4 ms·

Who cares about the year of the Linux desktop when the world is still turning into 1984? There was a reason we wanted Linux to dominate and it wasn't so it woul

by meruru 7y ago

Who cares about the year of the Linux desktop when the world is still turning into 1984? There was a reason we wanted Linux to dominate and it wasn't so it would end like this.

mycall 7y ago
Linux desktop means little when people log into Google, Facebook et al.
- meruru 7y ago
  Exactly. Linux won on technical merits, but we failed to educate people about the really important part about freedom.
  - davesmith1983 7y ago
    When is Linux technically better? It is a good enough all rounder. There is this principle of "Worse is better" when it comes to many, many products. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better Also the first versions of the kernel was released at the right time. It is decent enough, free, open source and was around at the right time. The internet was just becoming a thing, the PC ecosystem had "won" and it was pretty open in that anyone could manufacture a PC. There was an AT&T lawsuit wasn't happening in the 90s IIRC against the BSD Code. If Linus had created his kernel a little later or a litter earlier than it may have never received the interest it did.
  - AdeptusAquinas 7y ago
    Because we were too busy building Google, Facebook et al.
    - edejong 7y ago
      Money won over principles after all.
    - meruru 7y ago
      You make a good argument for UBI.
  - jodrellblank 7y ago
    > Linux won on technical merits Arguably. It's hard to say Linux won on technical merits of networking compared to FreeBSD or OpenBSD, or on storage compared to FreeBSD+ZFS, or say that generally when devs chose MacOS X. I suggest Linux won for being: the most popular out of the things which cost $0. BSD lost for not being popular, commercial Unix, Windows and MacOS lost for costing money.
    - meruru 7y ago
      I didn't mean to say Linux is the best OS overall (I'm a *BSD user after all). Just that Linux became big among developers for practical reasons rather than ideological (though ideologically-driven contributors certainly helped).
    - asveikau 7y ago
      > BSD lost for not being popular People used to say that BSD lost because of the ambiguous copyright status of the early 90s, allowing Linux to glide in unopposed as the "free unix-like os for PCs". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_Laboratories,_Inc._v._Berkeley_Software_Design,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_Laboratories,_Inc..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution...
      - mycall 7y ago
        While others say the GPL license is what created an ecosystem, whereby the BSD-3 won't create an ecosystem of same quality.
        asveikau 7y ago
        It'd also be fair to say *BSD development is more centralized ("cathedral-like" to borrow from ESRs 1990s work) and that may have some repercussions in development speed.

by meruru 7y ago

Who cares about the year of the Linux desktop when the world is still turning into 1984? There was a reason we wanted Linux to dominate and it wasn't so it would end like this.

mycall 7y ago

Linux desktop means little when people log into Google, Facebook et al.

meruru 7y ago
Exactly. Linux won on technical merits, but we failed to educate people about the really important part about freedom.
- davesmith1983 7y ago
  When is Linux technically better? It is a good enough all rounder. There is this principle of "Worse is better" when it comes to many, many products. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better Also the first versions of the kernel was released at the right time. It is decent enough, free, open source and was around at the right time. The internet was just becoming a thing, the PC ecosystem had "won" and it was pretty open in that anyone could manufacture a PC. There was an AT&T lawsuit wasn't happening in the 90s IIRC against the BSD Code. If Linus had created his kernel a little later or a litter earlier than it may have never received the interest it did.
- AdeptusAquinas 7y ago
  Because we were too busy building Google, Facebook et al.
  - edejong 7y ago
    Money won over principles after all.
  - meruru 7y ago
    You make a good argument for UBI.
- jodrellblank 7y ago
  > Linux won on technical merits Arguably. It's hard to say Linux won on technical merits of networking compared to FreeBSD or OpenBSD, or on storage compared to FreeBSD+ZFS, or say that generally when devs chose MacOS X. I suggest Linux won for being: the most popular out of the things which cost $0. BSD lost for not being popular, commercial Unix, Windows and MacOS lost for costing money.
  - meruru 7y ago
    I didn't mean to say Linux is the best OS overall (I'm a *BSD user after all). Just that Linux became big among developers for practical reasons rather than ideological (though ideologically-driven contributors certainly helped).
  - asveikau 7y ago
    > BSD lost for not being popular People used to say that BSD lost because of the ambiguous copyright status of the early 90s, allowing Linux to glide in unopposed as the "free unix-like os for PCs". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_Laboratories,_Inc._v._Berkeley_Software_Design,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_Laboratories,_Inc..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution...
    - mycall 7y ago
      While others say the GPL license is what created an ecosystem, whereby the BSD-3 won't create an ecosystem of same quality.
      - asveikau 7y ago
        It'd also be fair to say *BSD development is more centralized ("cathedral-like" to borrow from ESRs 1990s work) and that may have some repercussions in development speed.