• MrMamiya@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    ·
    1 year ago

    If Linux was dominant it wouldn’t be Linux. There would be more pressure to monetize and there would always be someone willing to sell out for that money. You can see this even in the Linux community today. I’m sorry I had to be so negative about it though, it sounds nice.

    • vettnerk@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 year ago

      If windows didn’t exist, linux would dominate with the problems you describe, and we’d still see this meme, but advocating for FreeBSD instead.

      That being said, I like them both. It’s been a while since I last used bsd, so I think it’s about time I give it another spin.

      • itsJoelle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m unsure. I switch between MacOS and Linux regularly.

        I’d reckon Apple’s OS would dominate the “user friendly” space(not saying Linux is bad, just what everyone memes).

    • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Linux is already dominant on just about everything except the desktop, and it has yet to suffer significant enshittification.

      Edit: Well, a bunch of Linux distributions have suffered enshittification, if that counts.

    • tool@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      If Linux was dominant it wouldn’t be Linux. There would be more pressure to monetize and there would always be someone willing to sell out for that money. You can see this even in the Linux community today. I’m sorry I had to be so negative about it though, it sounds nice.

      This is a very Desktop/workstation-centric view of the situation and you’re completely neglecting 3/4ths of the story. Linux is already hilariously dominant on the on-prem server and Cloud side of things. Like, it’s not even close. Pretty much any website you visit, the odds are overwhelming that it’s running Linux. Even Microsoft runs most of the underlying infrastructure for Azure and Github on Linux. Android is the #1 mobile phone platform in the world, which runs on, you guessed it, Linux.

      And it’s already monetized to the gills. Red Hat has multi-billion earnings per quarter, every quarter, and Canonical is almost certainly going to IPO this year.

      It’s already dominant in pretty much every space it touches and it has been for a very long time. Desktop/workstation is pretty much the singular exception to that.

      • MrMamiya@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah man it’s more of what you might call an allegory for how capitalism works. Language is my thing, looks like Linux is yours. I’m sure this information will be very helpful for anyone who might read my post and mistake me for an expert. Thanks for your service.

    • Doc Avid Mornington@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Who, exactly, do you think would “sell out for money”, and why would they have the power to do so? Linux is huge, and the pressure to monetize is there now. Plenty of people have been trying to monetize Linux - and in many cases, succeeding - for decades now. Why do you think being dominant would change that?

  • Boogeyman4325@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not really. Having heterogeneity among operating systems is better than pure homogeneity. Say, if everyone ran Linux, and some massive security flaw was discovered, we would all be screwed at the same time. However, if we ran different stuff, and some massive security hole was found for just one operating system, then only a small portion of the world is vulnerable at once. Besides, more operating systems can lead to more innovation, as long as there is good competition between them.

    • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If the whole world focused and used just 1 OS for every system for a long enough time line, I think it would evolve fast enough to reach a point of perfection, where there are no security holes or flaws of any kind. I do believe that while programming has many ways of doing the same task, there is always an objectively best way to do it. Eventually the best way to do everything an OS needs to do would be found; it would be faster if there was only 1 OS to work with to reach that point.

      • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        I do believe that while programming has many ways of doing the same task, there is always an objectively best way to do it.

        I’ve been writing code in one form or another for some 30 years now, and my observation so far has been the exact opposite: there are many problems in programming for which there is no one clearly superior solution, even in theory. Just like life in general, programming is full of trade-offs, compromises, and diminishing returns.

      • Nintendo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        where there are no security holes or flaws of any kind

        this in itself is straight up impossible to know or prove. when can you say your program has no vulnerabilities? ever hear of zerodays? finding the best way to do everything in software will never be found or stay constant either.

      • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I do believe that while programming has many ways of doing the same task, there is always an objectively best way to do it.

        Language has many ways of expressing the same thing, is there an objectively best way to do it?

        Is that sentence the best way to ask that question?

  • floofloof@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem is capitalism, not which kernel everything runs. And the reason FOSS isn’t universal is also capitalism.

    • zagaberoo@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s more complicated to make money producing FOSS, capitalism or not. Lots of reasonable developers would still choose closed source even without capitalism.

        • vrkr@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The premise that we need money to figure out how to allocate resources is foolish

          Money not necessarily, we need to calculate costs (and minimize it) in distributed fashion.

        • ursakhiin@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s a bunch of ways to allocate resources but ideas like money have an advantage of allowing people to choose how they live.

          A good example would be that not every person would be satisfied living in an apartment in the city. Some prefer living more rural for any number of reasons. Some want to be inside playing video games and others outside biking on a mountain. Some want to be able to do both. Giving them the ability to choose small apartment in the city or bigger house in the woods is important for happiness.

          The biggest issue is the discrepancy of resource allocation between individuals not the method that allocation is done on paper.

      • sj_zero@lotide.fbxl.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Dirty secret is that FOSS is a product of capitalism and nothing else.

        A bunch of nerds being allowed to own and control the means of production created personal computers while the central planners in both communist countries and big companies both thought it was a dumb idea. A bunch of nerds being allowed to own and control the means of production meant that someone could decide to release their product free with source code. Private ownership of intellectual property such as source code allowed people to release their privately owned code under a license specifying that changes must be made public.

        From there, the proof in the pudding is in the eating. How many FOSS projects do you use, and who made them?

      • CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s probably one computer at most per employee, but each employee already has a non Windows cell phone. Most servers run Linux. Then there’s Linux in a bunch of small devices as well. Windows is a small part of that pie and only getting smaller.

      • asudox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        Windows Server for usage in actual servers? Those companies must be retarded to the core.

        • alcasa@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Windows Server is rather common in large enterprise software. All the stuff you pray you never have to interface with

          • asudox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            It sure is convenient. You get a user friendly GUI. But the stability, the resource intensity and the spyware. It’s really a retarded decision to build your servers on Windows Server.

            • msage@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, but some software, and it’s usually a financial application, requires a Windows Server.

              I’ve seen it more than once, as I had to set up the machine, I was dying inside, but there was just no alternative that the accounting could use.

        • LinuxSBC@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s really common. The IT people know how to use Windows, and they need Active Directory to manage their Windows devices, so they just use Windows Server.

    • mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Its not dominating everything but we can make foss our own. I.e. Linux don’t dominate over us but “we are using linux the way we want”

    • AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because Linux isn’t really one thing. If the kernel developers do something bad, just fork the kernel and remove it.

  • Rakust@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, because everyone would be sitting around jacking each other off about using linux, if current trends are to be believed.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s a weird secretive compound on the edge of town. If you go up to the gate and try to talk to them they just reply “I use Arch BTW”.