They are a video creator first and foremost, not a writer for a blog or a magazine. It's like demanding a janitor to make and serve you a meal just because they work in a kitchen.
And then asking the janitor why they're a janitor instead of a cook. Like, if you don't like videos that's fine, but what is the point of commenting on one saying "god I hate videos."
It's especially funny that they said that everyone defaults to videos when, at least with Linux related stuff, thats definitely not the case. This guy is one of the few not terrible Linux content creators, there really aren't many Linux dedicated content creators to begin with, so what's the harm of this? Go read the arch wiki or a blog if that's what you prefer, but don't needlessly shit on a different format that others may prefer or enjoy.
Wow, thanks for calling me stupid man, really appreciate it. Lemme know when/if you're interested in having a civil conversation instead of spewing insults every other sentence.
You're downvoted to oblivion for being right. Well you could've phrased it nore civil and friendly though 😌
I miss the Internet of the beginnings. Pure, simple and efficient information. Mostly.
I'd argue the downfall slowly started with geocities and the rise of "funny" animated gifs and music in websites.
And it all went bonkers with "web2.0" and sites needing 15 fat libraries and megabytes of visual pleasures to just tell the time...
For many kinds of content, I also prefer text over video for exactly the reason you say—it takes less time to read. In particular, if a company can choose a medium, I wish they close text more often. So, there is a kernel of a reasonable point here.
All that said…
Beyond just the totally unacceptable tone, even the reasonable part of the comment is misplaced here.
This is not a company, it is a single guy. Projecting onto his videos your thoughts on the motivations of the “marketing” dept seems a bit silly.
Most importantly, this guy is a YouTube content creator. His job is to create videos for YouTube. People ( regular people ) ask him to do that. Insulting a YouTube content creator for creating content on YouTube is….well…I do not not want to start the name calling but let’s just say the insults hurled above apply more to the person making those comments than they do to the guy who made this video.
As for the bigger picture, there is room in the world for both text and video. Have you ever watched television? Do you constantly rant that everything on TV should have been a book or an article? What was more popular: Game of Thrones or a Song of Ice and Fire?
Despite your preference, video has more reach. This has been true since there has been video.
There is a lot of demand for YouTube videos. There is enough that regular people are able to make a small business for themselves out of creating YouTube content. That is what is happening here. Telling somebody to stop creating content that their fans enjoy and that funds the life that they want is pretty hostile and not very smart.
YouTube is entertainment. This is not content you have to consume. It is not about efficiency. It is not content that would have been produced some other way. If you do not like it, don’t consume it. Please though, do not waste everybody’s time complaining that it exists.
100%. I get where he's coming from, but making it seem like this is all a conspiracy by marketers is just ridiculous. If you prefer text, that's fine! But no one is going into the arch wiki and spamming about how they should ditch it for video. Different things appeal to different people, and writing off an entire format just because Google has enshittified YouTube is just dumb.
Oh no, don't get me wrong. Of course Youtube isn't evil/bad per se. It totally has a reason to exist.
And of course youtubers make videos.
And yes, i simply don't consume YouTube unless i have to.
But, i am not on Youtube here. I am not here to grant someone a buck for a view. I don't want advertisement. And i certainly don't want videos. It personally pisses me off that i so often click on an interesting post here (lemmy in general) just to end up paywalled or in a damn video. That is all.
I'd love a simple feature to opt out of posts that just advertise their youtube-video. If I'd want that, I'd go to, well, Youtube 😁
Not ranting about the existence of this video (it might be awesome, what do i know), but it's just totally misplaced imho.
Like i wouldn't want to browse YouTube to find videos of a picture or a text.
Yeah sure it's called "social MEDIA", which includes all media. I'd just love to select what to consume.
I do think an option to suppress video content would be useful for people that really do not want to encounter it.
That said, this was not shared by the original content creator. This is not an advertisement. This is a Lemmy user sharing what they found to be interesting content with the rest of us. I really cannot be bothered by that.
