desentizised

I think if you're talking wider demographics your model OSs are (obviously) Windows and macOS. People buy into that because CLI familiarity isn't required. Especially with Apple products everything revolves around simplicity.

I do dream of a day when Linux can (at least somewhat) rival that. I love Linux because I am (or consider myself) intricately familiar with it and I can (theoretically) change every aspect about it. But mutability and limitless possibilities are not what makes an OS lovable to the average user. I think the advent of immutable Linux distros is a step in the right direction for mass adoption. Stuff just needs to work. Googling for StackOverflow or AskUbuntu postings shouldn't ever be necessary when people just want to do whatever they were doing on Windows with limited technical knowledge.

However on another note, if you're talking a home studio migration, not sure what that entails, but it sounds rather technical. I don't want to be the guy to tell you that CLI familiarity is simply par for the course. Maybe your work shouldn't require terminal interaction. Maybe there is a certain gap between absolutely basic linux tutorials and the more advanced ones like you suggest. Yet what I do want to say is that if you want to do repairwork on your own car it's not exactly like that is supposed to be an accessible skill to acquire. Even if there are videos explaining step by step what you need to do, eventually you still need to get your own practice in. Stuff will break. We make mistakes and we learn from them. That is the point I'm trying to get at. Not all knowledge can be bestowed from without. Some of it just needs to grow organically from within.

Besides what others have said basically asking "what is it that you're trying to protect (from)?" I would say the main questions in terms of usage are, are you on a degoogled Android phone and are you using Linux on your Desktop yet?

Yea sure VPNs are nice but I personally often feel like I don't want to have to hide behind someone else's IP-Address just to add a layer of obfuscation to the data-collectors. If your browser is clean and working for you there is no need for a VPN (unless you need it for the sake of coming from a different geolocation). If your Operating System isn't Open Source it can be assumed to be tracking you with or without a VPN.

There are definitely downsides (especially in terms of convenience) to using Android without Google on it. If those inconveniences are too much for you (as you are alluding to in your described hassles) then it's probably just a question of which desire is stronger. That for certain privacy or that for ease of use.

Thing is, the RNC is cleptocratically his now and will be for a while. Other than that I'd hope for similar things as most people are commenting here. It will be bonkers either way until he stops breathing and then some.

They'll see him rollin' etc.

What do you mean? Hasn't lost and never will. /s

If an HDD doesn't work in every conceivable way out of the box it must be an RMA. These devices are too delicate to settle for anything less than flawless on arrival.

Not the guy you're asking but I agree. There would be no need for Falcon Sensor on every Windows-machine deployed inside an Enterprise (assuming that Falcon Sensor serves a purpose worth fulfilling in the first place) if the critical devices on their network were sufficiently hardened. The main problem (presumably the basis of such a solution existing) is that as soon as you have a human factor, people who must be able to access critical infrastructure as part of their job, there will be breakages of some kind. Not all of those must be malicioius or grow into an external threat. They still need to be averted of course.

I feel that CrowdStrike is an idea that seems appealing to those making technological decisions because it promises something that cannot be done by conventional means as we have known and deployed them before. I can't say whether or how often this promise has ever enabled companies to thwart attacks at their inception, but again, I feel that in a sufficiently hardened environment, even with compromisable human actors in play, you do not need self-surveillance (at the deepest level of an OS) to this extent.

And to also address OP's question: of course there is no need for this in a *NIX environment. There hasn't been any significant need for antivirus of any kind in any of the UNIX-based world including macOS. So really this isn't about whether an anti-malware solution in itself can satisfy the needs of a company per se, the requirements very much follow the potential attack vectors that are opened up by an existing infrastructure. In other words, when your environment is Windows-based, you are bound to deploy more extensive security countermeasures. Because they are necessary.

Some may say that this is due to market-share, but to those I say, has the risk-profile of running a Linux-based server changed over the last 20 years? They certainly have become a lot more common in that timeframe. One example I can think of was a ransomware exploit on a Linux-based NAS-brand, I think it was QNAP. This isn't a holier than thou argument. Any system can be compromised. Period. The only thing you can ensure is that the necessary investment to break your system will always be higher than the potential gain. So I guess another way to put this is that in a Windows-based environment your own investment into ensuring said fact will always be higher.

But don't get me wrong, I don't mean to say Windows needs to be removed from the desks of office-workers. Really this failure and all these photographs of publically visible bluescreens (and all the ones in datacenters and server-rooms that we didn't see) shows that Windows has way too strong of a foothold in places where plenty smart people are employed to find solutions that best serve the interests of their employers, including interests (i.e. security and privacy) that they are unaware of because they can't be printed on a balance-sheet.

Not having DOS-Mode anymore must've been a bummer though.

Serious question how do you get bored of Windows during its heyday?

My first experience with Linux was Ubuntu 4.10 and it seemed super cool and all but I could've never switched fully during those days. And if we're honest most legit Linux users up until not too long ago were forced to have a dual boot setup because so many things just hadn't been universalized yet.

So just to illustrate where I'm coming from asking that question, my first personal computer (as opposed to family PC) ran XP and that was a pretty exciting time when it comes to market dominance and all the advantages that came with being a user of the biggest platform. Looking back I just don't see how I could've ever made that switch in the noughties let alone the 90s. The adoption just wasn't there yet.

according to some redditor the limits are

one monitor 8K 60Hz | one monitor 4K 120Hz | three monitors 4K 30Hz | three monitors 2K 60Hz

which makes a lot more sense to me than a hard limit. driving displays as far as graphics processors are concerned is just a matter of data bandwidth. so the more pixels you want to drive the fewer monitors you will be able to run

Ah yea I didn't realize the official dock has 2 ports for display output. Valve is bae.

There are definitely docks that have 3 display outputs, which would be a viable option if you also buy the Wacom Link Plus. I personally don't know of any docks that have 2 display outputs and a USB-C port that is display-capable. There may be Thunderbolt ones but Steam Deck doesn't do Thunderbolt unfortunately.

So yea I guess your only option is a different dock plus Wacom Link Plus. I don't see any other personally.