Fedora.

Best Linux experience I've ever had. Using it for a few years now, but wish I switched sooner (been using various distros since Ubuntu 8.04). Dnf is GOAT, upgrades don't break shit, moderately up-to-date, but not bleeding-edge, vanilla Gnome, no bloat, full systemd commitment, btrfs, few idiosyncrasies, RPMs are widely available, flatpak for the rest. (Don't have a printer tho...)

However, due to e.g. the need to install the Fusion repo for non-free software, I don't think it's suitable for total non-tech beginners, who don't want to touch the terminal at all. Don't get me wrong, Fedora is extremely hands-off, default is bliss experience, but because of their software license policies you likely have to install the Fusion repo at some point and that's not the most straight-forward thing to do.

Only negative for me: The GUI updater wants to install updates during shutdown frequently, which is mighty annoying with full-disk encryption. I live dangerously and do my updates live with dnf, which by the way can be configured to fetch packages in the background, making updating super fast, no need for permanent internet connection.

If you are annoyed by Ubuntu, not old enough for Debian, but already fed up with Arch, please, do try Fedora!

> Also most women I know drive SUVs or family vans not compact cars. Are they compensating for something?

Freud: Duh?!

> Right now french people are obsessed with ecology and egalitarianism.

Do you have anything to read up on that? This got me a little excited, but I also doubt it due to the rise of right wing populism everywhere else. Man, if France actually got the rare attitude to get shit done in these times, I may move there and help.

It's just my general sentiment when I see my french peers. It'd be interesting to try to turn this into data for sure, but "right wing" in France has a different meaning / reality than in others countries, not sure the raw stats would explain this difference.

If you like those kind of ideas you should def move in France and start building with others there little communist enclaves. Just be ready that in France we do think a lot before deciding to act, we don't have the same "get shit done" attitude like in the anglosphere world

> what were we talking about again?

I think, you were just about to tell us about your first time with your grandma.

You can probably fit a normal sized car and trailer in the space of an F150. Stupid argument. Or, you know, rent a trailer. It's utterly idiotic to carry around the weight and size of the F150 when you don't need the loading space. I hope American gas prices adjust to reality and people start considering efficiency, cause this mentality is not sustainable and hurts everyone on the planet.

> Pickup trucks are not used by anyone serious anywhere else in the world.

Excuse me?! Pickup trucks are the sole foundation of motorized defense in some regions! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_(vehicle)

I did mention it at the end! That said, I believe most legal systems in the world frown on such behaviour, and more crucially, they're not used for carrying your groceries or 2x4's. clearly Americans lack the courage to mount up a DShK at the back of their F150, the cowards.

Oh snap, you are right! My bad, I prematurely got overly excited for comedic release and then forgot to read the rest.

But yeah, what's the point of an F150, if you don't even flex some heavy weaponry at Walmart? Timber and concrete fits the C15 just fine, it's artillery and air defense extensibility where it's lacking. Tho, fingers crossed, we may see F150 technicals by the end of the year.

* For the driver.

Large cars/SUVs are vastly more dangerous for everyone else. Visibility in modern cars is also much worse, regardless of size.

ABS, traction control, lane assist, crumple zones and many more things benefit everyone on the road.

Of course the emissions from that old diesel are a major health hazard. I’d rather not have that drive past my yard where my toddler is playing.

Driver and passengers. Some of the modern sensor stuff benefits everyone else, too.

Sorry to go against the C15 French circle jerk, but a good modern SUV is safer for everyone despite being heavier, and a SUV.

First, a good SUV is an electric SUV. Whoever had the experience to be behind a C15 without HEPA filters, something you can find in a good SUV, knows that the C15 will kill you with its air pollution.

It’s worse if you are doing sport on a bike or running. And trail running may not save you from those C15, as they are pretty capable off road vehicles and are used by hunters and farmers.

Also, the C15 has no ABS and ESP. Pierre is a lot less likely to crash into you with a modern SUV than a C15.

Finally, the C15 has no active security. It will drive full speed into toddlers playing on the road while a good modern SUV will stop automatically. Same for cyclists and other vehicles.

Visibility is indeed worse because the industry decided that a solid A pilar was more important.

I'm not sure how useful it is to argue based on comparisons of that ancient car and new ones. Yes yes I know that's how it started, but I think it is obvious that a useful discussion is about looking at the principles behind that old car, and then to apply "what if" to modern ones.

