MudMan

I don’t do that with anybody, normally. People of all genders will sometimes give you a hug here if it’s been a while or if they’re happy to see you. Cheek kissing is mostly a women thing, though.

I was telling someone else in a different thread that I would pay good money for a Framework device in tablet form with a detachable keyboard. Just mush entires 2 and 3 on that list. I’ll pay way more than it’s worth. Like, Surface Pro money for Kindle hardware. Just give it to me.

Alright, alright, just because I got myself excited. Top three gaming laptops, rating for sheer cool factor with no regard for practicality or value for money, but in no particular order:

1- MSI GS65. It could be the Razer Blade, which is the OG, but the GS65 was legitimately the best of that first batch of thin and light gaming laptops that looked classy without looking tacky. It had a 1070 in it, it could run every contemporary game just fine and it made you look downright stylish working on a Starbucks. So cool.

2- ASUS ROG Flow Z series. Asus put a dedicated GPU. In a tablet. Like, up to a 4070, you can get in one of these. It’s fat, it’s clunky, it’s underpowered for the hardware, it’s heavy, it sounds like the speaker in your first smartphone… but guys, 4070 in a tablet, are you kidding me? How cool is that?

3- Framework Laptop 16. It’s a modular laptop with a dedicated GPU module and a bunch of random configuration options. Gaming laptop lego. Again, how cool is that?

I love both. And handhelds. And consoles.

I just like videogames and things that can run videogames. Videogame tech is cool.

I genuinely don’t get why people have such a grudge against gaming laptops. It’s like they got stuck regurgitating talking points from the mid 2000s. There have been so many super cool gaming laptops in the past couple of decades. Big, chonky powerhouses, sleek stealth workhorses, quirky nonsense builds… It’s awesome.

Yeah, on that I’m gonna say it’s unnecessary. I don’t know what “integration with the desktop” gets you that you can’t get from having a web app open or a separate window open. If you need some multimodal goodness you can just take a screenshot and paste it in.

I’d be more concerned about model performance and having a well integrated multimodal assistant that can do image generation, image analysis and text all at once. We have individual models but nothing like that that is open and free, that I know of.

Look, the naming ship has sailed and sunk somewhere in the middle of the ocean. I think it’s time to accept that “AI” just means “generative model” and what we would have called “AI” is now more narrowly “AGI”.

People call videogame enemies “AI”, too, and it’s not the end of the world, it’s just imprecise.

That is a stretch. If you try to download and host a local model, which is fairly easy to do these days, the text input and output may be semi-random, but you definitely have control over how to plug it into any other software.

I, for one, think that fuzzy, imprecise outputs have lots of valid uses. I don’t use LLMs to search for factual data, but they’re great to remind you of names of things you know but have forgotten, or provide verifiable context to things you have heard but don’t fully understand. That type of stuff.

I think the AI shills have done a great disservice by presenting this stuff as a search killer or a human replacement for tasks, which it is not, but there’s a difference between not being the next Google and being useless. So no, Apple and MS, I don’t want it monitoring everything I do at all times and becoming my primary interface… but I don’t mind a little search window where I can go “hey, what was that movie from the 50s about the two old ladies that were serial killers? Was that Cary Grant or Jimmy Stewart?”.

Seems to go to the OPs point of having open software alternatives, though. I am in a fairly unusual place regarding the practical usage of some of these things, but I do agree that if the entire concept is fundamentally rejected among proponents of open software that delays the possibility of developing viable alternatives to work around those issues.

Yeah, for sure. If you just drop Ubuntu or Fedora or whatever on a machine where everything works for you out of the box the experience is not hard to wrap your head around. Even if one thing needs you to write something in a terminal following a tutorial, that’s also frequent in Windows troubleshooting.

The problem is that all those conversations about concurrent standards for desktop environments, display protocols, software distribution methods and whatnot are hard to grasp across the board. If and when you hit an issue that requires wrapping your head around those that’s where the familiarity with Winddows’ messy-but-straightforward approach becomes relevant.

In my experience it’s not going through the motions while everything works or using the system itself, it’s the first time you try to go off the guardrails or you encounter a technical issue. At that point is when the hidden complexity becomes noticeable again. Not because the commands are text, but because the underlying concepts are complex and have deep interdependencies that don’t map well to other systems and are full of caveats and little differences depending on what combination of desktop and distro you’re trying to use.

That’s the speed bump. It really, really isn’t the terminal.

Well, the good news is that of course you can use Linux with only as much command line interaction as you get in Windows.

The bad news is that the command line REALLY isn’t what’s keeping people away from Linux.

Hell, in that whole list, the most discouraging thing for a new user isn’t the actually fairly simple and straightforward terminal commands, it’s this:

Here’s where it gets a little trickier: Scrolling on Firefox is rough, cause the preinstalled old version doesn’t have Wayland support enabled. So you either have to enable Wayland support or install the Flatpak version of Firefox.

This is a completely inscrutable sentence. It is a ridiculous notion, it brings up so many questions and answers none. It relates to concepts that have no direct equivalent in other platforms and even a new user that successfully follows this post and gets everything working would come out the other end without understanding why they had to do what they did or what the alternative was.

