They're super rare. I've not gotten one once in decades, whereas I've encountered countless viruses on Windows. Linux is more secure, but also it's just a smaller target. Best way to avoid viruses is to use an OS nobody else wants to use *taps head
I think you have a false sense of security with regards to Linux vulnerabilities and exploitations. There are dozen of known exploits throughout the Linux ecosystem that are publicly disclosed frequently.
What makes you think Linux is more secure than windows? I'm not trying to start an argument here I'm just curious.
I find the Linux ecosystem has far better updating mechanisms than Windows and it doesn't have as much backwards compatibility cruft as Windows. That and the open source nature I think is better at having exploits uncovered. I'm not saying Linux is perfectly secure, but that it's more secure than Windows. But I think the biggest reason it's less likely to get viruses is just that it's a smaller target and that hackers aren't spending as much time trying to attack it, plus the users are more tech savvy meaning any attacks will be less lucrative.
The target user base is much smaller. Most viruses are spread through user error and server administrators are far more competent than a typical OS user. Also, typical server exploits lead to exposing credentials rather than spreading viruses.
you mean because of the last two panels which are supposed to be the same?
I personally prefer this version, it always bothered me reading the same thing twice which didn't add much to the meme
What if they couldn't come up with a different format (even tho I may know different formats to use here I sometimes simply don't know their name (to search for their templates) or I'm just lacking the mental capacity to think of a more fitting one :')
You're showing statues of Lenin in countries in which the Dictatorship of the Proletariat failed to cede power to the working class and establish a socialist economic structure.
When Lenin took power, Russia had nothing. It was in the middle of WW1, there were regular famines, almost everyone was illiterate, and it was in no condition to establish a socialist economic plan. So, Lenin created a temporary economic model called The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This is a centrally planned economy designed to rapidly develop infrastructure and industry in a country that has none. Lenin was already ceding power to the worker's councils when he died. Stalin decided he liked The Dictatorship of the Proletariat and did not cede power back to the worker's councils.
Those countries never experienced Communism. They never even experienced socialism. They destroyed those statues because they hated The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Living in a system designed for a short temporary economic boom for decades is no fun.
It's so very capitalist to look at failed attempts to escape capitalism which were sabotaged by capitalists as indication that the need to rebel is the problem.
Failing to account for greed for power some people have is in itself a fatal flaw, to be honest. Anyone who advocates for the exact same actions and glorifies the USSR knows what they are doing, they're hoping to come out on top after their desired revolution. Unfortunately, there are plenty of those kinds of people on this platform...
No, I'm just saying tankie infestations are so widespread and loud that they have a decent amount of leverage on what the average person thinks of communism, and tankie opposing leftists are either not loud enough, or not numerous enough.
Out of curiosity, how do you think governments in large capitalist economies (such as the US) properly account for greed for power and keep it in check? Do you think they are doing a good job on that front?
What is this, I am against dictatorial abominations, so that means I am in favor of capitalist abuse? I am literally saying that opposition to capitalism is shooting itself in the foot by tolerating the existence of authoritarian "communists".
Unless you're an actual tankie, your words towards me make no sense.
That's objectively false. USSR managed to provide everyone with food, housing, healthcare, education, and jobs. Nobody worried about losing their job and ending up on the street or that they wouldn't be able to retire in dignity. People had reasonable work hours and enjoyed over 20 days vacation. None of the capitalist regimes around today are able to achieve these things.
They didn't fail. I mean you can criticize the ussr, but it was not capitalist
which were sabotaged by capitalists
What a weird thing to say. The USSR had sovereign control over the largest country in the world by far + a lot of allies. The capitalists can't even get rid of north Korea. Its not the capitalists, the system is just shit
the need to rebel is the problem
I mean its fine to rebel, but if your goal is communism I will bet on another case of "tHatS nOT rEaL coMMUnIsM"
Communism doesn't include a hierarchy of power enforced by violence. The two concepts are antithetical. The USSR was somewhere between capitalism and fascism.
So-called "dictatorship of proletariat" was simply a terror. Lots of philosophers and religious elite was killed just because they weren't compatible with communist ideology. Rich peasants who didn't even use others labor were either robbed or killed. Peasants lost their land and had to work for the country. People got killed just because some anonyms told they did something bad.