I'm making this assumption based on how utterly useless it is to try to have a serious discussion that's really about that old car vs. a new one. I mean, would anyone even think about producing those same old cars with their old technology? Obviously not.

I think, in my discussions, not just this one, it would help us all A LOT if we didn't try to win an argument and limit ourselves to interpret the other people's comments in the most restricting way. Let's assume we are here to learn something other than finding ways to be "technically correct".

Sorry, the statement that a shitty C15 is safer than a modern SUV is too hard to ignore. Overall, my statement isn't to take very seriously though.

Not quite. The statement was that the C15 is safer for people outside of the car than the modern SUV.

If I had to get hit by a car, I'd much rather it be the C15 than the modern SUV. I'm much less likely to survive the SUV hitting me.

Now you can make the argument that other modern safety features make it less likely that the modern SUV would even hit you in the first place (given automatic emergency braking, etc.), and I suspect you might even be right, but I think that requires some data to back it up.

When I wrote everyone, I meant people inside and outside.

The statement wasn’t specific to collisions but you are free to prefer being hit by a C15. As for myself as a pedestrian, I am not sure. The modern SUV is bigger but modern cars have improve safety for pedestrians. Mostly much softer and taller bumpers. It’s not perfect but from the ncap YouTube videos, I may prefer the modern SUV.

If we go with empirical data, I suggest test crashing all those C15.

> The C15 represents a time when a vehicle was a tool.

I don't think that's true, the car as mere tool is romantic anachronism. Back then, cars were central identitarian elements to the post-war, western promise of salvation. Whole cities were torn down and rebuild to fit the car. The car had ideological significance. I think, identitarian attachment to the car is actually less today, but due to the historic importance and focus, cars have become unconditional necessities in many places.

I think the reason, you frequently see "old cars as tools" in southern Europe still, is the fact most regions there only started industrialization after 1970 and were/are still greatly underdeveloped/relatively poor, compared to eg. early industrialized nations like Germany, which are super car-centric. They suffered less car adaptation at the time and as a consequence e.g. SUVs would be rather impractical in some places with extremely narrow streets. Additionally, (remaining) farmers in e.g. Germany are almost exclusively rather rich entrepreneurs managing industrialized food production on flat, boring lands, than "poor peasants" caring for traditional farms in remote villages living off tourism somewhere pretty.

Probably less due to zeitgeist/mentality, but rather geography, historic economic abilities and availability.

Can you give an example of a European city that was "torn down and rebuilt to fit the car?"

In my experience, even cities that suffered a lot of war time damage (Hamburg, Dresden) were rebuilt with every street in exactly the same place with the same narrow width.

It's a bit hyperbole, of course, and I was speaking to the sentiment of the time. In Germany Cologne would be an example of heavy car-centric development, coming to mind, but pretty much any city in West-Germany suffered this fate to some extent. I think there are far more drastic examples in America, but I am not knowledgeable about that.

> Das Konzept der autogerechten Stadt wurde in West-Deutschland beim Wiederaufbau der im Krieg zerstörten Städte umgesetzt, beispielsweise in Hannover (durch den damaligen Stadtbaurat Rudolf Hillebrecht), Dortmund, Köln und Kassel, aber auch in kleineren Städten wie Minden und Gießen. Dabei wurde in großem Umfang auch erhaltene Bausubstanz abgerissen. Vielfach wurden Stadtteile ohne Berücksichtigung sozioökonomischer und kultureller Faktoren zur Anlage von Durchgangsstraßen zerschnitten.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogerechte_Stadt

I think chances are vastly better now with EVs, you probably could reuse the crowdfunded opensource washing machine. Combustion engines are simply way, way too complex. Although I presume the real showstopper is control electronics and regulatory approval for ICEs and EVs alike.

Because of the growth imperative. With essential things like ICE cars, phones and personal computing, we long satisfied need, those core business products are simply essentially finished/perfected. It's market, and therefore regulatory, failure to have gigantic corporations in positions enabling rent seeking and market shaping, instead of pushing true innovation. If Apple can't come up with something innovative, they need to be forced to downscale instead of creating artificial demand for essentially the same phone 5 years in a row. If VW repeatedly missed the chance to get off their obsolete engine platform, they need to fail.

I think, Cory Doctorow's idea for regaining digital resilience, by "simply" opening up artificial software restrictions through regulation, is widely applicable and would also push for adequate downscaling and actual innovation: https://pluralistic.net/2026/01/01/39c3/