RSS Feed
  0 users browsing Discussion. | 1 guest | 4 bots  
Main » Discussion » Monocultures in Linux and browsers (formerly "Windows 10")
Pages: First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Last
Posted on 18-12-06, 07:07
Custom title here

Post: #106 of 862
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 9 hours
Last view: 1 hour
Posted by TheMTtakeover
Posted by james4591
The last company you want as a leader in GNU/Linux is Red Hat. Literally, they are the Microsoft of GNU/Linux. Ubuntu is no better.

Red Hat and Canonical have both done A LOT to help improve Linux.They provide great distrbustions and everything they do is open-source. Why would you not want either of them to be the leader in Linux (ignorning the IBM ordeal)? GPL basically prevents them from doing a bunch of fuck shit.

Because Red Hat forced through Pulseaudio and Systemd. I think IBM paid so much to buy Red Hat so they could stop it from fucking things up any further.

--- In UTF-16, where available. ---
Posted on 18-12-06, 08:53 (revision 3)

Post: #22 of 26
Since: 11-15-18

Last post: 374 days
Last view: 374 days
Posted by CaptainJistuce
Posted by TheMTtakeover
Posted by james4591
The last company you want as a leader in GNU/Linux is Red Hat. Literally, they are the Microsoft of GNU/Linux. Ubuntu is no better.

Red Hat and Canonical have both done A LOT to help improve Linux.They provide great distrbustions and everything they do is open-source. Why would you not want either of them to be the leader in Linux (ignorning the IBM ordeal)? GPL basically prevents them from doing a bunch of fuck shit.

Because Red Hat forced through Pulseaudio and Systemd. I think IBM paid so much to buy Red Hat so they could stop it from fucking things up any further.


Red Hat and Canonical provide a lot of software to GNU/Linux but equally they cause many problems to the ecosystem of UNIX-like systems trying to cut off support to systems like FreeBSD and other UNIX-like systems and UNIX based systems to create their dreamy Linux-only ecosystem. Remember Lennart once called FreeBSD a "toy operating system that wasn't to be taken seriously" and even threatened Gentoo over kdbus and udev from their eudev fork saying once they got rid of netlink in the kernel people would be "forced" to use systemd and their udev implementation and if anyone though otherwise and tried to blame Lennart they were basically idiots who should be ignored. That's healthy thinking and one of the reasons many people started seeing GNU/Linux as too much of a mess. All one guy introduced was a piece of fadware meant for hipsters that did nothing but the same as a collection of tools that had existed already for years, stirred up a hornets nest of controversy, refused to be a team player, and then when he got put into check by even someone threatening to pay bitcoins to have him "offed", he cried foul, turned tail, and ran away like the sniveling coward he was still tryign to say nothing was "his" fault. Doug McIlroy's philosophy of "write programs that do one thing, and do them well", was completely ignored by the systemd team. They created the equivalent of svchost.exe in GNU/Linux, one of the many biggest pieces of bloat in Windows that grows each and every release. It much be nice to create an octopus just as nasty as the one you want to lure people away from. "Let's make Linux cool". If that wasn't anything but hipster mentality then I don't know anymore. Linus wasn't meant to be cool. It was meant to be a workhorse that was more for the technically inclined.

Canonical tried to even create their own alternative to Wayland that practically went nowhere when it was determined Wayland and X could still co-exist. X still could provide background services, functionality, and libraries while wayland loaded with the compositor. What was it's name? Mir? XMir? Really who cares?

GPL doesn't prevent anything. That is complete bullshit. All it does is provide the ability to take source, fork it, and then, if you have enough support behind you, take over the direction of the software, even if you do contribute back to the parent project as long as the source stays open. It's as beneficial as it is a double edged sword like curse. Why do you think FreeBSD has a license that grants true ownership to the authors and project with equilibrium? So FreeBSD can stay the course of FreeBSD. If you want to be a team player, you have to accept the rules, and accept your contribution is going to be owned by you as well as the FreeBSD project, not just anyone. I'll say it as I've said it in other places, I think GPL is nice, but it's a scam of a license. The BSDL and MIT licenses are true open source licenses that grant ownership ability. CDDL is the same as GPL but it allows for instances of ownership and closed source for proprietary reasons. GPL claims you have ownership, but if you get forked and overtaken, how is it still your project? Just because your name's on doesn't mean shit. This is probably one of the reasons GPL people get so enraged over even mentioning CDDL software. The Creative Commons License is not as ownership driven as BSDL and MIT, but is still gives the original author some ability to control the direction of their project without threat of takeover unless they allow it.

