• 8 Posts
  • 32 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: November 24th, 2023

help-circle
  • Corporate adoption is Linux is absolutely a completely different discussion. Users of corporate devices are not the owners of their device, they have no expectation of control or freedom, and the tasks completed on these devices are typically simple and restricted. So yes, very little of my initial comment applies to that.

    As for your other arguments, I would agree that the general everyday public with very little knowledge of Linux or the differences from Windows should have little expectation of switching over unless they decide to investigate for themselves. The main target my complaints are those people who come in to threads like these who do have the technical understanding to complain about Windows and understand that Linux is different, but constantly whine that they could never switch because this reason or that reason and oh won’t those Linux nerds please just accept that Windows is better even though we’re talking in the eighteenth thread full of people who hate it.


  • You’re completely right, but there’s a good reason why this happens. Why are people so insistent on trying to find fixes and workarounds for a broken system?

    It’s absolutely the same mindset as boomers complaining about technology these days because they don’t want to learn how to download a mobile app. These people grew up with Windows and are too stubborn or insecure to learn something new, even if it’s consistently better in multiple different ways. Yes, there are a few exceptions to that argument, but for the most part the arguments against switching to Linux are flimsy excuses, or outdated, or both.




  • My point is that corporations cannot be victims because they’re not people, they’re a legal construct. They cannot be victims any more than a table can be a victim when I spill my drink over it. The term “victim”, whether intentional or not, is an emotive word that invokes ideas of injustice and suffering.

    Marketing teams and corporate executives convinced people and legal systems that corporations are people in an attempt to engender sympathy, personification, and to avoid responsibility for their own failures, like the case in this article where managerial and procedural failures by those in charge led to the ability for this ex-employee to be able to do what he did.












  • I do understand why this decision was taken, but I think this could become very messy without some explicit method of requesting (or rejecting) engagement. Lemmy is a very big place, and its unlikely even the most well-meaning individuals will check the sidebar for every single community they enter when they only want to contribute to a post. This is just exacerbated by the subjective, loosely defined requests for engagement as the system stands.

    Even aside from outside users, I can imagine it creating issues when moderation is enforced. We’ve already had enough drama around this instance regarding the way we protect our users and defend our right to exist, the best thing we can do moving forward is make such protections as clear, unambiguous, and explicit as possible. For the safety of our transfem girlies and the health of our community discussions.

    I would definitely vote for a set of community agreed tags in post titles to state engagement preferences, where any post without a tag should be assumed to encourage engagement from any reader.