Every time I want to contribute to Debian documentation, translation or the like, it feels like the tools and/or bureaucratic process is super heavy and then I just don’t have time for that. It might just be me or that I haven’t found “the way” but other things I can do much easier. Haven’t tried to contributed to Debian Wiki, so that might be easier.

I’m still noob when it comes to running Linux. Debian has always been my favourite - just the philosophy behind it, but also the stability and broad usage. First OS book I read fully was on Debian. Then coming to try using Debian, it failed me (some things didn’t work and I couldn’t figure out how to fix it) multiple times. However, Debian 12 was the turning point and Debian 13 seems to work at least as good.

I would argue that backporting one package does not ruin everything. If you backport a lot of stuff, then I would agree that it changing distrio to something more up-to-date should be considered because of the increase of potential problems.

Novice question: Couldn’t you have switched to Trixie months ago and also don’t have to change to Stable? I thought that would give the same result.

But you don’t see all the people that does not ask for features, but could benefit from them. I worked IT support for years and I often suggested features or different workflow to users because I could see they were doing things that could be done easier.

Except that if people don’t know the feature exists, they might not ask about it. If you see the feature exists and you don’t want it, it is easier to figure out how to turn it off.

There are many feature that are turned on by default - this is just one of them.

Everything in the desktop is a gimmick… remove all visible things of the desktop and only show apps. Settings can be handled in a text configuration file. Or are some of these gimmicks actually useful, even for “experts”?

I have many times, installing a new app on a Windows Server, just gone in and seen the latest installed app and clicked on it. Sorry, that is my best example as that is where I most often use this feature - I don’t install that many apps on my desktops.

I’ll jump on the Danish wagon and tell about our extra high power prices some days ago because Germany. France and Spain was using airconditioning so much in the evening, while the solar power production was going down with the setting sun. Don’t they know that I need to pay extra for their cool enjoyment?

Even with uncertainties, it gets close to 100%

Quick note: A new major version of Debian is expected to be released this summer (northern hemisphere), within a few months.

Even in Word, some of those templates behaves weirdly.

I started on a DX2 66 MHz with 4 MB RAM and 420 MB HDD. 4 x 1 MB modules. Later upgraded to 20 MB RAM (added 4 x 4 modules) and a 1.2 GB Matrox HDD that need an extra driver to be used. With 20 MB I created a RAM drive, copied Doom to it and ran it - loaded real fast but frame rate was horrible.

Can anything be more incomprehensible that Discord?

Fun video that shows Torvald is not the best person to judge about if a distribution is good or bad - he’s just your average user.

Different Windows 10 versions also have different hardware requirements e.g. CPU support is removed for older CPUs in 22H2 (but some old CPUs are kept for whatever weird business reason, compare 1511 to 22H2). The monthly updates are regular updates that only bump up the minor version numbers and installs in a few minutes. The big updates bump up the major version number, takes much longer to install, get rolled out slowly and often has a different startup screen (first start after update). They often also doesn’t just install but need the user to approve - however this has changed a lot over time. Keep in mind that the last major Windows 10 version is almost 3 years old and since then it has just been “minor” monthly updates (that have contained some new features). Microsoft have really messed up the whole update process in regards to changing how it works, multiple times. Gone from major versions had a meaning (wow, new features!) to more of a rolling release where major updates often had only a few things (meh, just a new ISO spawn point) as most new features was rolled out in monthly updates.

For the genereal user, Windows 10 should just be “Windows 10” and not think about version numbers. The system should just update when the next major version has become stable (a few monthly updates added to it) and just mind it’s own. Going to Windows Update and click update now, should give you the latest. This is just not how it worked with Windows 10 or 11. You often run into something blocking you - could be Microsoft that know you have a incompatible configuration (software/hardware) or some other reason that you can’t figure out and at some point your Windows is not updated anymore because the Windows version you’re on is not supported any longer.

I have not worked with Linux on a regular basis for a long time, so I might run into same weirdness (updates not working) in the future, but so far it has been a smoother. I do use Debian Stable, so it’s not a big thrill ride.

I think you misunderstood. Windows 10 was released in 2015, and will have general support for all versions until October 2025. That’s 10 years.

No, not all Windows 10 versions will have 10 years of support. Example for home and pro: Windows 10 version 1507 was released in 2015 and support ended in 2017. Only Version 22H2 is supported into 2025.

Again, it is a definition question. For me “Windows 10” is a product name, like “Linux Mint” or “Windows Vista”. The version number e.g. 1507 or 22H2 is the version number, like 22.1 is for Linux Mint or “SP6a” for Windows NT 4.0. And it makes sense to differentiate between versions of Windows 10 and not treat them as the same, as there are big differences between version 1507 and 22H2.

There are LTS(B) versions available for Windows 10 that offers 10 years support and even some that is supported beyond 2025.

A particular version of Linux Mint, the example you mentioned, is supported for 4 years, whereas Windows 10 was supported for 10 years

I know this is a definition question, but yes, Enterprise LTS versions of Windows 10 will be supported for 10 years. For normal versions, you will have to update to a newer Windows 10 version to be supported - just like Linux Mint.

Today, a lot of 10 users would upgrade to 11 if they could, but their older-but-still-fine hardware is simply being cut off from Windows support.

Technically, a lot of people was also “cut off” for Windows support with Windows 10, however, Windows 10 did not block you from upgrading anyway. Looking at the CPU requirements of Windows 10 1511, the Intel i3/5/7 types all required at least 5000 series or better from around 2015. Newer Windows 10 version cut out some of the 1511 supported CPUs, raising the minimum requirements. I think it was some of the CPUs from Microsoft’s own Surface computers, that was kept in the supported list.

Microsoft should just let Windows 11 install with a big fat warning that you are running unsupported hardware, however this could have a negative experience when people run into features that does not work. But most of the way, people would be fine.

Haha yes, I had to go to client with a new desktop with Windows Vista… that only had 512 MB. It was swapping all the time and was useless and I looked like an idiot for bringing a defective computer that we had selected for him. Upgraded to 1 GB and it was fine.

Alternatively they could test their shit in advance

A big part of the problem was 3rd party programs that was not ready. A big change was introduction of the User Account Control (UAC) that more or less started to force programs to behave better: Install into program file, save stuff in user profile, don’t do dumb admin stuff if not needed, making programs start to behave more like they lived in a multi-user operating system. It was a change that had to be done and it was never going to be a good experience.

It’s not like Microsoft is too poor to afford an array of average computers and a dozen of testers

I think you underestimate how many testers and how much work actually goes into testing both Microsoft’s own software and work with 3rd party software vendors to make sure their software worked. This has changed somewhat, with Windows 10 and forward, where you have a lot more beta testing in the public.

I agree that there should have been spent more time on testing Vista and given more time to 3rd party to test their stuff. However, 3rd party software and drivers took, in some instances, 1-2 years after Vista release, before they updated their stuff to work with Vista. There were just not a lot of companies interested in spending the money and time to make make it work as Vista got a (deserving) bad reception, but a big part of the problem was these companies. A chicken/egg situation.