4 ms·

> I don’t think this article is written very charitably It definitely isn't, but honestly Linux could use more of a drill-sergeant treatment. It's either that

by gary_0 2y ago

> I don’t think this article is written very charitably It definitely isn't, but honestly Linux could use more of a drill-sergeant treatment. It's either that or we keep doting on our little pet OS and give up on the idea of desktop Linux being at all a viable competitor to the goliaths of Microsoft and Apple. Maybe we never stood a chance? Keep in mind, I'm pretty much committed to Linux myself, as I'm not willing to compromise with Microsoft and Apple's user-disrespecting, locked-down, enshittified software. But I have no illusions about the inconveniences and sacrifices of that decision.

dasil003 2y ago
I tend to think it’s not really possible for volunteer open source to directly compete with tech corporations when it comes to polish and cohesion of a large end-user ecosystem—it’s just too much cat herding and uphill battle even to agree on a vision. That said, Linux has other advantages that corporations will never touch because it doesn’t make business sense. I’m really glad it’s still there as a bulwark against enshittification and all computing freedom being taken away from individuals.
- ghaff 2y ago
  The vast majority of Linux is not volunteer open source. It's corporate developers. It's also focused on the server. Tech companies seem to use a lot of Macs these days although I assume Windows predominates overall.
  - gary_0 2y ago
    Yep. A good chunk of desktop Linux is thanks to paid Red Hat developers contributing to projects like GNOME. Valve pays for a good deal of Linux's graphics-related userspace code. And another chunk of paid work is handled by non-profits like the KDE organization. There aren't as many weekend hackers keeping your Debian workstation and Pop!_OS laptop running as you might expect.
    - ghaff 2y ago
      Red Hat almost certainly does less on-the-clock desktop-specific work than they used to though I expect there are still a lot of GNOME contributions from employed developers. I'm not sure there is a good paid contributors accounting survey at this point, but it's still mostly paid especially outside of the desktop world.
- gary_0 2y ago
  > a bulwark against enshittification and all computing freedom being taken away from individuals I'd like to believe that, but I can't help but think that if Microsoft really wanted to lock all PC hardware so that it could only run Windows, or if Google really wanted to add Attestation features to Chrome so major websites only worked on proprietary OSes, "the Linux guys would complain" wouldn't make their executives hesitate even for a moment. (In some cases EU legislators might give them pause, however.) They managed to add DRM to HTML without too much trouble, after all. And now that Mozilla is an advertising company, that kind of thing will only get easier. And even with the Linux-based Steam Deck selling a million units or so, game companies are still fine locking Linux out if they feel like it. Desktop Linux is pretty much totally ignored by the money people, the big decision-makers. Linux users are a very tiny minority. Your average person on the street barely knows what it is, if they've heard of it at all. So I'm not sure it qualifies as a "bulwark", I'm sorry to say.

by gary_0 2y ago

dasil003 2y ago

I tend to think it’s not really possible for volunteer open source to directly compete with tech corporations when it comes to polish and cohesion of a large end-user ecosystem—it’s just too much cat herding and uphill battle even to agree on a vision. That said, Linux has other advantages that corporations will never touch because it doesn’t make business sense. I’m really glad it’s still there as a bulwark against enshittification and all computing freedom being taken away from individuals.

ghaff 2y ago
The vast majority of Linux is not volunteer open source. It's corporate developers. It's also focused on the server. Tech companies seem to use a lot of Macs these days although I assume Windows predominates overall.
- gary_0 2y ago
  Yep. A good chunk of desktop Linux is thanks to paid Red Hat developers contributing to projects like GNOME. Valve pays for a good deal of Linux's graphics-related userspace code. And another chunk of paid work is handled by non-profits like the KDE organization. There aren't as many weekend hackers keeping your Debian workstation and Pop!_OS laptop running as you might expect.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    Red Hat almost certainly does less on-the-clock desktop-specific work than they used to though I expect there are still a lot of GNOME contributions from employed developers. I'm not sure there is a good paid contributors accounting survey at this point, but it's still mostly paid especially outside of the desktop world.
gary_0 2y ago
> a bulwark against enshittification and all computing freedom being taken away from individuals I'd like to believe that, but I can't help but think that if Microsoft really wanted to lock all PC hardware so that it could only run Windows, or if Google really wanted to add Attestation features to Chrome so major websites only worked on proprietary OSes, "the Linux guys would complain" wouldn't make their executives hesitate even for a moment. (In some cases EU legislators might give them pause, however.) They managed to add DRM to HTML without too much trouble, after all. And now that Mozilla is an advertising company, that kind of thing will only get easier. And even with the Linux-based Steam Deck selling a million units or so, game companies are still fine locking Linux out if they feel like it. Desktop Linux is pretty much totally ignored by the money people, the big decision-makers. Linux users are a very tiny minority. Your average person on the street barely knows what it is, if they've heard of it at all. So I'm not sure it qualifies as a "bulwark", I'm sorry to say.