I know this because it happened to my ancestors. My grand-grandfather lost his house, communists left only one room for his family. His friends, all good people, dissapeared. His daughters never played with neighbor's kids because of fear. My other grand-grandfather lost land and two horses. His brother was killed for not agreeing to give away his house. And my another grand-grandfather was killed because an anonymous letter. He was communist and thought he was safe as he did nothing wrong. His kids couldn't get education because they were "children of the enemy of the people". Much later my grandfather got a paper concluding that execution of his father was a mistake. It was horrible time, and lots of people thought the ones who were killed were "pests" or "enemies of the people", so killing them was good and beneficial for the society.
Lenin was a counterrevolutionary that brutally suppressed any dissent and directly placed Stalin (being well aware of what a person he was) in a position that would make his later takeover possible.
More like: People on the internet being critical of the current system, Americans on the internet saying "COMMUNISM BAD" as if USSR style state capitalism is the only other possible option.
How else would it work? You need some power structure that actively forbids a free market and private ownership. And that power will sooner or later be abused.
You can't just imagine some utopia where nobody has to work, and everything is free, and call that communism.
The core tenant of every form of Communism, regardless of if said party or organisation follows it, is as follows: that the means of production should belong to the workers who work them. If the means of production are not in the hands of the workers, then they are not communist. If they are in the hands of a CEO or a corporation, you have private capitalism or market capitalis like the US. If you put them in the hands of a state, they are in the state, you get state capitalism ala China or the USSR.
The power structure of the state protects an upper class, be it billionaires or "the party". If you abolish the state, but not capitalism, capitalism will rebuild the state (which is why Anarcho capitalism fails every time) and vice versa (which is what happens with Marxist Leninism).
For a Communist or communalist society to work it needs to be Anarchist or classically Libertarian (aka like Bakunin or Kropotkin proposed, not "money first"). It needs to have a horizontal and democratic decision making process that is decentralised, federated, and involves all the members of the community or communities effected. If there is to be a state, it should be to facilitate the colaboration of communities in a bottom up manner. These are the features of almost every single effective or successful Anarchist or Socialist movements from Rojava or the Zapatistas, as well as non-political movements like the Open Source Movement, railway preservatiion movement, and even the early RNLI.
The power structure thant would forbid a free market would be the collective weight of everyone else rather than a state that, sooner or later, becomes the jackboot of capital.
The main issue is that they communism is economic policy, NOT social policy. While they do go hand in hand people often conflate the two. Many dictatorships use communism as a way to control the people but that doesn't mean that communism leads directly to dictatorships.
Is true Communism even possible if it's being attempted by flawed humans? Seems like it doesn't matter the economic system so much as the fact that people will ruin anything given enough time.
IDK, I've found Gnome unusable for a long time. I tried to make up for it with extensions for a while, but every release would unapologetically break something I found essential and the extension devs would give up trying to keep them going.
I understand that eventually they got better about dropping breaking changes without warning, because extension devs were leaving in droves, but at that point KDE got good again with Plasma, and I've never looked back.
Gnome has their vision to be a completely hands off, dumbed-down, unbreakable DE for the lowest common denominator. I guess judged by that light, it's a success. It's the default in a lot of distros because it's low maintenance for packaging and support. Frankly, I think it's a major reason for the slow speed of Linux desktop uptake, but what do I know.
I really don't get these memes. In about 9 years of daily use on multiple systems I never had anything break beyond a multitude of failures to update with pacman - all of which could be fixed within minutes - and in the early years having to restart my system every couple of months because it stopped recognizing USB devices - after many rounds of updates mind you. I've had more frequent troubles with windows. How did Arch get this bad rep?
The X server has to be the biggest program I've ever seen that doesn't do anything for you.
Ken Thompson
I see Wayland's flaws but X is such a bloated piece of hardly maintainable spaghetti code that it is sadly beyond saving or prospects for anything in terms of significant improvement
the real question is whether you use git variants. Which is another way of not making arch (and Gentoo) certainly not free as in free beer, especially if you live in Europe and need to deal with those outrageous energy prices. btw imo one should be suspicious of projects with long tagged release cadence since it's usually a sign of technical debt and the need to look for alternatives.
