> Most Linux installers already had a good GUI installer on the Live CD at that point.
Yes, I think between the end of Windows XP and start of Windows Vista era is interesting because it is by that era when Linux installers got really good (they're full graphical and would be really easy, most times just pressing Next->Next->Finish) while Windows still had its ugly TUI installer.
Also, Windows at that time didn't ship with as many drivers as today, and also we didn't have as fast internet and Windows Update still did a poor job for installing drivers from random devices, so most of time after installing Windows you had a pretty poor installation with broken internet/audio/graphics and also possibly weirdly slow (because missing chipset drivers would make the system slow depending on the hardware). While Linux if you had reasonably supported hardware it would just work.
Not that this really matters. Installation of a new OS is something that was and still is mostly done by knowledge people, and generally those people can install either Windows or Linux regardless.
I think there is Clojure and cloJure. The language is very different if you can mostly get by writing pure Clojure code, and another language altogether if you need to interop with Java constantly.
If you can get by mostly writing Clojure code (either by wrapping the Java libraries that you will use on helpers, or by using third-party libraries), it is a great language, even if in the end it is a very different from any other Lisp (but I'd argue that the changes are for the better, for example first instead of car, thread macros, protocols, immutable data structures). But yeah, for sure Clojure is much more optionated than any other Lisp.
Now, if you need to interop with Java code constantly, yeah, Clojure can be a pain. A good chunk of the code you will write goes to appease the alien structure that is the concept of Class on a FP language.
I think this is more connect with the lack of familiarity with the language ecosystem than anything. I avoid tools written in node.js, even if installing is somewhat easy, most because I don't really know how to manage them later.
Btw, nowadays with a modern pip a simple `pip install --user package-name` works.
> Same with removing the headphone jack conversation–no one wants to talk about the trade-offs in making a phone waterproof whether they trade a headphone jack for a waterproof phone.
This is not true at all. There are multiple Android phones that have waterproof and they have headphone jacks.
> Wayland doesn't grant Wayland clients permission to those resources, but without further sandboxing and using technologies like Linux namespaces, AppArmor, SELinux, ... that's completely useless in itself. Wayland only makes it harder/impossible for trustworthy applications to do their job, while malicious applications just take one of the many other routes to get what they want.
What you described is exactly the paper of Flatpak, I think it even used SELinux for it. AFAIK, Flatpak with Wayland is a good way to sandbox apps on Linux.
Yes, I think between the end of Windows XP and start of Windows Vista era is interesting because it is by that era when Linux installers got really good (they're full graphical and would be really easy, most times just pressing Next->Next->Finish) while Windows still had its ugly TUI installer.
Also, Windows at that time didn't ship with as many drivers as today, and also we didn't have as fast internet and Windows Update still did a poor job for installing drivers from random devices, so most of time after installing Windows you had a pretty poor installation with broken internet/audio/graphics and also possibly weirdly slow (because missing chipset drivers would make the system slow depending on the hardware). While Linux if you had reasonably supported hardware it would just work.
Not that this really matters. Installation of a new OS is something that was and still is mostly done by knowledge people, and generally those people can install either Windows or Linux regardless.