10 ms·

If you can't convince people to use your solutions because they sufficiently better than the seventeen different things actually want to do with their own time

If you can't convince people to use your solutions because they sufficiently better than the seventeen different things actually want to do with their own time on their own machines then trying to abuse trademarks to force them to use what you would prefer is contrary to the ideals of any free software camp you care to name. You would be laughed at equally from all sides and find no users for Linux II save for rebrands that removed all mention of the toxic mark. It would be trivial to go on about all the ways and means that this couldn't possibly work but that would be almost besides the point. The fact that you want this to work is by itself problematic. It's a toxic sort of entitlement to a universe that is a little less complicated and a little less free in order to be a little more convenient and its so problematic that the universe is better off without anything that might be contributed in such a spirit.

freeone3000 5y ago
This effectively sums up the difficulty in targeting Linux. The concept of any sort of consistency and reliability is immediately dropped. Nothing will ever work the same on two different Linux computers and there's no way to tell if it would, because even compatibility branding is an assault on freedom itself.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  Are you seriously calling a single individual using a trademark to tell everyone downstream what software they are allowed to distribute with Linux in order to force everyone to run the software you prefer "compatibility branding". That is dystopian. Linux isn't a sub project of gnome nor will anyone accept it being run like one and why would they? People and projects own their particular contributions they don't own the community and the right to tell others how to use them or their own hardware. Developers of a particular project can rightly say nonpaying users have no right to software they paid nothing for working in a certain fashion but likewise by throwing their software to the wind they have acquired no consideration in return. This means they don't owe you not speaking negatively about said changes, they don't own you not forking, they don't owe you not replacing your software with software that works how they would prefer. People are liable to experience disappearing functionality,software,options as a loss and react accordingly. If a change would be experienced by users as a loss that is paid for not with tangible benefits but with for example developer productivity or satisfaction its unlikely to garner users. Commercial software that is sold outright version on version promotes understanding this. Nobody ever sold version n+1 with the idea that you would accept less features in exchange for a simplified code base unless the software is being sold by developers to developers. End users will never make such a trade. Developers of such software know that they have in fact to compete with their own software n+1 needs to be tangibly better for end users. For example if Wayland were actually desirable AS IS and successfully communicated to its intended users considering what OS, OS version, and software then more than 15% will be using it. 15% update 14 years in is either a failure to be meaningfully better in ways that people actually care about or a failure to communicate. Instead of wishing you could make people use it just keep improving it until people are willing to adopt it.

freeone3000 5y ago

This effectively sums up the difficulty in targeting Linux. The concept of any sort of consistency and reliability is immediately dropped. Nothing will ever work the same on two different Linux computers and there's no way to tell if it would, because even compatibility branding is an assault on freedom itself.

michaelmrose 5y ago
Are you seriously calling a single individual using a trademark to tell everyone downstream what software they are allowed to distribute with Linux in order to force everyone to run the software you prefer "compatibility branding". That is dystopian. Linux isn't a sub project of gnome nor will anyone accept it being run like one and why would they? People and projects own their particular contributions they don't own the community and the right to tell others how to use them or their own hardware. Developers of a particular project can rightly say nonpaying users have no right to software they paid nothing for working in a certain fashion but likewise by throwing their software to the wind they have acquired no consideration in return. This means they don't owe you not speaking negatively about said changes, they don't own you not forking, they don't owe you not replacing your software with software that works how they would prefer. People are liable to experience disappearing functionality,software,options as a loss and react accordingly. If a change would be experienced by users as a loss that is paid for not with tangible benefits but with for example developer productivity or satisfaction its unlikely to garner users. Commercial software that is sold outright version on version promotes understanding this. Nobody ever sold version n+1 with the idea that you would accept less features in exchange for a simplified code base unless the software is being sold by developers to developers. End users will never make such a trade. Developers of such software know that they have in fact to compete with their own software n+1 needs to be tangibly better for end users. For example if Wayland were actually desirable AS IS and successfully communicated to its intended users considering what OS, OS version, and software then more than 15% will be using it. 15% update 14 years in is either a failure to be meaningfully better in ways that people actually care about or a failure to communicate. Instead of wishing you could make people use it just keep improving it until people are willing to adopt it.