Same here. 10 years on my laptop and it broke only once: I accidentally closed the terminal where the initramfs was installed. So my mistake. I could fix it by using an arch install on an USB and my knowledge of how to install the system, since I did it myself, by hand.
well in this particular case it's initramfs' fault for not designing for all-or-nothing atomicity (a operation either completes fully or not at all). which you can work around with a terminal multiplexer where a session can be re-attached later in such cases btw.
That's because arch is very old and back in the days it was prone to breakage. Ironically, it is now much more stable and easy to maintain than an Ubuntu derivative but people will still recommend Mint to beginners for some reason.
I installed my Arch on Desktop in 2009 and it was just cloned from one disk to another through multitude of PCs, and sure, there were occasional troubles, like upgrade from SysV init to systemd, when KDE plasma 4 released, or the time, when I had to run a custom kernel and mesa which supported the AMD Vega 56 card ~month after release.
But nowadays, I didnt had a single breakage for several years, my RX6800 GPU was well supported 3 months after release, and most things just work... BTW I run arch also on my home server, in 6 years it had literally zero issues.
Ok wow! This is really impressive. I couldn't even run Windows or Debian or something like that for 15 years, yet you managed to do it with Arch. May I ask what was the main reason behind trying to keep this Arch installation for so long? Were you just to lazy to reinstall or are there other factors?
And reinstalling the packages, moving over all the configs, setting up the partitions and moving the data over? (Not in this order, of course)
Cloning a drive would just require you to plug both the old and new to the same machine, boot up (probably from a live image to avoid issues), running a command and waiting until it finishes. Then maybe fixing up the fstab and reinstalling the bootloader, but those are things you need to do to install the system anyways.
I think the reason you'd want to reinstall is to save time, or get a clean slate without any past config mistakes you've already forgotten about, which I've done for that very reason, especially since it was still my first, and less experienced, install.
Well not really, cloning is much easier than reinstalling and then configuring everything again...
I have LVM set up from the start, so usually I just copy the /boot partition to the new disk, and the rest is in a LVM volume group, so I just use pvmove from old disk to the new one, fix the bootloader and fstab UUIDs, and Im ready to reboot from new disk, while I didnt even left my running system, no live USB needed or anything. (Of course I messed it up a first few times, so had to fix from a live OS).
But once you know all the quirks, I can be up and ready on a new drive withing 20mins (depends mainly on the pvmove), with all the stuff preserved and set
There were no real reasons to reinstall it, it works fine, occasionally had to purge some config files in home for some apps after major version changes, or edit them, but most work for years. I mean, my mplayer config is from 2009 and last edited 4 years ago...
It's like saying democracy sucks because look at states like Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo and German Democratic Republic.
When people proclaim to be something doesn't make it true.
You can have socialism, or anarchy, which we've seen before, but communism cannot function in one country alone, unless said country is completely and absolutely self reliant.
A major part of communism is internationalism, which is why socialist countries had the Comintern. (Communist International). Besides a political/social system, communism has a strong basis as an economic system. You can't apply communist economic system principles to the capitalist market.
To my knowledge, no existing country is self reliant to the point that they can completely cut off trade with the rest of the world. USSR didn't do it, China didn't do it and they were the two biggest countries at the time.
That, of course is all a very surface level ELI5, and if you want to ask something more specific or in depth, feel free to.
Without search engine and without going into detail that is out of the scope, anarchy is a different path to a classless system. Said classless system is different enough from communism to warrant discussion but close enough for that discussion to be devolving into anarchy vs socialism most of the time to differentiate the path to that system.
Said path in anarchy is comprised of setting up collectives that start small, neighborhood small, and gradually evolve. Each collective shares almost everything between its members and there's no leadership or ranking across its members.
Anything deeper than that leads to a long discussion that is out of the scope of this thread and definitely out of the scope of the ELI5 the post I originally replied to needed or had the philosophical basis to understand possibly. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but they are quite different approaches to a similar goal, a classless society that money does not rule all.
Unless you’re an ultra-orthodox marxist, there is no such thing as trüe communism™.
There always have been many different ideas what „communism“ is, e.g. there have been various „nationalist communist“ ideologies (complicated by the fact that the Russian SFSR called everything „nationalist“ that wasn’t 100% aligned with its ideas of the Soviet Union, e.g. Hungary).
