DefederateLemmyMl

Yup, but that’s already mentioned in the article. Thought I’d give people the exact userpref, so they can modify their custom user.js if they have one.

To disable:

user_pref("dom.private-attribution.submission.enabled", false);

I just booted up a Windows 2000 VM to check … it’s there in the disk management tool. It looks a bit weird with the drive icon in Explorer, but ok.

Yeah, I believe that was introduced as far back as Windows 2000. It never really caught on though.

Well keep dreaming then. If that is what keeping you on Windows, you will never leave Windows. Nobody in their right mind is ever going to create a new OS with drive letters.

/thread

The thing is, you are absolutely free to use a /c,/d,/e mounting scheme, but you are not shackled to it like you are in Windows. Personally I like to organize my data in one big root (/) file system on my NVME drive and then /data for my bulk storage on HDD and /nas for my NAS shares. I never have any problems knowing where my data is.

BTW, I notice all your complaints revolve around “OMG it’s different” and “OMG the user can choose to do things differently… so complicated”. That is kind of the point of Linux you know?

At some point you just have to accept that it’s different and move on, or decide that it’s too complicated for you and use something else.

BTW, I wonder why people never make this complaint about Apple devices? It also has a hierarchical file structure without drive letters, after all it is also a Unix variant.

I know the filesystem is simple to Linux users, but the semantic form of physical drives getting a letter always made more sense to me.

That’s one of the things that semi-experienced Windows users need to wrap their head around, but I strongly disagree that drive letters are somehow inferior to a hierarchical file system structure. I mean, the A:, B:, C: … convention was originally just intended for the first IBM PC with 1 or 2 floppy drives. It was never intended to support complex storage configurations, whereas the hierarchical file system was designed for Unix systems that had to handle multiple magnetic drives from the start. It is a much more flexible system to organize your file storage.

On Linux, as best I understand it, if I have three drives, two of them are at /dev/hdd0 and hdd1. But they’re not actually there.

That’s because there is a difference between a block device and a mounted file system. Windows just obscures that difference from you with its archaic drive mapping system.

All your block devices and partitions on your block devices will be in /dev with a meaningful name. You can list them with the lsblk command. If a partition contains a file system that Linux knows how to use, you can mount it anywhere you like.

they’re accessed at /media/hdd0 after mounting them

No that’s not “convention” at all. Some desktop environments may decide to mount undefined drives there, but there really is no convention, ultimately you mount it where you want it to be mounted.

If you place an item in /home/documents/notporn, then who knows which drive it’s on because you don’t know what symlinks someone set up to make that folder.

If your unsure, df /home/documents/notporn should tell you exactly what drive it’s on, but ultimately it’s up to you to know how you’ve organized your storage.

BTW I’ve said this before, but Linux is probably harder for users who know Windows just well enough to be dangerous than it is for relative beginners, because there are so many concepts and things they take for granted that they have to unlearn.

So they put in a Gotek drive like I did with my retro PC?

Installing Linux has never been particularly difficult, not in the last 15 or even 20 years anyway. I’ve always found it easier and more straightforward than the contemporary Windows installation process.

The challenging part is wrapping your head around the Linux/Unix way of doing things when things can’t be done through the GUI with just a few clicks.

It isn’t your computer, user license clearly states you’re renting the software

It IS your computer, it’s just not your software.

Actually lot less than the browser. Under 300MB, I just checked, and that’s mostly just the network buffer which is 150MB by default.

The point is that your example use case of “YouTube 4k videos” doesn’t need a browser full of bloated js garbage.

Just don’t compain that YouTube doesn’t play 4K videos anymore.

strange, mpv handles it just fine

There are basically four positions you can take about this:

1. Jesus existed and was crucified
2. We can’t know, because there is no conclusive evidence, but I think (1) is more likely
3. We can’t know, because there is no conclusive evidence, but I think (4) is more likely
4. Jesus is a myth

I am on (2), as are most historians, and you put yourself on (1).

if it’s good enough for the majority of historians

It isn’t. Historians would love to have independent evidence of the existence and crucifixion of Jesus, but there isn’t… so most historians refrain from taking a position one way or the other. The ones that do have to make do with what little objective information they have, and the best they can come up with is: well because of this embarassing thing, it’s more likely that he did exist and was crucified than that he didn’t, because why would they make that up?

That’s rather weak evidence, and far from “proof”.

Not sure why you’d need more

Well for one because the more prominent people who have studied this have a vested interest in wanting it to be true. For example, John P. Meier, who posited this criterion of embarassment that I outlined in my previous comment, isn’t really a historian but a catholic priest, professor of theology (not history) and a writer of books on the subject.

There was a guy named Jesus that was crucified by the romans and all that. There is proof of that

There isn’t actually. The proof is basically: it’s embarassing that their cult leader got painfully crucified, so the early Christians and writers of the new testament wouldn’t have made that shit up.

Personally I find it rather unconvincing.

who is going to use a VPN (an internet privacy tool) from Google?

Exactly. That would be like using a web browser made by Google so they have direct access to your internet browsing history. Ridiculous!

Why not your current computer? No time like the present…