I’ve been saying it for literal decades.

It’s not the terminal, it’s not the UX not looking like Windows.

Hm. So are we all the way there to Win 11 not being installable in fully offline machines, or…? Because niche as that application is, it does sound like the start of a use case for a natively compatible Windows alternative from a third party (say, a FreeWin to go with FreeDOS). I know there are or have been some attempts, but… yeah, long term that seems like it would prompt more focus on something like that.

I suppose it’s more likely that compatibility layers in other OSs would get there first and more practically, but still. Maybe it’s time to move Windows applications from an ecosystem to a standard.

Hey. Hey? Hey. Hello friend.

You just got good advice. Remember that the world is not only for you.

Like, it’s super not for you. It’s mostly not for you at all. If you ask me whether I care about things for people with disabilities or things for you, you don’t even chart. That’s only two options and you’re not even second on that list.

So yeah. Good advice.

Local and secure image recognition is fairly trivial in terms of power consumption, but hey, there’s likely going to be some option to turn it off, just like hardware acceleration for video and image rendering, which uses the same GPU in similar ways. The power consumption argument is not invalid, but the way people deploy it is baffling to me, and is often based on worst-case estimates that are not realistic by design.

To be clear, Apple is building CPUs that can parse these queries in seconds into iPads now, running at a few tens of watts. Each time I boot up Tekken on my 1000W gaming PC for five minutes I’m burning up more power than my share of AI queries for weeks, if not months.

On the second point I absolutely disagree. There is no practical advantage to making accessibility annoying to implement. Accessibility should be structural, mandatory and automatic, not a nice thing people do for you. Eff that.

As for the third part, every alt text I’ve seen deployed is not adding much of value beyond a description of the content. What is measurable and factual is that the coverage of alt-text, even in places where it’s disproportionately popular like Mastodon, is spotty at best and residual at worst. There is no question that automated alt-text is better than no alt-text, and most content has no alt-text.

That is only the tip of the iceberg for ML applied to accessibility, too. You could do active queries, you could have users be able to ask for additional context or clarification, you could have much smoother, automated voice reading of text, including visual description on demand… This tech is powerful in many areas, and this is clearly one. In fact, this is a much better application than search, by a lot. It’s frustrating that search and factual queries, where this stuff is pretty bad at being reliable, are the thing everybody is thinking about.

Same but for tab groups. I can’t believe it took this long and every extension-based alternative is busted in some fundamental way.

AI generated alt-text running locally is actually a fantastic accessibility feature. It’s reliable, it provides a service, it can absolutely be deployed securely.

It’s fine to be critical of technology, it’s not fine to become as irrational about it as the tech bros trying to make a buck.

You guys know that MS rolls out updates through a system of multi-layered opt-in channels and deploy to the wider channels in chunks over longer periods of time, right?

They may not be the most competent or scrupulous megacorp, but they do hire actual software engineers and stuff.

Quest Link yes, I was referring to the alternative Steam Link app that is available on Quest. That’s maintained by Valve (and honestly works better than the wireless version of Quest Link, IMO). I was wondering if that works as an alternative, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there are still dependencies for controller inputs and head tracking that need Oculus software installed to work on the server side.

It’s roughly consistent with Steam survey data, and given the current context, Linux Steam users are heavily incentivized to contribute to the survey. The numbers are what they are.

Plus the guy’s argument is that relevant data sources separate ChromeOS out because it’s substantially different, which is a fair point, regardless of the accuracy of the data.

You used a bunch of words but you aren’t saying much new.

Again, those differences are meaningful. It makes sense to have a different name for it. You can lump it and MacOS and Android as a singular family of OSs, but they’re clearly different products with different branding and different functionality.

You’re also ignoring how much all of those “succesful Linux” non-Linux systems are tied to hadware, which is ultimately the issue. The terminal isn’t as much of a dealbreaker as the Linux community makes it out to be (and neither is the UX not being identical to Windows, BTW). The problem is the lack of hardware support and the finicky configurations, terminal or no terminal. Steam OS, all the flavors of Android and Chrome OS are all customized to the hardware they ship with and work well with it. In all cases the hardware is locked and it doesn’t need much readjusting, and when it does it’s often through a live support update system.

And yes, I have thought of ChromeOS as Linux, don’t be patronizing. I am saying it’s not the same as the desktop-focused Linux distros that are trying to support modular PC hardware in the way Windows does. Because it isn’t.

As a person that also went “screw it, I’m going back to Windows 95” for the exact same reasons in a previous millenium…

…no they aren’t.

This isn’t new, this has been the way this works for decades. Sure, there have been improvements, but also plenty of steps backwards. This run at it has been a noticeably worse experience than, say, being told about Ubuntu and being surprised at it having a smooth installer for the first time. Sure, gaming then was a no-go, but with PC hardware being a much narrower path then, it was so much easier to get the hardware itself running.

And yes, it was about to be the year of Linux desktop then, too.