as it became accessible.

    For a brief moment it looked like a toss up between Microsoft IIS webservers serving up .asp files (or coldfusion .cf - RIP) vs Apache pushing CGI but in the end the Linux solution was more baked and flexible when it was time to launch and scale an internet startup in that era.

    Somebody else would have done what Microsoft did for sure, had they not been there, and I suppose we could be paying AT&T for Unix licenses these days too. But yeah, ultimately both Gates and Torvalds were right in terms of operating systems and well timed.

  • Cool at the Edge: Europe’s Cooling System for Edge Computing Market

    Technology technology
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • DIY experimental Redox Flow Battery kit

    Technology technology
    3
    1
    37 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    43 Aufrufe
    C
    The roadmap defines 3 milestone batteries. The first is released, it's a benchtop device that you can relatively easily build on your own. It has an electrode side of 2 x 2cm2. It does not store any significant amount of energy. The second one is being developed right now, it has a cell the size of a small 3d printer bed (20x20cm) and will also not store practical amounts of energy. It will hopefully prove though that they are on the right track and that they can scale it up. The third battery only will store significant amounts of energy but in only due end of the year (probably later). Current Vanadium systems cost approx. 300-600$/kWh according to some random website I found. The goal of this project is to spread the knowledge about Redox Flow Batteries and in the medium term only make them commercially viable. The aniolyth and catholyth are based on the Zink-Iodine system in an aqueous solution. There are a bunch of other systems though, each with their trade offs. The anode and cathode are both graphite felt in the case of the dev kit.
  • Tech Giants Team Up With Teachers Union on $23M AI Academy

    Technology technology
    3
    1
    8 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    45 Aufrufe
    D
    incorrect assessment: unions will gladly collaborate with 3rd party corps if it benefits them. Also unions protect interests of their members, not entire humanity...
  • What is SIEM (Security Information and Event Management)?

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    3 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    19 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 809 Stimmen
    63 Beiträge
    884 Aufrufe
    misterfrog@lemmy.worldM
    I think the original commenter means that Google got off with a tap on the wrist
  • Your smartphone is a parasite, according to evolution

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    15 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 119 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    112 Aufrufe
    S
    Active ISA would be a disaster. My fairly modern car is unable to reliably detect posted or implied speed limits. Sometimes it overshoots by more than double and sometimes it mandates more than 3/4 slower. The problem is the way it is and will have to be done is by means of optical detection. GPS speed measurement can also be surprisingly unreliable. Especially in underground settings like long pass-unders and tunnels. If the system would be based on something reliable like local wireless communications between speed limit postings it would be a different issue - would also come with a significant risc of abuse though. Also the passive ISA was the first thing I disabled. And I abide by posted speed limits.
  • 0 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    54 Aufrufe
    V
    they should be required to be designed to be safe in the way people actually use them, as opposed to this hypothetical driver who has duct taped thier hands to the wheel...