4 ms·

Why not just use Linux then? The whole point of Windows right now is having a kernel that a) does not shove GPL down the device manufacturer's throat and b) ca

by reisse 1y ago

Why not just use Linux then? The whole point of Windows right now is having a kernel that a) does not shove GPL down the device manufacturer's throat and b) care about driver API stability so that drivers actually work without manufacturer or maintaner intervention every kernel upgrade.

bayindirh 1y ago
People like to talk like GPL is evil, but it's underpinning more of the world than many people see. And thanks to no ABI/API stability guarantees, Linux can innovate and doesn't care about what others might say. Considering Linux is developed mostly by companies today, the standard upkeep of a driver is not a burden unless you want to shove planned obsolescence down the throats of the consumers (cough Win11 TPM requirements cough).
- dabockster 1y ago
  I wouldn’t call the GPL “evil”, but I do think it’s more unrealistic given current western economics and mooching practices. Some copyright here and there does help keep food and water on the table.
  - codeguro 1y ago
    Nothing prevents one from selling GPL'd software. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
  - AStonesThrow 1y ago
    Despite the FSF's word games with "copyleft", the GNU GPL, Creative Commons, and F/OSS licenses rely on legal copyright protections in order to work. It's the copyright holder who reserves the right to license the software by those terms. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://creativecommons.org/faq/#is-creative-commons-against-copyright https://creativecommons.org/faq/#is-creative-commons-against... Closed source is protected in other ways besides copyright. Trade secrets, confidentiality, NDA, proprietary ownership, obfuscation, and in the case of hardware, big globs of epoxy and other countermeasures to ensure nobody can get in and reverse-engineer it.
  - bayindirh 1y ago
    > Some copyright here and there does help keep food and water on the table. While I'm a strong Free Software proponent, I'm not a zealot and insist on a black or white approach. Yes, some software can be closed source, I agree, but it shouldn't be the bedrock software, i.e. anything required to enable hardware (firmware, OS, and preferably the utilities). For the record, I'm paying for a couple closed source software packages on Linux which provide very unique feature s. These are inSync and Pagico. On top of that, you can always sell GPL software (remember, you shall ship the source with the product. opening it it to everyone is not a requirement). On top of it, you can sell support or special versions. curl has a special version for paying customers, and ccid driver developers sell ccid compliance testing. So, there are always alternatives, and the reality has more shades of gray than two distinct colors.
atoav 1y ago
Sure, but consider that some people might not be able to just make that choice in any given context. I was working as a freelancer wher a lot of my job meant interfacing with files other people made in Software that only runs reliably on Windows or Mac (and I tried regularly). So WSL provided me with a way to run Linux stuff without having to run a fat VM or dual boot. In fact my experience with WSL is probably why I run Linux as my daily driver OS in academia now, since here the context differs and a switch to Linux was possible. Whether a thing is useful is always dependent on the person and the context. WSL can absolutely be a gateway drug to Linux for those who haven't managed to get their feet wet just yet.
- bayindirh 1y ago
  I completely agree with you. WSL2 can be useful for many scenarios at its current form. We tend to forget that "Horses for Courses" and "Your Mileage May Vary" applies way broader than we think.
FeloniousHam 1y ago
The obvious answer: you can't. I work in constrained environment with an IT department that provides the hardware and (most of) the software I develop on. I agree with all the WSL cheering here, it integrates almost seamlessly. But you're asking the wrong question. It should be "why not use MacOS?" if you need a stable UI with UNIX underneath :).
- bayindirh 1y ago
  That's another sound option, but as a person who doesn't like Homebrew and stuffing /usr/local with tons of things, a lightweight Linux VM becomes mandatory after some point on macOS, too. Other than that, macOS plus some tools (Fileduck, Forklift, Tower, Kaleidoscope to name a few), you can be 99% there.
  - p_ing 1y ago
    Homebrew on arm64 installs to /opt/homebrew.
    - bayindirh 1y ago
      Oh. They changed it at last? This is good news. Thanks for letting me know.
  - rcleveng 1y ago
    Yup absolutely. I use macos as my daily driver, but any real work on it happens on a linux container or VM. Using one of {cursor, vscode, windsurf} with a devcontainer is a much better approach for me.
- skydhash 1y ago
  Current macos is going the windows direction with some architecture choice (default uninstallable software, settings panel mess, meaningless updates,…)
MonaroVXR 1y ago
>Why not just use Linux then? Why not both? Like me?

