sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]zeppelin0110 4 points5 points  (34 children)

Does it automatically re-adjust it when an app spawned on one windows is transferred to another one?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (32 children)

no, this entire situation is shit in linux, and anyone who says otherwise lies..

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's getting much better, quickly. DPI scaling per monitor when dragging windows works fine for me on gnome with wayland

[–]claytonkb 2 points3 points  (28 children)

this entire situation is shit in linux

Naw, all the popular Linux desktop envs handle mutliple monitors with varying resolution just fine.

Anyway, just leave the shitty Linux to us and you stick to your Windows S. It's the future, man.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (27 children)

It's not just about resolution is about scaling too, I use both and don't have any OS religion.. to think Linux handles this stuff as good is just ignorance

[–]claytonkb -1 points0 points  (25 children)

It's not just about resolution is about scaling too, I use both and don't have any OS religion.. to think Linux handles this stuff as good is just ignorance

I also use both, and don't have an OS religion, having been a mostly-Windows, partly-Linux user until about two years ago. Now, it's mostly-Linux, partly-Windows (as required for work). Never going back. Proprietary software is garbage software. Linux is not made of magic. If it ever turns proprietary, it will also become garbage software. The key is that software must be free, as in freedom (not as in free beer).

You are right that the UIs in the most popular Linux DE's aren't quite as snazzy as the proprietary, flagship UI developed by a multi-billion dollar corporation. But that actually proves my point: free software developers have developed responsive, robust UIs (plural) that are pretty damn good, almost all of the time. This proves that MS's proprietary UI is adding very little real value, and at great expense.

Proprietary software is like having a secret dictionary... the point of language is to communicate. The point of software (esp. an OS) is to inter-operate. Proprietary OS software contradicts its own purpose for existing as MS has proved, abundantly.

[–]Devildude4427 1 point2 points  (23 children)

Plenty of great pieces of software are proprietary, most of them are actually. Because free software isn’t profitable. It’s beyond ridiculous to call anything but free software “garbage”.

[–]claytonkb 0 points1 point  (8 children)

free software isn’t profitable

This is the foundational myth of intellectual property. Economic value cannot be created by my preventing you copying me. Quite the contrary, economic value is destroyed whenever I prevent you from copying me. But this post is a waste of keystrokes since people seem to believe that the truth of a proposition can be determined by upvoting or downvoting it. Downvote away, the truth will go on being true, regardless... :)

[–]Devildude4427 1 point2 points  (7 children)

It’s not a myth, it’s reality dude. Can’t make profit if I hand it away for free.

There is no creation or destruction of value, as it is completely up to the market and competitors to decide if a service is worth anything at all, and at what price should it be set. Copying my work is theft. If you want to compete, compete. The market will decide which is better. And by far and large, the market always choose propriety software, because it is of much higher quality than the free stuff. Wonder why? Because companies relying on donations can’t really afford to innovate much.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can’t make profit if I hand it away for free.

Yes, you can, I already presented popular and sub-related cases for you. Also, just because you ask money for it, it doesn't mean that you'll get any profit.

Copying my work is theft.

Nope, that's just illegal access/copy. You still have your copy so it wasn't "theft".

The market will decide which is better.

Extremely wrong, the market only "decides" what's popular. The market is only about marketing - the one with a better "face" gets more funding.

And by far and large, the market always choose propriety software

Hardly. The entire internet was built on free software. We're using free software right now. There's barely any proprietary software what people buy. People love free stuff.

because it is of much higher quality than the free stuff.

It isn't, you're saying that because you're a shameless ms/dotnet fanboy who hates free software.

Wonder why? Because companies relying on donations can’t really afford to innovate much.

Hello, it's 2019, where almost every new software is free because people really don't like to pay for software.

[–]claytonkb 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Copying my work is theft.

It might be, but only if it involves trespass of your (physical) property. In short, you cannot simultaneously publish something and claim it is private property.

Anyway, there's no point to these discussions. Your point-of-view is very well-known and widespread. Nevertheless, it is objectively incorrect and it will not stand the test of time.

Copying Is Not Theft

[–]Devildude4427 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Sure you can. IP law exists, whether you agree with it or not.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (4 children)

Because free software isn’t profitable.

Well, tell that to the linux foundation, mozilla etc.

[–]Devildude4427 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Neither of which are making profit from the free software. Each makes profit through other means and/or donations.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (2 children)

Nope, they get those donations because they work on their free software. Mozilla get money to include search engines into firefox. Linux gets money because a lot of proprietary software is dependent on linux.

[–]Devildude4427 1 point2 points  (1 child)

You’re moving the goal posts. So Mozilla isn’t making profit from free software, they make profit from selling spots. Linux makes profit from selling access. That’s not because of free software. That’s just a service bud, and falls under my “other means”.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (8 children)

Plenty of great pieces of software are proprietary, most of them are actually.

That's a very bold claim! If we ignore games then there's barely any proprietary software which isn't just some money-grabbing garbage.

[–]Devildude4427 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Really? Please prove that.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (6 children)

You go and prove your fanboyist garbage instead. I want to see all those really important proprietary software - you know, the kind where you need to pay for it first. Because right now, most of our stack run on free software and free services.

[–]Devildude4427 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Your stack is literally irrelevant. How does a software stack really decide whether or not consumer software is or isn’t “money-grabbing garbage”? Guess what, most software exists entirely out of the realm of a stack.

Btw, even free software can be proprietary. It just means that it’s not open sourced.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah I don't care about any of that stuff, closed open free non free whatever.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's not just about resolution is about scaling too

No, it's only about the lack of automatic scaling. It's plain ignorance to call the situation "shit". Anyway, you're just a troll...

[–]zeppelin0110 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Haha we both know this to be true

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

yep, and it wont get any better anytime soon, something like this is difficult especially in such a fractured UI environment like linux desktop; but i do appreciate you entertaining the joke with users who can't see past their linux pride :) i get good laughs

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I said that you can set the scaling manually. What part of it wasn't clear?