It was GPL that allowed for things like systemd to worm their way in through takeovers and subversive agendas either directly or indirectly. Linus Torvalds saw it from Greg Kroah-Hartman and Kay Sievers trying to push Lennart's will into the kernel and finally put his foot down when the code turned out to be more buggy and unstable drivel, much like udev was for a VERY long time. It was better than devfs by all accounts, but it was far from perfect and problematic for too damn long. The problem is, one day Torvalds will be gone, and with him, any hope Linux will not turn into something it shouldn't be. GPL did allow for Gentoo and others like Xfce to make a stand to sustain the ecosystem, but at what cost? We'll never know. The fad crowd has gone off to Android and iOS, Linux still isn't as cool as they wanted it to be, and many distributions are still in the same boat they were before with maintainers who still can't write a simple shell script in universal common shell language.

Find me on Facebook at @jimsretrogaming
Posted on 18-12-06, 10:50
Not from my cellphone

Post: #64 of 660
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 1 day
Last view: 1 hour
I'll never use a *BSD, that's for sure.

And last time I've heard, the SJWs sucessfully neutered the Torvalds, because we can't have F-bombs on sourcecode anymore.

Also: Linux is not cool anyway, since it's not made on the JavaScript framework of the week, importing seventy zillon libraries (half of those with buttcoin miners). THAT'S what hipsters care about nowadays, not even about cellphones anymore.

Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free
Posted on 18-12-06, 16:40

Post: #32 of 60
Since: 10-29-18

Last post: 184 days
Last view: 20 days
Posted by TheMTtakeover
Red Hat and Canonical have both done A LOT to help improve Linux.They provide great distrbustions and everything they do is open-source. Why would you not want either of them to be the leader in Linux (ignorning the IBM ordeal)? GPL basically prevents them from doing a bunch of fuck shit.

You seem to be misunderstanding what people have a problem with here. The problems people have with Red Hat and Canonical have very little to do with open source licensing and everything to do with monolithic, bloated software, corporate-style culture and development, and basically un-Linuxing Linux. Strong-arming the community into homogenizing everything and limiting user and developer choice is not good for Linux, and really ought to be saved for the proprietary realms of Apple and MS.

Heck, I say this as someone who likes Windows, uses Windows 10 as my daily driver... Red Hat and Canonical are Microsofting up Linux, and that's a bad thing, even if the licenses remain open.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Screw_Yall
Posted on 18-12-06, 18:09

Post: #30 of 265
Since: 10-29-18

Last post: 23 hours
Last view: 1 hour
Posted by Covarr
homogenizing everything and limiting user and developer choice is not good for Linux

It'd be good for every developer who wants to port his/her software "to Linux", since it reduces the number of moving targets.

My current setup: Super Famicom ("2/1/3" SNS-CPU-1CHIP-02) → SCART → OSSC → StarTech USB3HDCAP → AmaRecTV 3.10
Posted on 18-12-06, 18:34
Not from my cellphone

Post: #65 of 660
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 1 day
Last view: 1 hour
In other moronic Windows-related news:

Microsoft's Designers Are Now Working Together on the Future of Windows, Office and Surface

Translation: the hipsterism in Microsoft is out of the scale. Now they brought the Highly Paid Art School Dropouts (AKA "UX specialists") onboard. The buzzword bingo is at full blast mode, with "open source team" and "get the best from everyone". Oh, and Office and Windows will get new icons. Horrible icons, because everybody does it that way nowadays.

Because the focus is now how to make your PC more unusable than it already was, of course!

Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free
Posted on 18-12-07, 01:34

Post: #5 of 9
Since: 12-06-18

Last post: 479 days
Last view: 446 days
Posted by CaptainJistuce

Because Red Hat forced through Pulseaudio and Systemd. I think IBM paid so much to buy Red Hat so they could stop it from fucking things up any further.


Yeah, but due to the open nature and modularity of Linux you are not required to use a distro that uses systemd or pulseaudio.

