Article for context:https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/12/23870522/iphone-15-pro-max-thread-smartphones (Ik that I am talking about multiple companies when I refer to android companies but many singular companies make more innovations in the phone space compared to apple)
No, and in fact it’s the other way around. This is exactly the underlying position used to attack Windows users. I don’t know how you can be so involved on the subject and not understand this.
It doesn’t matter if you’re personally guilty of this or not. Just look at the downvotes and verbal attack I received simply for stating that both operating systems have merit. This is the result of conflating Microsoft with Windows, that there’s an innate feeling of moral superiority in the denouncement of Windows users because of the harm done by its creator.
My point is that these two things are distinct and need to be distinguished. Criticize Windows all you want. Criticize Microsoft all you want. But if you start to criticize Windows for its association with Microsoft, then communication starts to break down and people start getting blamed for something they don’t even personally support because of a perceived moral high ground.
There is no moral high ground to be had over your every day user, because at the end of the day we’re all participants of capitalistic evil no matter where we choose to draw our personal lines. That’s what I meant.
In the first statement i made to you directly was the following:
From which I cannot fathom how you think I lack an appreciation that some people do blame others for such choices, or that I’m somehow having a conversation about those kinds of people…at all? Let alone their perceived moral high ground or lack thereof?
My entire thread has been about us having the freedom to express our reasons for avoiding it. If you’re not contesting the legitimacy of that freedom, them why are you continually attempting to invalidate my position, at all?
Tbh I’m entirely unconvinced by your claim that any participation in “capitalistic evil” immediately invalidates all subsequent discernment of shades of evil or the complex interactions thereof.
But frankly its entirely irrelevant to this thread, unless you believe it supports a position that we do not have the freedom to voice our own reasons for our own choices?
But you’re still grouping two distinct things together and feeding this monster that is ‘guilty by association’. At this point you’re either willfully ignoring my part about conflation or arguing just to argue. 🤷
Do you see how these statements are different? Because let me remind you:
You’re dangerously close to implying that where others choose to draw their own lines is incorrect.
Either we are failing to communicate (because i too have a strong sense you just “want to be right” regardless of the facts), or you’re actually engaging in bad faith discussion.
Since you mentioned you have the same feeling I’ll try to lay it out a bit more.
Its unfortunate you’ve had people ego flex on you over supposed morality. But that doesn’t mean everyone who mentions linux is like that.
Example, I’ve seen people who go up to smokers and evangalise about how smoking is “bad”, and how they’re “hurting society BY hurting themselves with smoking”. Well arguments about second hand smoke aside, I don’t really think that approach is especially helpful. It’s a moral position based on this abstract idea - even if statistically smokers increase our insurance or some shit like that, i doubt many people have the personal experience to say it actually effects them, so it defs comes off as a supposed moral high ground thing, right?
Because some people are going around making that kind of fuss, does mean that EVERYONE who chooses not to smoke is acting out some moral high ground fantasy? Are ALL those who quit smoking “for their health” just morality faking fuckwits? Or are some of them legit worried about their lung health?
For another example, your claim of conflation very much appears to be centred around your misunderstanding of the facts: You’ve had some people flex on your ego, and thats unfortunate. But I don’t think its useful to allow that experience to taint everything else you hear on the topic, and therefore presume you know what someone is saying just because someone else took the same side on the same topic.
The entire premise of traditional digital computing is centred on some key concepts, one of which is defined behaviour. Very clear and strict logical boundaries need to be established for what is defined behaviour. In simple, an operation (eg. adding two numbers), must be deterministic, that is the same two numbers when added must always produce the same resulting number.
Central to another aspect of this is trust. If you cannot trust the outcome of defined behaviour, then the precepts of computing fall apart for a variety of important applications, the behaviour is no longer strictly defined.
I’d hard to overstate how important this is, how much it empowers you as a member of the public, who do not have the resources to hire a team of number crunchers (as companies used to have to do in the old days).
Microsoft have repeatedly shown, they cannot be trusted. They will manipulate and deceive, by design in your computer, with actual code they insert into windows and then knowingly ship.
For these people, this problem matters ALOT, and this isn’t some abstract thing, its not some idealist philosophy to smugly throw around at parties, its a cold electronic fact - something they have to deal with, overcome, often at their own expense. The problem being, that when they ask their computer to perform an operation, their computer might intentionally lie to them about the operation itself, the outcome of the operation, or the integrity of the information going in or out of that operation.
The trust problem between microsoft and the code they insert into windows (running at the highest privilege level on YOUR computer hardware), is absolutely intertwined in the real world, in practice, in a variety of ways. Yes, all threat models involving linux deal with trust problems as well. But when you have a known compromised product from a known bad actor it is simply incorrect to suggest the product and the creator can only be considered in isolation from eachother.
And as you can appreciate you don’t even need to do anything wrong, for these kind of user-hostile features to be used against you, even in ways not intended by those who put them there - which is a whole other issue.
I could go on & on as this is really just touching the surface, but I hope you can begin to appreciate it’s not even remotely close to a conflation, this is not some guilt by association abstract nonsense, this is deeply and painfully practical. i really hope you can at least get a glimpse of it for yourself now.
Not even close. This is plain to see, as nowhere in this entire essay, nor in any of your other comments for that matter, do you even address my point that lumping in Windows users with the immoral actions of a company results in a harmful dissonance that breeds hostility towards people that realistically don’t have another choice. Time and time again you’ve just ignored this and spouted some platitudes about how Microsoft being bad and Windows being their product somehow means that there’s no need to delineate the two because of their relationship. You can support one without supporting the other. There’s no need to tap dance around it.
At least you’ve confirmed my suspicions that you hold these beliefs because of some misguided sense of superiority. I.E. I’m wrong because I can’t comprehend the problem. This is our miscommunication.
How can you even begin to think this when I’ve done nothing but advocate for both operating systems and attempted to elucidate the root of hostilities? How is my goal here not completely obvious?
i said i don’t defend it in the very first message i said to you. why isn’t that enough?
you claim i won’t address it when i denounced it in the very first reply i sent to you?!? when i already denounced it, what is there left to say?
Thanks for wasting my time. It seems you have no interest in the facts or learning anything new. You just want to be right, even when discussing a topic you openly admit you know little to nothing about. You freely admit you can’t get linux to work properly, yet suppose to lecture everyone what they are and are not free to discuss about this very same topic you admit you can’t get a handle on. All because your ego got a little bruised
enjoy.
Nice one. Hey, have fun continuing to be part of the smug assholes that give Linux a bad name.
all linux users are smug arseholes because once upon a time some of them hurt my feelings. and even though another linux user repeatedly denounced that and said its unfortunate, i pretended they didn’t because they wouldn’t endlessly cry with me about my hurt feelings and instead talked about actual real world facts, what a horrible group of people
I’m a Linux user. Duh-doy. My very first comment said as much. I self-host a media server on a Debian distro. That’s one of the funniest parts of all this, people keep assuming that because it’s a struggle for me that I was never successful at it or that I’m ignorant on the subject. I succeeded despite my inadequacies, thank you very much.
Also yes, that’s how it’s gonna be if you’re just going to continue perpetuating some of the collateral damage and call my attempt to change that …how did you put it? Oh right