3 ms·

This effectively sums up the difficulty in targeting Linux. The concept of any sort of consistency and reliability is immediately dropped. Nothing will ever wor

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.

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.