Posted by james4591

Red Hat and Canonical provide a lot of software to GNU/Linux but equally they cause many problems to the ecosystem of UNIX-like systems trying to cut off support to systems like FreeBSD and other UNIX-like systems and UNIX based systems to create their dreamy Linux-only ecosystem. Remember Lennart once called FreeBSD a "toy operating system that wasn't to be taken seriously" and even threatened Gentoo over kdbus and udev from their eudev fork saying once they got rid of netlink in the kernel people would be "forced" to use systemd and their udev implementation and if anyone though otherwise and tried to blame Lennart they were basically idiots who should be ignored. That's healthy thinking and one of the reasons many people started seeing GNU/Linux as too much of a mess. All one guy introduced was a piece of fadware meant for hipsters that did nothing but the same as a collection of tools that had existed already for years, stirred up a hornets nest of controversy, refused to be a team player, and then when he got put into check by even someone threatening to pay bitcoins to have him "offed", he cried foul, turned tail, and ran away like the sniveling coward he was still tryign to say nothing was "his" fault. Doug McIlroy's philosophy of "write programs that do one thing, and do them well", was completely ignored by the systemd team. They created the equivalent of svchost.exe in GNU/Linux, one of the many biggest pieces of bloat in Windows that grows each and every release. It much be nice to create an octopus just as nasty as the one you want to lure people away from. "Let's make Linux cool". If that wasn't anything but hipster mentality then I don't know anymore. Linus wasn't meant to be cool. It was meant to be a workhorse that was more for the technically inclined.

Canonical tried to even create their own alternative to Wayland that practically went nowhere when it was determined Wayland and X could still co-exist. X still could provide background services, functionality, and libraries while wayland loaded with the compositor. What was it's name? Mir? XMir? Really who cares?

GPL doesn't prevent anything. That is complete bullshit. All it does is provide the ability to take source, fork it, and then, if you have enough support behind you, take over the direction of the software, even if you do contribute back to the parent project as long as the source stays open. It's as beneficial as it is a double edged sword like curse. Why do you think FreeBSD has a license that grants true ownership to the authors and project with equilibrium? So FreeBSD can stay the course of FreeBSD. If you want to be a team player, you have to accept the rules, and accept your contribution is going to be owned by you as well as the FreeBSD project, not just anyone. I'll say it as I've said it in other places, I think GPL is nice, but it's a scam of a license. The BSDL and MIT licenses are true open source licenses that grant ownership ability. CDDL is the same as GPL but it allows for instances of ownership and closed source for proprietary reasons. GPL claims you have ownership, but if you get forked and overtaken, how is it still your project? Just because your name's on doesn't mean shit. This is probably one of the reasons GPL people get so enraged over even mentioning CDDL software. The Creative Commons License is not as ownership driven as BSDL and MIT, but is still gives the original author some ability to control the direction of their project without threat of takeover unless they allow it.

It was GPL that allowed for things like systemd to worm their way in through takeovers and subversive agendas either directly or indirectly. Linus Torvalds saw it from Greg Kroah-Hartman and Kay Sievers trying to push Lennart's will into the kernel and finally put his foot down when the code turned out to be more buggy and unstable drivel, much like udev was for a VERY long time. It was better than devfs by all accounts, but it was far from perfect and problematic for too damn long. The problem is, one day Torvalds will be gone, and with him, any hope Linux will not turn into something it shouldn't be. GPL did allow for Gentoo and others like Xfce to make a stand to sustain the ecosystem, but at what cost? We'll never know. The fad crowd has gone off to Android and iOS, Linux still isn't as cool as they wanted it to be, and many distributions are still in the same boat they were before with maintainers who still can't write a simple shell script in universal common shell language.


long winded, eh? = p. This is a long post and I won't be able to respond to every point made.

1)Red Hat and Canonical are both companies that profit off of Linux and products/services relating to Linux, why should/would they care about FreeBSD or any other Unix-like system? It has nothing to do with their business. I would argue that it would be a strategic failure for them as a business to spend time, money, and energy worrying about how changes to Linux will affect FreeBSD.

2) Yeah, anytime Lennart is brought up he sounds like an ass. Nothing else to say on that.

3) I think you may be misunderstanding exactly what Mir is. Mir still exists and is still being worked on. Mir is Wayland compatible, it does not need to be an alternative to Wayland. Projects like mate are considering using mir so that they are able to implement the wayland protocol.

4) My GPL comment wasn't to argue that it is the best license or anything like that. I simply meant that due to the whole Linux stack being open source and (somewhat) modular, you can pick and choose what you want. If you don't like systemd, no need to use it. Of course if the stack were under another open source license the point would still hold. I would agree that they are benefits and cons to every license, but this is a not a debate I am interested in. I should have been more clear in my comment. I only used GPL since that is what the software we were discussing was licensed under.