There are also no clear boundaries between communism, socialism, and anarchism, e.g. Kropotkin with his theories of anarchist communism.
That being said, I don’t think communism is a system (either social or economic), it’s strictly an idealogy, meaning it’s a way to achieve something, i.e. the classless and stateless society. If you follow that thought to its logical end, you cannot even „achieve“ communism at all, since at this point e.g. the proletariat ceases to exist, and as a result you cannot have a „dictatorship of the proletariat“.
In feel like you make it complicated to arrive at your conclusion here. Communism, as described by Marx and Engels and to some degree Lenin, is something very specific that covers most aspects of the society. Political, social and economic. Marx himself wrote books upon books on the economy of a socialist, communist system.
It is not an abstract "I don't like capitalism so let's try something different" approach. And yes, many have tried to adapt it, as you mentioned which is why those different approaches carry a different name 'anarchist communism' in your example. Because they are different enough from flat out communism.
No, I have a very easy explanation what communism is, it’s just that nobody else agrees is the issue.
different approaches carry a different name
Yeah, well... So let’s see, we have: Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Titoism, Gulyáskommunizmus (both, as mentioned before, considered „nationalist communism“ by other communists), Rätekommunismus, Realsozialismus, Maoism …
So, which one of those is the true communism?
Joking aside, most of the 20th century was spent with people killing other people because they had slightly different opinions on what true communism means, so it’s really not me who made things complicated.
And you keep using different names to describe them. As you should. Communism is not one thing and never was. But when people refer to base or true communism, the answer is just one.
It's how it was defined in the communist manifesto in 1848. You could say it's Marxism, but I dislike that naming since others played a big role on forming it as well, like Engels and others who based on Marx's mostly economic study added the philosophical and political angles.
Every theme or name change after the manifesto (that is not found in later revisions by the communist international) is attempts at adapting it with different angles and for different purposes and circumstances, aka NOT base or pure communism. Don't bundle everything in one basket and try to make sense, same way that bundling Putin's Russian form of Capitalism with US's imperialism and French Revolution's early capitalism together doesn't make sense either.
He asked for pure communism, I answered for that. If he asked about Trotsky, I'd focus more on the permanent revolution and the Fourth International. If he asked of Stalin, I'd talk about his socialism in one country theory
Yeah well, so you’re an orthodox Marxist and I disagree with you ¯\(ツ)/¯
But when people refer to base or true communism, the answer is just one.
Aha, is that so?
I dislike that naming since others played a big role on forming it as well
Yeah, you could say that!
So! Let’s talk about Restif de la Bretonne who was using „communist“ and „communism“ 60-70 years before Marx writes the „Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei“. Babeuf (who called himself a „communalist“) already tried to incite a communist revolution in the 1790s. De La Hodde calls the Parisian general strike in 1840 „inspired by communist ideas“. In 1841 the „Communistes Matérialistes“ publish „L'Humanitaire“, which Nettlau calls „the first libertarian communist publication“.
And how come that a certain bloke named Karl Marx in his 1842 essay „Der Kommunismus und die Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung" finds that communism had already become an international movement. Hey, I know that name! 🤔
Tell me, how exactly is Marxism (or whatever you want to call it) the one and only trüe communism™ when there’s decades of different variances of communism and movements of people calling themselves communists before the „Manifest“?
Just face it: your beloved Marxism is just one variant of communism, which for a variety of reasons has become the best known. But it’s certainly not „base communism“.
I've got no horse in this race, I just want to point out the irony of asserting that there is only one "true" communism in reply to a comment about how leftists have spent the last century arguing over what "true" communism even is.
Communism fails every time it is tried because it goes against human nature of constantly comparing yourself to others and trying to improve yourself. You will never do harder work if you can get the same reward for easier work, and you will look for other, less moral ways of getting the bigger reward.
Communism sounds great but it will never work until we have unlimited resources and completely automated labour.
Nah, that's just wrong. You can compare yourself in other ways than how much fake money you earn. Fun thing is: truly communistic society would mean easier work for most people.
And communism does work in small scale enviroments. Families, cooperatives, tribes. Sometimes neighborhoods.
This whole "Sounds great but won't work" rhethoric is just what the ones that would loose their power in communsim want you to think. If you dig into it you will see, that there were and are a lot of efforts to discredit the idea.
programming.dev
Aktiv