by reisse 1y ago

bayindirh 1y ago

People like to talk like GPL is evil, but it's underpinning more of the world than many people see. And thanks to no ABI/API stability guarantees, Linux can innovate and doesn't care about what others might say. Considering Linux is developed mostly by companies today, the standard upkeep of a driver is not a burden unless you want to shove planned obsolescence down the throats of the consumers (cough Win11 TPM requirements cough).

dabockster 1y ago
I wouldn’t call the GPL “evil”, but I do think it’s more unrealistic given current western economics and mooching practices. Some copyright here and there does help keep food and water on the table.
- codeguro 1y ago
  Nothing prevents one from selling GPL'd software. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
- AStonesThrow 1y ago
  Despite the FSF's word games with "copyleft", the GNU GPL, Creative Commons, and F/OSS licenses rely on legal copyright protections in order to work. It's the copyright holder who reserves the right to license the software by those terms. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://creativecommons.org/faq/#is-creative-commons-against-copyright https://creativecommons.org/faq/#is-creative-commons-against... Closed source is protected in other ways besides copyright. Trade secrets, confidentiality, NDA, proprietary ownership, obfuscation, and in the case of hardware, big globs of epoxy and other countermeasures to ensure nobody can get in and reverse-engineer it.
- bayindirh 1y ago
  > Some copyright here and there does help keep food and water on the table. While I'm a strong Free Software proponent, I'm not a zealot and insist on a black or white approach. Yes, some software can be closed source, I agree, but it shouldn't be the bedrock software, i.e. anything required to enable hardware (firmware, OS, and preferably the utilities). For the record, I'm paying for a couple closed source software packages on Linux which provide very unique feature s. These are inSync and Pagico. On top of that, you can always sell GPL software (remember, you shall ship the source with the product. opening it it to everyone is not a requirement). On top of it, you can sell support or special versions. curl has a special version for paying customers, and ccid driver developers sell ccid compliance testing. So, there are always alternatives, and the reality has more shades of gray than two distinct colors.

atoav 1y ago

Sure, but consider that some people might not be able to just make that choice in any given context. I was working as a freelancer wher a lot of my job meant interfacing with files other people made in Software that only runs reliably on Windows or Mac (and I tried regularly). So WSL provided me with a way to run Linux stuff without having to run a fat VM or dual boot. In fact my experience with WSL is probably why I run Linux as my daily driver OS in academia now, since here the context differs and a switch to Linux was possible. Whether a thing is useful is always dependent on the person and the context. WSL can absolutely be a gateway drug to Linux for those who haven't managed to get their feet wet just yet.

bayindirh 1y ago
I completely agree with you. WSL2 can be useful for many scenarios at its current form. We tend to forget that "Horses for Courses" and "Your Mileage May Vary" applies way broader than we think.

FeloniousHam 1y ago

The obvious answer: you can't. I work in constrained environment with an IT department that provides the hardware and (most of) the software I develop on. I agree with all the WSL cheering here, it integrates almost seamlessly. But you're asking the wrong question. It should be "why not use MacOS?" if you need a stable UI with UNIX underneath :).

bayindirh 1y ago
That's another sound option, but as a person who doesn't like Homebrew and stuffing /usr/local with tons of things, a lightweight Linux VM becomes mandatory after some point on macOS, too. Other than that, macOS plus some tools (Fileduck, Forklift, Tower, Kaleidoscope to name a few), you can be 99% there.
- p_ing 1y ago
  Homebrew on arm64 installs to /opt/homebrew.
  - bayindirh 1y ago
    Oh. They changed it at last? This is good news. Thanks for letting me know.
- rcleveng 1y ago
  Yup absolutely. I use macos as my daily driver, but any real work on it happens on a linux container or VM. Using one of {cursor, vscode, windsurf} with a devcontainer is a much better approach for me.
skydhash 1y ago
Current macos is going the windows direction with some architecture choice (default uninstallable software, settings panel mess, meaningless updates,…)

MonaroVXR 1y ago

>Why not just use Linux then? Why not both? Like me?