I look to Lemmy to curate good content and let me know that it exists. How much time I have to dedicate to it is on my end. There are plenty of articles that I open and decide I do not have time for as well. Sometimes, I get value just from the comments.
If somebody else watches the video and leaves a useful comment about it, or starts an interesting discussion, that can be valuable and that can be read. So, I am not sure that getting rid of all video content would be a net positive for me even I never watch them.
At the very least, the comments here can be a gauge of what video content is most worth watching.
I dunno how that would be a trustworthy gauge. We talk here and i still don't know the content of that video 😁
Sure, to each his own, but still....it's lemmy, not reddit.
And also this is a linux-post. I wonder how the efficiency of Linux goes with the inefficiency of videos with ads in it.
But that's just me, and I'm just annoyed by no client (that i know of) having such simple feature to just ignore video-posts, especially if it's YouTube. Or just links to reddit or even nastier paywalls. Even if i might miss a good discussion or real information in the comments i would never see.
Though, Of course, you're not wrong with all you said.
Amen. So this. I always audibly sigh at this shit. The tiniest piece of information is always wrapped into tons of useless crap and blahblah which could've been a highly informative block of text or a table.
As if the net wasn't already full of bloat anyway.
I play videos on the back ground or on the side while I code. The visuals are nice sometimes to clarify something but the audio is the bulk of what I am taking in.
This is one of the areas I see this whole "AI" thing being super useful. It could probably transcribe the video, separate the text into coherent sections and paragraphs, and take stills from the video as pictures. If the AI is smart enough, it could selectively pick out the right stills.
Yeah for some reason lemmy just discards any formatting (including line breaks) when parsing website content. But I think that's because Lemmy has a very weird way of dealing with line breaks in general.
I know that, but it uses some weird Markdown implementation where new lines aren't actually new lines for some reason. GitHub Markdown doesn't have this issue.
Ensh*ttification = Capitalism. Every point, every annoyance, every spy attack, all lock-ins, and so on, is a result of that archaic sponsored belief system..
not Linux but some open-source software with premium features that have menu items with diamond icons or something like that pointing to those features. you cannot hide the menu items and it keeps sending you notifications to subscribe to an annual license.
Some distro that uses the Ubuntu repos blocked users from even installing snapd manually without jumping through a bunch of manual hoops. It's one thing to not preinstall it, but that reeked to me of exactly the "we know better than our users" attitude they were accusing Canonical of.
Some distro that uses the Ubuntu repos blocked users from even installing snapd manually without jumping through a bunch of manual hoops. It's one thing to not preinstall it, but that reeked to me of exactly the "we know better than our users" attitude they were accusing Canonical of.
Gnome isn't bad, at all. The team has caused controversy and made mistakes, but gnome's experience is great.
Talking about ubuntu, snaps suck, and it is more "bloated" than what you'd expect, but still, ubuntu isn't half bad. Is mint better for what the ubuntu audience wants? Yes. Does ubuntu still work well? Yes
snaps (and the way canonical is pushing them) are awful at best. snaps are the one reason ive been meaning to hop right now, but its not the first time canonical pulls shit like this.
a) having apt packages link a script that downloads the snap. That's the first problem I had, back when I used Ubuntu as as snaps were rolling out. It gave me big trouble updating on bad internet connection.
b) making the server fixed and proprietary, restricting the freedom to do things differently and offer different changes to other users, that we're used to in the Linux and FOSS world
I was using Snaps until last year just to know how they are doing. Snaps did not feel much slower. However, I felt like I became mature enough to use Debian, so jumped ship.
To quote Clem, head of Linux Mint: "At a time where GNOME applications are less and less designed to work anywhere else than in GNOME, a project like XApp is extremely important."
Libaidwata breaks backward compatibility with older gnome versions and amongst other things doesn't allow theming natively, so the Cinnamon team are going to have to fork off and maintain the older code which works so they can continue to have theming and stuff with Gnome apps.
Gnome seem to like doing the opposite of the Linux philosophy which says interoperability should always be a priority so that the code can be shared as freely as possible.