Posted by Covarr

You seem to be misunderstanding what people have a problem with here. The problems people have with Red Hat and Canonical have very little to do with open source licensing and everything to do with monolithic, bloated software, corporate-style culture and development, and basically un-Linuxing Linux. Strong-arming the community into homogenizing everything and limiting user and developer choice is not good for Linux, and really ought to be saved for the proprietary realms of Apple and MS.

Heck, I say this as someone who likes Windows, uses Windows 10 as my daily driver... Red Hat and Canonical are Microsofting up Linux, and that's a bad thing, even if the licenses remain open.


I think I wasn't clear enough. I simply mean that if you (my use of you isn't necessarily pointed at you) don't like their software you don't need to use it due to the GNU/Linux being open source. A lot of people appreciate and have great experiences using things like systemd and pulse audio. But if they aren't for you, then no worries, just use ALSA and a init system. That's one of the great things about an open system.

Posted by tomman

Also: Linux is not cool anyway, since it's not made on the JavaScript framework of the week, importing seventy zillon libraries (half of those with buttcoin miners). THAT'S what hipsters care about nowadays, not even about cellphones anymore.


But Linux does work with Docker and Kubernetes, which are both V E R Y cool right now. = p



My point isn’t that everything companies and developers do for Linux is good for all of us or any of us, but that open licensing prevents them from controlling the whole stack and forcing a standard on us. Even if some of us don’t like systemd and such software, you have to acknowledge that most of the community is doing just fine with it (including me. I run systemd distros on my all of my laptops, desktops, and servers). I can understand that it is frustrating to see Unix concepts be broken as Linux and the ecosystem of software surrounding it evolves, but not all of us came to Linux because of the Unix philosophy.

Also this was a lot to get through while at work, please excuse spelling and grammar errors.

... Where am I?
Posted by tomman
Did I forgot to say "there are countries beyond just the United States of America"?
Posted on 18-12-07, 03:54
Not from my cellphone

Post: #68 of 660
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 1 day
Last view: 1 hour
So much for TridentEdgeHTML-powered Edge: MS has confirmed that not only they're switching Edge to Chromium, they're also bringing it to "supported Windows versions" and Mac (they assume noone wants Microsoft products on Linux, despite being a target for Chromium).

Not only Trident is now dead, the Chakra JavaScript engine is now orphan too since MS is moving to V8. At least they DID opensource that one.

And of course this change leads the way to a even bigger irony: using a Chrome-powered browser to download... Chrome.

Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free
Posted on 18-12-07, 05:39
Custom title here

Post: #110 of 862
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 9 hours
Last view: 1 hour
Posted by TheMTtakeover
Posted by CaptainJistuce

Because Red Hat forced through Pulseaudio and Systemd. I think IBM paid so much to buy Red Hat so they could stop it from fucking things up any further.


Yeah, but due to the open nature and modularity of Linux you are not required to use a distro that uses systemd or pulseaudio.


That's all well and good in theory. In practice, a lot of software requires pulseaudio for sound and systemd for... one of the dozens of tasks it has assimilated over time. You can TRY to avoid it, but it requires a lot of dancing around and careful software selection.

Especially given the insanely complex dependency situation, where installing a Super Nintendo emulator brings in printer drivers because I don't know. Maybe you aren't installing anything that needs systemd, but somewhere twenty layers deep in the dependency web, there's a leftbad library that needs systemd.

--- In UTF-16, where available. ---
Posted on 18-12-07, 15:07
Post: #12 of 130
Since: 11-24-18

Last post: 14 days
Last view: 51 min.
User is online
Posted by Covarr
You seem to be misunderstanding what people have a problem with here. The problems people have with Red Hat and Canonical have very little to do with open source licensing and everything to do with monolithic, bloated software, corporate-style culture and development, and basically un-Linuxing Linux. Strong-arming the community into homogenizing everything and limiting user and developer choice is not good for Linux, and really ought to be saved for the proprietary realms of Apple and MS.

Heck, I say this as someone who likes Windows, uses Windows 10 as my daily driver... Red Hat and Canonical are Microsofting up Linux, and that's a bad thing, even if the licenses remain open.


Well...

