If you don’t like Microsoft’s contributions to Linux, you can fork it and remove them. If you don’t like Microsoft’s contributions to Windows, you have to use something else.
It’s not just Microsoft tho. Redhat, oracle, facebook, Google, intel, AMD, they all contribute to linux. Removing their contribution would effectively make the kernel unusable
Everyone is getting free stuff; that’s the point. If you want companies to not use free stuff to make money then either linux is worse, or companies need to po away.
So what’s the problem with that? We get contributions for free to make newer hardware working, they improve already existing stuff, they solve bugs and everyone take advantage from that.
Hardware manufactures (Intel, AMD, etc) SHOULD be contributing to Linux. How could they EEE if they aren’t directly competing? The better compatibility they have with Linux, the more server CPUs they can sell. That’s their motivation, and it’s aligned with the OSS community.
Microsoft also uses Linux. They have both Windows Subsystem for Linux, and they also use it in house I’m certain. Linux is technically competition for MS, but not really. They aren’t trying to sell Windows to the people choosing Linux. To assume malice when there’s perfectly reasonable reasons for them to be contributing is likely wrong.
Red hat may be a contributor to the kernel but development is open source. See the difference between American mega corp with closed source software vs red hat contributing to the Linux kernel?
My network firewall blocks thousands of Microsoft tracking attempts per hour in my home network. My linux machine has zero packets blocked. How is this the same?
I guess you claim it’s the same because you don’t understand the difference, or we are talking about something else being the same, like both have desktop environments…
One is hostile against the user privacy and the other is not. They are very different. Systemd is a boot system and it’s great. It doesn’t call home.
I agree that Linux is the product of corporate investment and corporate priorities.
I also agree that it is “embrace and extend”. Not everybody loves the extension. The Internet is chalk full of moaning about systemd, pukseaudio, and wayland for example.
There is a lot less moaning about how great Linux gaming is now or that GNOME is pretty great now ( I don’t use it ), or that networking is super fast, or that HDR is being worked on. So, not all corporate investment is unpopular.
I guess that is why there has been so little extinguishing. Or the opposite of it. Corporate interests that invest in Linux tend to end up extinguishing their other offerings over time. Check out Microsoft in the cloud even. How much of Azure is Linux vs Windows.
Meanwhile, I can use systems that use the bits I like and replace the bits I don’t. I am loving Chimera Linux right now. No systemd in that. My main work machines use EndeavourOS which does use it but there are certainly lots of other high quality choices. Lots of other choices that are thriving ( not being extinguished ). Most of them benefit from the embracing and extending.
Microsoft has not been able to use EEE in Linux. I think they have learned there is way more money in not doing so actually.
deleted by creator
Interesting concept, what do you mean by this?
deleted by creator
If you don’t like Microsoft’s contributions to Linux, you can fork it and remove them. If you don’t like Microsoft’s contributions to Windows, you have to use something else.
It’s not just Microsoft tho. Redhat, oracle, facebook, Google, intel, AMD, they all contribute to linux. Removing their contribution would effectively make the kernel unusable
Isn’t taking corporate money and extracting it into a public good a positive?
deleted by creator
Everyone is getting free stuff; that’s the point. If you want companies to not use free stuff to make money then either linux is worse, or companies need to po away.
So what’s the problem with that? We get contributions for free to make newer hardware working, they improve already existing stuff, they solve bugs and everyone take advantage from that.
Hardware manufactures (Intel, AMD, etc) SHOULD be contributing to Linux. How could they EEE if they aren’t directly competing? The better compatibility they have with Linux, the more server CPUs they can sell. That’s their motivation, and it’s aligned with the OSS community.
Microsoft also uses Linux. They have both Windows Subsystem for Linux, and they also use it in house I’m certain. Linux is technically competition for MS, but not really. They aren’t trying to sell Windows to the people choosing Linux. To assume malice when there’s perfectly reasonable reasons for them to be contributing is likely wrong.
Also a good point, but Microsoft has a history of EEE so it’s also fair to be sceptical of them.
Average TempleOS user
deleted by creator
Out of curiosity, what perfect wonderland operating system are you using then?
Placing a bet now: Windows.
Weirdly I’m getting BSD vibes, even leaning a little towards MacOS.
Ooh, yeah, good call, I always forget them when things get dweeby.
I swear, nothing is commie enough for Lemmy. “Linux? Pshhhsshs! Cuck!” Mentions no alternative
I bet he uses CPU5 on a Centurion Minicomputer.
deleted by creator
What’s it like having your head that far up your own asshole?
deleted by creator
How do you deal with the smell?
deleted by creator
I do not get your argument still. Could you elaborate further?
Sure, if microsoft or redhat was embedding malware or proprietary software via patches, sure. But their contributions are also FOSS!
Red hat may be a contributor to the kernel but development is open source. See the difference between American mega corp with closed source software vs red hat contributing to the Linux kernel?
My network firewall blocks thousands of Microsoft tracking attempts per hour in my home network. My linux machine has zero packets blocked. How is this the same?
I guess you claim it’s the same because you don’t understand the difference, or we are talking about something else being the same, like both have desktop environments…
One is hostile against the user privacy and the other is not. They are very different. Systemd is a boot system and it’s great. It doesn’t call home.
Just use whatever distro Stallman does, you’ll be fine. If it’s good enough for him, it should be good enough for you.
And how would anyone benefit if Linux stopped accepting patches from Microsoft?
Gate’s closed, huh? Alright, I’ll come back later and make sure I ask you for permission.
deleted by creator
I agree that Linux is the product of corporate investment and corporate priorities.
I also agree that it is “embrace and extend”. Not everybody loves the extension. The Internet is chalk full of moaning about systemd, pukseaudio, and wayland for example.
There is a lot less moaning about how great Linux gaming is now or that GNOME is pretty great now ( I don’t use it ), or that networking is super fast, or that HDR is being worked on. So, not all corporate investment is unpopular.
I guess that is why there has been so little extinguishing. Or the opposite of it. Corporate interests that invest in Linux tend to end up extinguishing their other offerings over time. Check out Microsoft in the cloud even. How much of Azure is Linux vs Windows.
Meanwhile, I can use systems that use the bits I like and replace the bits I don’t. I am loving Chimera Linux right now. No systemd in that. My main work machines use EndeavourOS which does use it but there are certainly lots of other high quality choices. Lots of other choices that are thriving ( not being extinguished ). Most of them benefit from the embracing and extending.
Microsoft has not been able to use EEE in Linux. I think they have learned there is way more money in not doing so actually.