3 ms·
Average users use Linux all the time, it’s in everything. You’d need to ask the developers writing all these router OSes, smart televisions, Android phones, … w
by akho 5y ago
Average users use Linux all the time, it’s in everything. You’d need to ask the developers writing all these router OSes, smart televisions, Android phones, … whether they chose Linux because of its high quality or, I guess, randomly?..
Try giving an average user Photoshop. See how they weep. These thought experiments are really hard to apply to software on complex domains.
OpenOffice is indeed a terrible example.
- pjmlp 5y agoIndeed, and they do so willingness, because the Linux kernel is a detail completely hidden away to them. The OS vendor can change the kernel being used, and those average users won't notice it all. The only quality is being a free beer OS, that the OEM vendors can leech at will without bothering one second up-streaming their changes. And when the community started to be too vocal about it, efforts to use MIT/BSD licensed alternatives were set in motion. In a couple of years those router OSes, smart televisions, Android phones won't be using the Linux kernel any longer.
- akho 5y agoThe quality is being solid, easy to develop for, and, yes, free. I think you overestimate the ability of appliance companies to develop proprietary OS kernels. MIT/BSD licensed stuff is still free software.
- pjmlp 5y agoHaving fun enjoying the free software from PlayStation 4 OS? I advise you to read about Zephyr OS, FreeRTOS, Azure RTOS, Fuchsia, NuttX,....
- akho 5y agoZephyr is Apache licensed, FreeRTOS MIT, Fuchsia BSD/MIT/Apache, NuttX Apache. ThreadX is the only one on your list that's not free software, and the success it achieved over its 24 years of existence is not anything to write home about. A closed-source OS in this space has no real chance, as it has to be adapted by hardware makers. Microsoft may be able to provide the backing for wider ThreadX adoption, but don't hold your breath. I don't see how the fact that BSD allows proprietary forks implies it is not high-quality software.
- pjmlp 5y agoI could bother to explain, but will let the Apples, Amazons, Facebooks,Sonys of the world let you know how the rules of the game in big boys club. Again, where is the source code to Playstation OS 4 or clang bitcode changes for watchOS? Got to love FOSS.
- akho 5y agoI do not understand what you are talking about. This started as a proposition that “normal users do not use Linux”. They obviously do. You are sore that corporations use BSD licensed code without letting us see or modify their forks. So am I. What does that have to do with the topic?
- dataflow 5y ago> You’d need to ask the developers writing all these router OSes, smart televisions, Android phones, … whether they chose Linux because of its high quality or, I guess, randomly? Or cost... or abundance of existing tooling for... or a ton more factors that are all considered. And quality itself is multidimensional. Something might be good for engineering flexibility but terrible for exposure to end users, or vice versa. And engineers can work around shortcomings much better than end users can. OSes aren't like Javascript frameworks. There are only so many viable choices for a given domain. It's like if someone chose T-Mobile over AT&T and Verizon and you automatically concluded it's because of quality.
- akho 5y agoAbundance of existing tooling is part of quality, yes. Practical absence of non-free choices is also a sign that free software does things right in this domain. I do not understand the argument. Linux won. It won because it — for a variety of reasons — fits certain domains well.