5 ms·

I do a lot of systems engineering-level work on Linux and was surprised to see this title. The paper talks about how corporations behind commercial operating sy

I do a lot of systems engineering-level work on Linux and was surprised to see this title. The paper talks about how corporations behind commercial operating systems exploit their position and suppress user choice and use other shady tactics. The title of this paper is a bit inaccurate it should at least say "... commercial operating systems".

karussell 4y ago
And how would you define "commercial operating system"? Is Android one or is it "Linux"?
- omeid2 4y ago
  No; and No. Anything that is not licensed as "Free Software" or "Open-Source software" is "Commercial Operating System".
  - frameset 4y ago
    How does Red Hat Enterprise Linux fit into that classification? It's both commercial and open source.
    - omeid2 4y ago
      That is not "Linux".
  - SSLy 4y ago
    Linux can be commercial, look at RHEL, SuSE, Ubuntu. The moniker you're looking for is proprietary.
    - omeid2 4y ago
      They're far more than Linux, in the sense that a product using Sqlite isn't "Sqlite".
  - mtrower 4y ago
    Commercial has to make money somehow, directly or indirectly. Plenty of software has been released gratis over the years under proprietary licenses.
- programmer_dude 4y ago
  Replace commercial with non open source.
- ccozan 4y ago
  A finer distinction would be "closed-source operating system". There is nothing wrong selling a Linux-based OS/distribution.
wirrbel 4y ago
Operating system vendors would refer to the actual subject
Karellen 4y ago
* proprietary
Dalewyn 4y ago
I recall a moment in history when ffmpeg had some infighting and some dinguses forked off, followed by Ubuntu moving packages over from ffmpeg to said fork in its repos because the package maintainer was one of the dinguses. So no, Linux is not innocent of the crime of corralling users towards its own interests. EDIT: Was the distro Debian? It's so long ago my memory is foggy, but it was one of the two.
- mtrower 4y ago
  It was Debian, with libav. Presumably Ubuntu followed suit, as they tend to.
- atahanacar 4y ago
  There is a difference between "not allowing any choice" and "changing packages in the default repository".

karussell 4y ago

And how would you define "commercial operating system"? Is Android one or is it "Linux"?

omeid2 4y ago
No; and No. Anything that is not licensed as "Free Software" or "Open-Source software" is "Commercial Operating System".
- frameset 4y ago
  How does Red Hat Enterprise Linux fit into that classification? It's both commercial and open source.
  - omeid2 4y ago
    That is not "Linux".
- SSLy 4y ago
  Linux can be commercial, look at RHEL, SuSE, Ubuntu. The moniker you're looking for is proprietary.
  - omeid2 4y ago
    They're far more than Linux, in the sense that a product using Sqlite isn't "Sqlite".
- mtrower 4y ago
  Commercial has to make money somehow, directly or indirectly. Plenty of software has been released gratis over the years under proprietary licenses.
programmer_dude 4y ago
Replace commercial with non open source.
ccozan 4y ago
A finer distinction would be "closed-source operating system". There is nothing wrong selling a Linux-based OS/distribution.

wirrbel 4y ago

Operating system vendors would refer to the actual subject

Karellen 4y ago

* proprietary

Dalewyn 4y ago

I recall a moment in history when ffmpeg had some infighting and some dinguses forked off, followed by Ubuntu moving packages over from ffmpeg to said fork in its repos because the package maintainer was one of the dinguses. So no, Linux is not innocent of the crime of corralling users towards its own interests. EDIT: Was the distro Debian? It's so long ago my memory is foggy, but it was one of the two.

mtrower 4y ago
It was Debian, with libav. Presumably Ubuntu followed suit, as they tend to.
atahanacar 4y ago
There is a difference between "not allowing any choice" and "changing packages in the default repository".