Renzatic

It's a thin straw to grasp upon.

If it makes you feel better, I thought a flyswatter was called a flas-water until I was about 10.

You get right down to it, Unix and Linux can just about be considered the same thing, since the later is (or was) practically a 1:1 clone of the former. Technically, you're correct, but it's a technicality made through the barest splitting of a single hair.

I'd heart you, but it looks like reached my daily limit of hearts.

You could argue it was the first still extant OS to offer it. Windows didn't have built in support for virtual desktops until Win10, and Apple didn't offer it until, I think, OSX 10.4. Unix did have it before Linux, but since there's so much blending between the 'nix's, it's mostly an academic point.

The Xerox Parc OS wasn't really a consumer product. It cost beaucoup bucks, and was only sold to a select few companies. ...but yeah, you can pretty much trace almost all of modern computing to Xerox Parc.

Turns out none of us were right. The Amiga was the first consumer platform to offer virtual desktops. The fact that I went out and looked this up makes me feel like a total nerd, and you should be totally ashamed of yourself for doing this to me.

Delete this, mods! Hit quote instead of edit!

Then why is it that some companies do? Epic, Unity, Adobe, Autodesk, SideFX, The Foundry, Black Magic Design, hell, I could go on... There's a reason why Microsoft has spent all this time and money building WSL. There is a very lucrative market that is centered on Linux. The question is whether this market will go for the Affinity apps, since they cater to a group not normally represented on the Linux scene.

Yup. It's pretty much turned into a usual internet argument, when the person on the losing end goes from trying to argue a point, to scrambling to look right. I mean, if he really wanted to go for the throat, he could say that all these things started out on Unix first, which were then easily ported over to Linux, which were copied by Windows, and eventually snapped up by NeXt from the 'nix scene, and later incorporated into Apple, but, you know... He's just kinda spinning his tires to kick up mud by this point.

You really are grasping at straws now, aren't you?

That's an X window manager, not an OS. ...guess which OS uses X?

There is ARM Holdings, which owns the core IP and basic instruction set for the architecture. In practice, it's somewhat like a consortium, with other companies sitting on the board of directors, buying licenses to manufacture their own chips, and adding to the design. If Nvidia does buy ARM, they can't do anything to keep Apple from using and building upon their ARM chips, though Apple may be obligated to disclose any additions or tweaks they've made to it, which Nvidia and other licensees can later use for themselves.

Desktop compositing, virtual desktops, package managers/app stores...

That shouldn't effect any of the other high end ARM manufacturers like Apple, Qualcomm, et al. They're all grandfathered into ARM's highest tiered license agreement, practically giving them carte blanche to do what they want with the architecture.

Yet they spend the time and effort to release and support their hardware drivers right alongside Windows. It's not just the Linux community. Nvidia's kinda known to be a bit rude to everyone else. They did quite a bit to piss off Apple too, to the point that they now refuse to support any Nvidia hardware on their machines.

What annoys Torvalds is how Nvidia does its own thing, and ignores everything else the Linux community tries to do. Like their refusal to do anything with Wayland until here recently being one of the bigger sticking points.

Substance Painter and Designer. It's understandable why Adobe would choose to support Linux on this front. It has a big footprint in the 3D movie/game design industries, but doesn't draw much attention from the graphics design crowd. Hence why the aforementioned apps are available, but Photoshop and Illustrator aren't. Linux's biggest weakness isn't that it's some also-ran OS only used by FOSS zealots, rather, it's that it's use case doesn't cover all demographics.

How many apps do we all use on our computers? If I were to take a screenshot of my taskbar in Windows, you'd see most of the same icons there as you would were I running Linux. The Affinity apps are the only ones I'd be missing.

I had access to plenty of professional, closed source, paid for apps over on Linux, two of which are now owned and supported by Adobe.

I'd say this is due to Serif's strategy to combating Adobe, the yee olde entrenched industry standard. They set out to make a better, more affordable Photoshop and Illustrator, and for good and ill, they've succeeded. We now have these nice alternatives that fit like an old glove for those who have used the aforementioned apps, but are just as dense and unfriendly to the newbies.

Designer's icons are following the same basic paradigm defined by Adobe Illustrator way back when. Just like Illustrator, they're not immediately intuitive to the point that any newbie can roll in and start using the program after staring at it for 2 seconds, but they're easy to spot once you know what they all do. I mean, look at Illustrator's width tool icon. It makes sense once you know what the width tool does, but at a casual glance, it looks like a one-eyed ghost trying to pick a fight with you.

They look fine to me, and I'm unusually picky about this kinda stuff.

And hey, if you all want to see some interface shots to sortakinda see how I did things... All the foliage and grass textures were done in Photo too, by the way.