• 0 Posts
  • 79 Comments
Joined 4 months ago
cake
Cake day: May 28th, 2024

help-circle




  • There’s kind of a bell curve of users where their needs are so simple that Linux use is great for them. They’ll never do anything more complex than visit a webpage in Firefox, and that’s great.

    Then as your needs get more and more complex, Linux isn’t quite a good fit – You’ll want to use a specific printer, or a specific software (looking at you solidworks!), or you’ll have some sort of organization that requires you use MS Office, etc. – There are ways around all of that stuff, but if you’re not already on the train, it can get frustrating.

    Up until your needs get even more complex, where Linux starts becoming the best choice again - You want a tiling window manager, and ipv6 with firewall and ZFS on the network etc.

    It’s the middle bell curve where your new user is already kind-of a power user, but not quite a technical-user yet that gets people.






  • Didn’t misunderstand at all, you just used different wording.

    You want to utilize an existing partition on the drive, as a VM image and boot it while you’re in Windows.

    The answer is yes, you can. Again, the VM part isn’t the problem here. Virtualbox can do it, but they require some major workarounds in order to do.

    https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/784138-howto-boot-existing-ubuntu-partition-using-virtualbox-inside-windows/

    This is just one example out of many out there on Google. Understand that the commands here are NOT making a new drive image. They are making a drive image FILE that is specially formatted with the tools to point to the existing partition on the drive. VMWare can do this, QEMU can do this, Virtualbox can do this… you’re just making a VM image, where the data points to an actual hard existing partition on the drive.

    Once again – This is NOT making a new VM with its own drive, even though the command looks similar. I’m sure HyperV can do it as well, I’m simply not familiar enough with its packaging.











  • It’s not really the number of companies that determines this, but rather the lack of any real competition. A small enough number of companies makes this more likely, so there’s not likely a hard number of say…over 5 companies isn’t an oligopoly, they can still be - so long as they’re all focused on each other. If you see 1 company raise it’s prices and all 4 others do too, then it’s still an oligopoly. Because even though they aren’t actively getting together, and saying “hey let’s all raise our prices!”, (collusion) - the effect is the same.

    It ceases to be that when barriers to entry don’t stop new competition from entering, and competition is active. (at least, that’s the simplified answer; there’s some more nuance to it, but that should at least give an overall understanding)