I've used linux desktop environments using Wayland and others using x11. No real problems with either.
Let's instead get excited by all the new linux users coming in thanks to SteamOS and Valve. If the trend continues, we might start seeing larger software companies releasing native linux versions of their software -- and then, the year of the linux desktop will start becoming an actual possibility!
(I heard affinity suite is linux friendly now btw, and davinci resolve too -- not sure if proton is necessary or not, but either way, really cool)
> we might start seeing larger software companies releasing native linux versions of their software
I like the idea of course, but I don't believe it for one second. Unless software is open source, it never properly supports Linux. A company making a proprietary executable for Linux will generally just make an Ubuntu executable.
My biggest fear with something like "the year of the Linux Desktop" is that it may end up making Linux be like Android: open source on the paper, but there is practically really just one way to do things, and that's the one controlled by Google.
What I like with Linux is this big mess of alternatives that manage to somehow compete with each other. Sure, it's not as polished as Android or Windows or macOS. But it's free (as in freedom).
The limited ram is planned obselescence. It leads to massively increased swap usage and will wear out your non-replaceable ssd to make you get a new machine. In theory
Art should be done foremost because it's a passion for the artist. If you give up art just because you can no longer sell it, because you're being out competed by computer generated furry porn, then the world hasn't really lost anything of value.
that seems a bit harsh. if you’re livelihood has been from making some sort of visual art for however many years and work has even drying up bc of AI, just doing a sudden career pivot is pretty difficult.
True, it's harsh. But the way I see it, artists producing real art from their soul are going to keep at it even while corporate graphic designers and furry porn fanart illustrators are getting decimated. Society at large won't be culturally impoverished by this, so I'm viewing corporate graphic artists with the same mindset as buggy whip manufacturers. Technology coming for the careers of artists isn't even new, the invention of photography greatly diminished demand for painted portrays. Sad for those painters, but photography was then made into an art of it's own, and similarly I think creatively driven people will find new ways to exploit these new tools.
> artists producing real art from their soul are going to keep at it
With what time and money? The statue of David and the Sistine Chapel ceiling would not have come to be from hobbyists. There are precious few culturally relevant works of art that lacked both a patron and a sales motive.
That isn't how it works. Jimi Hendrix, the Beatles, and most other innovators were regular working artists long before they were influential. If you take away the means for artists to sell work that isn't boundary-pushing, they won't get enough practice and exposure to make influential work later.
Music existed before any of the record companies did. People used to sing and play music just to entertain themselves and their friends. I am quite certain they will continue to do so, AI never phasing them.
It's true, but most of the cultural innovation I'm aware of, from Bach to Coltrane to Hendrix, came from people who could make art their life, largely by paying the bills with it. I don't think we'll lose art entirely, but we might lose the greatest artists.
reply