3 ms·
Not personally interested in an OS from Meta - the only thing I use from Meta is WhatsApp, and that's just because it is difficult to replace here in central Eu
by lionkor 3y ago
Not personally interested in an OS from Meta - the only thing I use from Meta is WhatsApp, and that's just because it is difficult to replace here in central Europe.
I don't get excited about new OSs unless they're FOSS. It sounds like an ideological take, but it's not: When an OS is not FOSS, they either succumb to the wrong incentives and lack of care (Windows) or just become a walled garden (MacOS). From what I've seen from, say, Visual Studio Code (FOSS version), or Chromium, or other such projects, is that a large company open-sourcing the core of their product can only yield positives over the alternative (fully closed) solution.
Fully FOSS would be sick, partially would be useful. Closed and ad-ridden, driven by wrong incentives and run by a company with zero sense for privacy (see their Facebook product) and a love for hype (see their AI and Metaverse products that just about nobody wanted?), I don't see this becoming very popular.
- sharkjacobs 3y agoI know this is totally tangential to what you're saying and irrelevant to your point but I'm curious. I'm pretty up on MacOS and Linux, not so much on Windows. Is Windows less of a walled garden than MacOS?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Longlius 3y agoIt's functionally the same - code signing is mandated unless you want your users to get a scary pop-up.
- lionkor 3y agoIt is definitely a different experience - the Windows warnings are very easy to not take seriously, since they pop up for anything and everything. On MacOS, you have to practically agree to your PC being unsafe to even enable running non-signed code, iirc.
- chrisweekly 3y ago"sick" - slang for "fantastic, amazing" (for the sake of non-native English speakers)
- fsflover 3y ago> It sounds like an ideological take, but it's not: When an OS is not FOSS, they either succumb to the wrong incentives AFAIK, the whole point of the free software movement and the key idea in all Stallman's essays is that free software brings actual, practical benefits to users, long-term. It's not a religion.
- tga_d 3y agoNo, Stallman has always insisted from its inception that free software is firstly a moral principle, a sort of human right like free speech in the traditional liberal worldview, and only secondarily a pragmatic one.[0][1] I suspect if you asked most people involved with the FSF, they'd say something similar. This is probably the largest difference between the free software movement and the open source movement. [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/the-moral-and-the-legal.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/the-moral-and-the-legal.html [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html