3 ms·

Oh I am with you on sensible defaults and cohesive OS. But, Linux is too open(for good) that a single player can take control of a massive set of openly develop

Oh I am with you on sensible defaults and cohesive OS. But, Linux is too open(for good) that a single player can take control of a massive set of openly developed feature set like that. Canonical certainly cannot be that one... selling something as "hey it's free and open, come use it! , and contribute more features to it.. " then turning around and forcing snaps on them, Amazon ads, and shit like that makes them not worthy IMO. Apple is a commercial entity that purely has the intention of making profit and as a customer you can atleast guess where their incentives are(but can only blindly trust). They also dont benefit from the massive coomunity of developers developing features for them. Airdrop, Continuity thing, display management are stuff they had to pay tons of money to engineers working in house to develop. Hence, they get to dictate the terms. Linux desktop by virtue of being developed by open community doesnt get that commericial dictator. Unless, some company threw their weight behind a custom linux distrbution, and developed a feature set similar to what Apple does on top of base Linux system. But, such commercial entity cannot label themselves as the "free & open" desktop operating system like Canonical does. I see System76 doing something with their own Rust based Desktop thing. If they can bring that cohesion, they get some game.

sbuk 4y ago
Everything you say makes complete sense if I look at it through the lens of someone that unflinchingly adheres to the FLOSS ethos, on that we're never going to agree. My view is that the end user is the most important part of the whole stack. To a certain extent, Apple gets this - yes, the salesbro's in corporations do drive direction to some extent, but they have yet to do anything that is really end-user hostile. Microsoft, also to a less extent do this too. FLOSS claims to benefit end users, but I always question this; to me it seems to benefit developers and those that want to 'stick it to the man' more than anything else. Now I will openly admit to oversimplifying and generalising here, and I'm sure my stance could be easily disproven (see another comment in this thread), but to me the is issue in the article seems to be fundamentally that OSS desktop projects cater to a minority. Servers are something else entirely - I'm an older UNIX beard, so I stick with the BSDs - not a fan of the GNU tool chain. Here, I'm very definitely in the minority.

sbuk 4y ago

Everything you say makes complete sense if I look at it through the lens of someone that unflinchingly adheres to the FLOSS ethos, on that we're never going to agree. My view is that the end user is the most important part of the whole stack. To a certain extent, Apple gets this - yes, the salesbro's in corporations do drive direction to some extent, but they have yet to do anything that is really end-user hostile. Microsoft, also to a less extent do this too. FLOSS claims to benefit end users, but I always question this; to me it seems to benefit developers and those that want to 'stick it to the man' more than anything else. Now I will openly admit to oversimplifying and generalising here, and I'm sure my stance could be easily disproven (see another comment in this thread), but to me the is issue in the article seems to be fundamentally that OSS desktop projects cater to a minority. Servers are something else entirely - I'm an older UNIX beard, so I stick with the BSDs - not a fan of the GNU tool chain. Here, I'm very definitely in the minority.