Sure, variations of it will probably be. In the same way a fork of mastodon is used for Trumps truth social platform, despite it being a predominantly left application.
The key thing you’re not considering about open source is the lack of central governance. Ubuntu can decide to impose age checks, arch could decide it requires TPM setup, and fedora could choose to move to a licensing fee model. All would be independent decisions however, and only affect the respective distro and any built from it, yet they’re all called Linux.
Besides, with all open source applications, anything implemented can be reverted by someone else. The code is licensed publicly for this exact reason.
Open source culture of the 70s, 80s and 90s I don’t think exists with the same principals today. It’s driven by different things entirely.
Maybe people don’t remember, but the early days of the internet people were loud about keeping profit motives away. It was all about rejection of data scarcity and therefore open source was this core belief in the early days that the internet was going to end artifical data scarcity. Information should not cost anything if I can take a book or music or game or file and just copy it.
That’s an insane concept now. Artist need to be paid. The triple AAA game developers need to eat. Info wars journalist need to buy cocaine. So now we shifted. We’ve let these dinosaurs of the past die. Richard Stallmans no longer exist. In today’s world you all would demand Aaron Swartz get the death penalty. It’s not the same climate.
Over time open source is going to starve to and die. It’ll shift to a different model. The only reason it still exist and gets worked on today is because we’re still benefiting from the model previous generations built. But that culture no longer exists like it once did. It’s the opposite now.
Stallman is literally the example of this who watched the open sharing of software eventually go corporate and proprietary. That’s why he created GNU in the first place. Whose doing that today?
Unionization of the workforce is another example that’s slowly died out with culture.
It’s only safe right now because of time and that enterprise benefits.
If you’d ask me, open source has never been stronger than it is today. I don’t really care about the ideologies, but I care about the technology and for me it doesn’t feel like Linux is drifting towards proprietary systems.
Which is kind of my point. The ideologies are more important than the open source because without it open source is not open source. It will strangle itself out.
Without the ideology there would be no open source. It’s like saying you can have churches without religion. You take the religion away, you’ll still have the building but it’s a matter of time before they’re gone.
I am speaking of both FOSS and open source. As I said earlier these environments only exist so long as business can profit from it. This is because like you said the heart of what created the environments is gone. When business has a new model, like building what open source can with AI, then it’ll die out too. There’s a reason the more business friendly one is thriving.
That’s what happens when generations ignore their roots
Linux will be eventually
Sure, variations of it will probably be. In the same way a fork of mastodon is used for Trumps truth social platform, despite it being a predominantly left application.
The key thing you’re not considering about open source is the lack of central governance. Ubuntu can decide to impose age checks, arch could decide it requires TPM setup, and fedora could choose to move to a licensing fee model. All would be independent decisions however, and only affect the respective distro and any built from it, yet they’re all called Linux.
Besides, with all open source applications, anything implemented can be reverted by someone else. The code is licensed publicly for this exact reason.
What’s your opinion on how open source culture has changed from say Richard Stallmans era to now?
How would that be possible given that the Linux Kernel is entirely open source.
They found a way to sell water to people in tiny little portions and people pay for it. People will pay for convenience that works.
But that’s not an issue with Linux, you would still be able to use it for free just like before.
I think people will stop showing up.
Open source culture of the 70s, 80s and 90s I don’t think exists with the same principals today. It’s driven by different things entirely.
Maybe people don’t remember, but the early days of the internet people were loud about keeping profit motives away. It was all about rejection of data scarcity and therefore open source was this core belief in the early days that the internet was going to end artifical data scarcity. Information should not cost anything if I can take a book or music or game or file and just copy it.
That’s an insane concept now. Artist need to be paid. The triple AAA game developers need to eat. Info wars journalist need to buy cocaine. So now we shifted. We’ve let these dinosaurs of the past die. Richard Stallmans no longer exist. In today’s world you all would demand Aaron Swartz get the death penalty. It’s not the same climate.
Over time open source is going to starve to and die. It’ll shift to a different model. The only reason it still exist and gets worked on today is because we’re still benefiting from the model previous generations built. But that culture no longer exists like it once did. It’s the opposite now.
Stallman is literally the example of this who watched the open sharing of software eventually go corporate and proprietary. That’s why he created GNU in the first place. Whose doing that today?
Unionization of the workforce is another example that’s slowly died out with culture.
It’s only safe right now because of time and that enterprise benefits.
If you’d ask me, open source has never been stronger than it is today. I don’t really care about the ideologies, but I care about the technology and for me it doesn’t feel like Linux is drifting towards proprietary systems.
Which is kind of my point. The ideologies are more important than the open source because without it open source is not open source. It will strangle itself out.
Open source is not about ideology, it’s just stating that it’s source is… well… open. Maybe you’re confusing it with FOSS?
Without the ideology there would be no open source. It’s like saying you can have churches without religion. You take the religion away, you’ll still have the building but it’s a matter of time before they’re gone.
I am speaking of both FOSS and open source. As I said earlier these environments only exist so long as business can profit from it. This is because like you said the heart of what created the environments is gone. When business has a new model, like building what open source can with AI, then it’ll die out too. There’s a reason the more business friendly one is thriving.
That’s what happens when generations ignore their roots
You can also just…not pay for those. Tap water is great, you can even filter it if you want it to be greater.
The point is people will pay for it. You may not. Maybe no one in this thread will. But most people will pay for easy.