1. Linux needs some sort of standard. Right now there is simply too much incompatibility, and it's hurting the entire OS and ecosystem. Doesn't matter what you say or do, someone somewhere will be pissed because their beloved $PREFERRED_DESKTOP will get the short end of the stick. So, at this point I do not really care who decides to clean up the mess, and even a Microsoft-ish, more unified Linux is better than the fragmented mess we see now.

2. I do agree Linux is getting less... Linux-y, and this is a bad thing. systemd is the poster child of course (great idea but awful implementation, let's leave it at that), but also containers and big bloated monoliths as a whole are part of the problem.

3. Linux as a whole feels a bit too organic, too, with a lot of things still stuck in the eighties. I think it might be a good idea to step back, look at the good and bad parts of the system, and do a complete redesign. Today, for instance, I see quite a bit possibilities with multi-core and micro kernel architectures. A 6 core 12 thread machine, for instance, could afford to dedicate one core to all microkernel activities, with one thread dedicated to scheduling and the other dedicated to handling all timing-critical stuff like IPC and I/O. That frees up 10 threads for other purposes, which could use a much smaller program focused only on scheduling tasks. Heck, you could theoretically have two cores at a really high frequency, and the rest at one quarter of that, and still gain a ton of performance to such a model. Or, why not an FPGA with hardware scheduling, or...

What I'm trying to say is, a lot of the OS field is still unexplored territory, and Windows will have no chance of supporting much of these new discoveries in time, now that the hardware is finally available - not without breaking the one thing making windows worth having, backwards compatibility.
Posted on 18-12-08, 00:17

Post: #8 of 9
Since: 12-06-18

Last post: 479 days
Last view: 446 days
Posted by tomman
So much for TridentEdgeHTML-powered Edge: MS has confirmed that not only they're switching Edge to Chromium, they're also bringing it to "supported Windows versions" and Mac (they assume noone wants Microsoft products on Linux, despite being a target for Chromium).

Not only Trident is now dead, the Chakra JavaScript engine is now orphan too since MS is moving to V8. At least they DID opensource that one.

And of course this change leads the way to a even bigger irony: using a Chrome-powered browser to download... Chrome.


Mozilla's Response

... Where am I?
Posted by tomman
Did I forgot to say "there are countries beyond just the United States of America"?
Posted on 18-12-08, 00:48 (revision 1)
Not from my cellphone

Post: #69 of 660
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 1 day
Last view: 1 hour
So basically these have been the responses from the involved players in the modern "browser wars":

- Google: Welcome onboard, comrade! Your check is in the mail... alongside our next patent infringement lawsuit!

- Mozilla: Listen! We're still here! Please use us! We respect your privacy so hard we stopped listening to your complaints! We don't even read your bug reports anymore, because that's how we respect your privacy! Don't pay attention to those little privacy-invading "features" (Pocket, select use of Google Analytics here and there). We're the last man standing on earth!!!! LISTEN!!!

- Opera: One of us! One of us!

Once again, having choices is good. Excess of choice is not. But lack of choice is even worse than an excess! With Trident/EdgeHTML effectively confined to legacy status, it means that website developers only have to target a single platform... which is now free to impose whatever new features they want, while deprecating other widely used ones because "ewww old!". At this stage I don't even consider Mozilla a serious competitor anymore, and the blame is solely on themselves.

These are great times to be a web developer... and very dark ones for being a user.

And before you say: yes, Linux has a de facto monopoly on Linux-esque kernels (since there is only one), but if you're sticking to the "UNIX-like" banner, you still have plenty of choices, most of them actively maintained: macOS, *BSDs (in several flavors, no less!), Solaris (as much as that One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison is trying to kill it), AIX (yes, that's still a thing if you ever have to deal with IBM big irons), among others. Not so much on the web browser arena: we're down to Webkit derivatives and Gecko. And if Mozilla sticks to being Mozilla, we won't even have that one for much longer.

Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free
Posted on 18-12-08, 01:07 (revision 1)

Post: #34 of 60
Since: 10-29-18

Last post: 184 days
Last view: 20 days
Mozilla's response, trying to blame Microsoft for their own failure to gain or maintain any real marketshare, is absolutely hilarious. They've spent nearly a decade throwing away everything that made it unique or special, leaving little more than a second-rate Chrome copycat. That's not Microsoft's fault. That's not Google's fault. It's their own. For them to try to claim otherwise is utterly ridiculous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Screw_Yall
Posted on 18-12-08, 02:42 (revision 1)
Full mod

Post: #55 of 394
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 24 days
Last view: 1 day
Mozilla's market-share has been sliding downward for a long time, and they've been chasing Chrome for a long time, but correlation is not causation. If Mozilla had avoided copying Chrome and had stuck with their previous plan of copying IE6, or their even older plan of copying Netscape 4, maybe they would have been doomed even more quickly—at this point, we can't know.

