3 ms·

It's a step in the right direction, being able to squeeze all the perf out of these devices to run proper full-fledged OS' that Apple seems to not want to do. I

It's a step in the right direction, being able to squeeze all the perf out of these devices to run proper full-fledged OS' that Apple seems to not want to do. It's okay to get excited over stuff like this and I'd bet a lot of good shit that solves your real world problems started from hobbyist adventures (see this little project called Linux).

carlosjobim 2y ago
I'd say Linux created far more problems than it solved, and would count as one of the largest net negatives in the economy of the technology sector historically. I think it's fine to get excited, but there's also getting too excited if there's no rational need for the software. Which I can't really see, since there always have been other devices to buy. Like if I need to do spreadsheets I will get a device made for that, not demand that regulators force Apple to let me install Excel on my phone. Hackers and Europeans framing this as some kind of civil rights or human rights issue is to me abut as ridiculous as if regulators would force every restaurant to make their menu gluten free. Which will probably happen soon, since the mental children are at the helm.
- wolfd 2y ago
  Could you explain why you think that Linux created more problems than it solved? In my eyes it is the backbone of most of what I do as a developer and I can’t imagine trying to work without it.
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    The accumulation of wasted man-hours for developers and users. Without the allure of "free", I believe there would have been ample competition for more user friendly paid software doing what Linux is used for now. With the bonus that the developers would have been paid for their work and that tech giants would have to pay for their tech rather than use unpaid labour for free. (I know some of them also contribute to open source)
    - philistine 2y ago
      The point view that Linux is a net negative for the world is incompétence to understand the field. To believe that a commercial offering is absolutely better than an open-source offering is so childish. A world without Linux could be better, sure. But there’s only a tiny little chance of it happening.
      - carlosjobim 2y ago
        It can only be speculation, but it's my belief. Linux became a server system for big applications. Who benefits most from such software are huge businesses. Who pays for their benefit are the Linux developers doing very specialized and competent work for free. Why is there no consumer friendly solution for having a server connected at home and publishing your own website to the world, without having to be very skilled at computers? There are consumer friendly solutions for everything else: office suites, e-mailing, photo editing, all sorts of creativity. Consumers are now regulated to posting their online stuff on social media, because that is what is accessible to them. And I want to blame Linux partly for this, because the great allure of "free" halted any consumer solution.

carlosjobim 2y ago

I'd say Linux created far more problems than it solved, and would count as one of the largest net negatives in the economy of the technology sector historically. I think it's fine to get excited, but there's also getting too excited if there's no rational need for the software. Which I can't really see, since there always have been other devices to buy. Like if I need to do spreadsheets I will get a device made for that, not demand that regulators force Apple to let me install Excel on my phone. Hackers and Europeans framing this as some kind of civil rights or human rights issue is to me abut as ridiculous as if regulators would force every restaurant to make their menu gluten free. Which will probably happen soon, since the mental children are at the helm.

wolfd 2y ago
Could you explain why you think that Linux created more problems than it solved? In my eyes it is the backbone of most of what I do as a developer and I can’t imagine trying to work without it.
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  The accumulation of wasted man-hours for developers and users. Without the allure of "free", I believe there would have been ample competition for more user friendly paid software doing what Linux is used for now. With the bonus that the developers would have been paid for their work and that tech giants would have to pay for their tech rather than use unpaid labour for free. (I know some of them also contribute to open source)
  - philistine 2y ago
    The point view that Linux is a net negative for the world is incompétence to understand the field. To believe that a commercial offering is absolutely better than an open-source offering is so childish. A world without Linux could be better, sure. But there’s only a tiny little chance of it happening.
    - carlosjobim 2y ago
      It can only be speculation, but it's my belief. Linux became a server system for big applications. Who benefits most from such software are huge businesses. Who pays for their benefit are the Linux developers doing very specialized and competent work for free. Why is there no consumer friendly solution for having a server connected at home and publishing your own website to the world, without having to be very skilled at computers? There are consumer friendly solutions for everything else: office suites, e-mailing, photo editing, all sorts of creativity. Consumers are now regulated to posting their online stuff on social media, because that is what is accessible to them. And I want to blame Linux partly for this, because the great allure of "free" halted any consumer solution.