• 74 Posts
  • 91 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: December 2nd, 2024

help-circle
























  • I feel like a lot of any residual bad talk on KDE stems from when Plasma 5 was new. It was rough for years. I’m guess by the Steam Deck it became pretty close to as visually consistent as all the default gnome applications. It’s a lot more stable now too compared to a decade ago. Not just the desktop environment, stuff like really wide appealing applications like Kdenlive are way better than they used to be. I think it makes sense that it’s only recent that Fedora promoted KDE Plasma to default/flagship along side gnome as equals. A decade ago, KDE Plasma 5 wasn’t there. Today KDE Plasma is. So maybe because of that and the Steam Deck, KDE is going to be more default than gnome in the future. I’m on KDE and I feel like a decade ago hot corners felt way more pleasant to me on gnome than KDE. It’s how I switch windows along with alt tab. Maybe more often use hot corner to see an overview of windows. Animations are great now









  • I don’t think 10 lifetimes is enough for me to learn about all the software that people out there run on Linux servers. Then I die my last lifetime and people come up with new software. Myself as an individual could see all that and say that software like that should be available on a server OS especially to compete with Linux. A huge company with over a hundred thousand employees. They can probably crowdsource through their employees a way longer list than me but will leadership read the list? Will they greenlight funding development for all that software? Will they match up to as good and ideally better to be worth paying for than the free and open source stuff on Linux? Will they keep up development on all that software or fall behind the open source stuff?

    If they can’t do that, there’s no reason for any company to smartly spend money on a proprietary server OS license for what would be immediately a worse product or a product that is at best just as good or a product that would inevitably end up being worse than the Linux ecosystem. I consider it an impossibility for a new proprietary OS to cover the whole breadth of server software out there and even the whole breadth of server hardware support. I’m not sure what the status is of Windows Server ARM and Windows Server RISC-V. Don’t know how popular POWER is on server or if SPARC is still kicking. That’s top 5 largest company in the world Microsoft that’s been doing operating systems for like 40 years.

    Doing a Linux spin makes the most sense.

    Plus Linux development is supported by a huge amount of large companies. It’s not rag tag open source freelancers vs mega-corporation. It would be a collection of mega-corporations to small corporations plus independent individuals vs a mega-corporation






  • Sweden has nearly a century constant fighter aircraft making experience but by the time of the gripen it all became so costly that it’s heavily made of tech from like the UK and other European countries. Engines from the US. A big problem with trying to develop a modern engine without having all the research and industrial experience transferred from another country, it would take tens of billions of USD of research to accomplish even with good industrial espionage

    Like the big hiccups for Russian 5th gen fighters are the engines. 30+ years of development and it’s just barely looking like it’s coming to readiness and that’s with decades prior of other engines developed. For today’s modern engines that became competitive at the high end competition, for China, research really started in the 70s. India had been trying since the 90s. It’s an insanely expensive research project. Canada would likely have a worse time funding it than India.

    South Korea and Turkey are likely a good aspiration for Canada while a Sweden a model they can better emulate. Canada would be far behind those SK/T in terms of domestic technology they can draw from though. Canada has Bombadier at least


  • I don’t think 20 years is enough especially for countries without the experience to fall back on. Not counting licensed builds. Engines and materials science. Also all the software. Digital and analog instruments. Modern fighters operate in connection with ground data links, satellite data links, other partner aircraft data links. All incredibly expensive and time consuming to develop

    Countries with experience in Europe are all trying to partner up because of the financial costs and different part specialities for a 6th gen fighter and mockups make them look more like they’d be a gen 5.5 and they’re pretty much all targeting ~2035 operationally when serious planning started between 2015-2020. I would not bet on any of the european gen 5+ being operationally ready for serial production by 2035.