Linus wrote a kernel, and GNU wrote the majority of the userspace at the time.
How is that coat-tails-ing? Both projects had a tremendous amount of effort poured into them. And let's not forget GCC was the only free compiler for 20 years.
If people were asking for it to be called "GNU" only, then it'd be unfair. But they aren't.
It stops parts of Linux becoming proprietary, and becoming the dominant version users interact with. Comparisons with other kernels are irrelevant
Systemd likes to break standards. That's a big reason
I think that's GNOME's fault. Debian allows you to do more than Ubuntu, for example by not ramming proprietary snaps down your throat when you try to use apt.
The Apple of Linux? Is that not Ubuntu?
Yep the Pinetime can last for about 2 weeks on Infinitime in my case
Fuck off Poettering. Stop trying to absorb the whole system.
EDIT: apparently systemd absorbing the whole system with it's nonstandard, monolithic nightmare is a good thing, judging from downvotes. Carry on.
KDE Plasma on a laptop whose hardware was crap when it came out in 2009, running fine:
https://drive.proton.me/urls/R5SPEKY1VG#yzKAoNQxSjXc
GNOME, slightly sluggish:
https://drive.proton.me/urls/7JD8899CH8#NlXG8uZpm0Cd
Also just checked out your "computing guide" (which is just a loose collection of info and recommendations more than a guide), and lol'd at this paragraph [brackets mine]:
F(L)OSS means Free (Libre) Open Source software, and it means that the software is freeware [eh, no? FLOSS can be paid], AND the source code that are building blocks of software, are available openly and freely for modification, reverse engineering, compilation and studying purposes. The correct way to say it, as Richard Stallman says, is FLOSS and not FOSS. [I'm fairly sure if you ask Stallman he'll completely reject "Open Source" all together]
KDE is for kids, GNOME is for Grownups.
Uh huh. No fanboying on your part at all. Projection?
Once again, I will send you a video later today of KDE plasma running on my 1GHz single core potato (a much slower CPU than yours) to prove that Plasma can perform. Hey, maybe I'll also run GNOME on it for you for comparison purposes. Note that I don't inherently have a problem with GNOME, as I don't have the mentality that "KDE is for KGrownups".
Because I feel like with childish statements like the one above, you're not exactly being 100% truthful. But I can back up my argument with evidence.
An integrated GPU isn't great, but it should run alright still. I think I disabled the dedicated GPU on the Thinkpad I was running and it still ran smoothly.
I don't know what your circumstances were with your specific laptop, but to paint KDE as, well, shit, just because it ran badly when you tried it is not cool. Especially in the face of other people who have had fine performance on the slowest of potatoes.
Maybe your CPU's iGPU is a poor bin, maybe you ran up against a bug in something which fucked performance, maybe your HDD was failing or just slow (if it was mechanical), who knows? Point is your one laptop is not representative of all laptops.
Display server = Xorg/Wayland, not the monitor...
Is there any particular reason you felt the need to resort to insults? I like KDE for a reason, because it does what I want and it runs well. I'm not blindly devoted to it like it's some kind of religion. Hell, I actually prefer GTK as a library over Qt due to it's C-based nature and I used to daily drive Cinnamon, then MATE.
KDE release nomenclature is also easy. Higher number = newer.
I... know the Plasma 6 release is new? Why is that relevant? We're both talking about Plasma 5, and Plasma 6 is basically just mega-improved Plasma 5 anyways.
You know what, if you want, tomorrow I'll get you a video of Plasma running on my single core 1GHz potato laptop if you like.
Doubled down on being what?
Are you trying to argue that anything written here is false? Can you prove it?