I can't tell whether they are stupid or lazy over at Gnome. It's not enough to strip the DE down to nothing but now even the code that worked with previous, gnome still widely used, is being dumped.
Instead of reformatting it just logs you out and demands buying a Heal Crystal for 350 Linux Diamonds. You can buy Linux Diamonds in packages of 400 for just 9.99 or buy the 800 package to get a 10% discount!
I still hate my old phone for locking ADB behind a Mi account registration and when I wanted to go into the theme settings some stupid marketplace app opened from which I could quit by hitting the back button to het to the actual android theme settings
yeah, also the constant wait times when you install APK... it used to be a decent OS but starting with MiUi 11 they started really enshitifiying big time.
I thought about doing that but if I remember correctly they wanted some information during account creation that I was not willing to share (it was probably my phone number).
Doesn't matter anymore. My new phone is a pixel 7 on which I immediately installed GrapheneOS
Nothing, someone who never needed access to the RHEL snapshot source is butt hurt that it only exists as part of centOS stream, making it harder for community rebuilds to exist.
It's no big deal for 95% of users, truly a nonissue. That last 5% can buy RHEL for production or use it for free for personal hosting or development.
RedHat is one of, if not the, biggest contributors to Linux. They offer RHEL, which you license as a business or use for free for personal use.
RedHat became pissed off about contributing so much to the Linux ecosystem when a number of other corporate distros simply took their product, changed the name, then shoved it out the door with a price tag that undercuts them, taking money while contributing virtually nothing to the wider ecosystem.
And to be clear I don't mean distros based on RHEL, like Pop/Elementary/Mint is to Ubuntu, I mean literally clones. The exact same software with zero differences other than name.
RH then changed their subscription terms so that redistribution of their source code means they can drop you as a RHEL customer. I.e. you wouldn't have access to further to source code.
This is widely believed to be compatible with the GPL licence that Linux uses — GPL only guarantees users need to be able to see source code, not necessarily that it has to be completely open for anybody to see. GPL also doesn't compel the developer to provide updates for everyone, so if the developer thinks you've broken other terms they've set, they are allowed to drop you/not deal with you further. GPL doesn't force a developer to have you as their continued customer.
People argue that RH may well be complying with the GPL legally, but they aren't in spirit.
I'm still not sure where I come down on it tbh. Philosophically I want RH to go with the spirit of the GPL, but I do find it really shitty that a number of other projects just straight up take RH's product, put a different name on it, and skim money away from an organisation that has transformed the Linux desktop and made it usable.
Thing is, I don't even think it's worked. They can still get all the packages by pulling it in a slightly cumbersome way from CentOS.
I think what they tried to achieve was to get rid of the "bit to bit" copypasted distributions which they at least made harder to make. So I suppose at least the cost to "steal the RHEL source" is higher.
btw I dislike that Free Software is also free (0.00 €) software. I feel like there should be some kind of chimera license which would first be proprietary with source available and after a certain time after purchase the code would be open source for the buyer. So you could actually sell it unlike Open Source Software which you can sell only once because the first person can just start giving away free copies. Sadly people in the open source realm tend to get pretty defensive when they see "proprietary". Would cool if flathub at least implemented some kind of way to sell software even if Open Source, that would be a nice start.
First of all, RedHat now belongs to IBM, and they've never been shy about squeezing customers for a buck.
Second, having dealt with their support, it's hit or miss to get a somebody helpful or an endless cycle of tickets. Patching and versioning is sometimes a complete mess.This especially sucks as the main reason most organizations go with RH versus others is for patching and support.
There's also a lot of things where there's a RH-specific implementation , which is further distancing fun other Linuxes and often ignores standard ways of configuring things.
RedHat actually benefitted from Fedora, CentOS etc as it allowed the community to develop products in a way that could be tested to be reasonably compatible, and to develop our port back fixes etc. It wasn't just "RedHat made this and others just took it" but in many ways a symbiotic relationship. Yeah some orgs just went with CentOS but often it was those who worked on RH corporately would run CentOS at home in order to have a similar environment.
tilvids.com
Hot