Mozilla's goal has never been to make a "good" browser; there have been many good browsers over the years that didn't amount to much of anything (hi, Opera!). Mozilla's goal has always been "to ensure the Internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all". One of the best ways to do that is to have a non-ignorable chunk of market share, one of the best ways to do that is to build a popular browser, and building a good browser is useful but not necessary or sufficient to become popular. Mozilla has the advantage of being (associated with) a non-profit, and a good reputation, and they have used those advantages well, but when you're up against the sheer marketing muscle of the world's largest advertising company, it's never going to be a fair fight.

The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.
Posted on 18-12-08, 03:49
Custom title here

Post: #115 of 862
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 9 hours
Last view: 1 hour
You know what else was a good way to do that? Offering a high-quality, full-featured, easy-to-use rendering engine that can be dropped into anyone's project. But they turned Gecko into just part of Firefox, and started stripping out functionality people were using and breaking APIs on a regular basis, and they killed the cottage industry of gecko-based browsers.

They didn't want an open internet. They wanted everyone to use one browser, and they're just mad it isn't Firefox because they couldn't seal the deal.

--- In UTF-16, where available. ---
Posted on 18-12-08, 03:52

Post: #10 of 49
Since: 10-29-18

Last post: 205 days
Last view: 90 days
I'm interested to see how this will affect the Sphere Game Engine, having switched to ChakraCore within the past year or so.
Posted on 18-12-08, 14:31 (revision 1)

Post: #30 of 160
Since: 10-29-18

Last post: 6 days
Last view: 6 days
I'm trying to downgrade from Windows 10 to Win 8.1.

Installation completed and so far so good but when the installation finished I was greeted by a "CPU not supported" message. From what I read it seems 7 and 8.1 just don't officially support kaby lake and Ryzen CPUs. So far from what I read it seems windows updates will be disabled too...

Does anyone here has experience running 8.1 with either of those CPU architectures (and manages to get updates)?

edit: Well I'm going to give this a try.
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/248069-unofficial-patch-unblocks-windows-7-8-1-updates-kaby-lake-ryzen
Posted on 18-12-08, 17:16
Post: #12 of 136
Since: 11-01-18

Last post: 2 days
Last view: 7 hours
would there even be motherboard drivers for those platforms on win 8.1 and earlier?

Posted on 18-12-08, 19:06

Post: #31 of 160
Since: 10-29-18

Last post: 6 days
Last view: 6 days
Posted by funkyass
would there even be motherboard drivers for those platforms on win 8.1 and earlier?



Well, I applied the patch mentioned in the article (went off without a hitch), downloaded and installed every 8.1 windows updates and, just like it did with Win 10, WinUpdate seem to have also installed motherboard and gfx drivers in the process. So yeah, drivers are not an issue, everything works fine for me (I assume it would also work if you installed the mobo drivers separably yourself).

And...holy crap: what an improvement in performance, too. Retroarch in particular...I was getting abysmal performance on Windows 10 with Retroarch for some reason. Afaik, it's due to Win10 messing up OpenGL or something like that... Tried changing the video drivers in RA and it did alleviate the problem somewhat but I was still getting worse performance than on my A10 6700 (which is kinda absurd given that it's considerably older hardware than a Ryzen 7) also all the shaders I use with RA work with OpenGL afaik.

Anyway, I don't think I'll be reinstalling or reusing Win10 any time soon. My experience with it has been less than stellar.
Posted on 18-12-08, 21:39
Not from my cellphone

Post: #71 of 660
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 1 day
Last view: 1 hour
JWZ's reaction to Mozilla's reaction to Microsoft announcement

As usual:
- the guy has some good points (including a rather touchy one, the Live Nation thing)
- the guy is still a complete asshole (seriously, "MICROS~1"!? Dude, please...)


But hey, selling beer is a more respectable job than fighting against the browser monoculture, right????!!!!

Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free
Pages: First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Last
Main » Discussion » Monocultures in Linux and browsers (formerly "Windows 10")
you need to wake up michael