The Open Source ecosystem is a bit weird in that your system can be as reliable or not as you want, depending on what projects you follow. It really truly is a mixed bag in the sense that you can actually have a solid setup if you are happy with it being boring.
I’m not sure what the good kind of boring is, if we could define it, it might be tautologically true that that’s the thing people want.
> Look at how popular Ubuntu VMs are with research chemists.
Are they? I actually have no idea.
> And successful chemists tend to be highly technical.
But not necessarily in any IT sense. STEM skills are very specific.
Sorry, it looks like I’m just being petulant and saying “I’m not sure” about your every sentence, haha, that wasn’t my intent but it is what I ended up doing I guess.
> The Open Source ecosystem is a bit weird in that your system can be as reliable or not as you want
I'm going to dig into this a little. This feels like shifting responsibility onto the user when things don't go well. E.g. comparing the platonic ideal of Linux when analyzing practical options. I make lots of mistakes in all aspects of my life. I know historically, and projecting into the future that I will get into trouble with Linux, so I don't daily-drive it. Yes, there are always ways to fix things when a system gets in a bad state, but there is a time and effort cost to this.
Saying it's my fault for breaking it doesn't help restore the system. e.g. "Should have used the LTS release", "Should have only installed software from the package manager", "Shouldn't have used sudo", "Shouldn't have edited a system file without knowing what you're doing". If I was doing those things, it probably seemed like the best of available options, e.g. the only way to make a certain piece of hardware or software work.
I think it is an accurate description of the situation. I agree that responsibility is accumulating at the user’s feet in an unfortunate manner.
But somebody must be responsible for making your computer work, who should it be?
The companies that sell operating systems don’t seem to be fulfilling the obligation to make a bug free and user-friendly OS. The Open Source community never really had accepting that responsibility as a “business model” because they aren’t businesses.
But that's how it works with every other tool you own? Nobody is complaining about the pencil manufacturer when you choose to draw an image, which you later don't like. Same with using software to modify the state of the hard disk, which you don't like later.
In Windows or Darwin you are not responsible, because you can't tell the computer what you want to do, but in a free OS, you can and do order what the computer is doing and that's why you also need to deal with the consequences.
I agree! My thought is this: The mechanical pencil is drawing that image because there are a combination of settings on it don't work well for a given use case. When adjusting the settings, I get poor results, or something breaks. The schematics are available and parts are available for the repair, but the job still takes a while, and I don't know how to do it. My friend has fixed something like it before, but his pencil's controls were different, and some of the tools are no longer available for the way he did it. I would prefer if the pencil worked out of the box, because I'm an artist; not a pencil engineer.
I instead buy a pencil from a different brand. It doesn't come in the color I want, but it's good enough, and lets me focus on the drawing. The pencil engineers and enthusiasts keep telling me the customizable mechanical pencil is much better. They love it, have learned its intricacies, and take pride in this.
