History ended sometime around 1990. It was determined at that time that civilization could not substantially change any further, for better or worse. No Mad Max or Terminator dystopias, but also no Star Trek type societies in which both social systems and technology become highly advanced. No, just a Sisyphean nightmare in which nothing meaningfully changes and an infinite, perpetual constant is maintained and managed, forever and ever, until the heat death of the universe. Instead of either dystopia or utopia we have an ever present, oppressive malaise that only the sweet release of death can liberate us from.

I like Gnome. I like KDE, too. I actually think they’re both great, in their own ways, but I personally prefer Gnome.

It is. And so is American football. You don’t believe that because you’re ignorant, but just because you don’t like or understand a sport doesn’t mean it isn’t a real sport.

Thank you for the clarification.

What we call AI today isn’t really artificial intelligence. When you have a conversation with an AI chat bot you’re not talking to another thinking entity, you’re interacting with software that has been designed to give the illusion of conversing with another intelligent being. The technology has advanced enough that the illusion can be very convincing, but it is still only an illusion. That’s why I don’t fear LLMs being self aware and taking over the world, because they’re not real intelligences. They don’t have the ability to think for themselves because they don’t have the ability to think.

Edit: please read ricecake’s reply for an important correction to my comment.

So should rugby be called handegg, too?

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.

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.