You must log in or # to comment.
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.
Maybe it should say, “If the world went open source, and capitalism went away.”
Even fantasy should have some limits folks c’mon now
Which is more fantastical? Unlimited profits and line going up forever in a finite world? Or capitalism actually ending so all lives can live free from subjugation?
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.
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).
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.
Does this also apply to Android?
I’m not sure. I’ve only ever used the stock operating system on my phones.
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.
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.
At least it would be GPL tho.
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?
I don’t see anyone outside so it checks out.
They are all learning how to use the terminal.
They are inside trying to compile the software thst opens the automatic doors.
They will die there, because they need a slightly older version of some minor library for compatibility, and nobody cared enough to continue hosting it.
Sudo apt install sliding-doors if that doesn’t work check the snap store, best I can do 🤣
Real
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Must be nice to be so ignorant…
The problem is capitalism, not which kernel everything runs. And the reason FOSS isn’t universal is also capitalism.
It’s more complicated to make money producing FOSS, capitalism or not. Lots of reasonable developers would still choose closed source even without capitalism.
Making money is a capitalist adjacent idea. The premise that we need money to figure out how to allocate resources is foolish
I’m still waiting for someone to propose in detail an alternative.
Yeah, that’s the problem. We don’t have the requisite technology to build a Star Trek utopia. If only we did…
Well, if everything ran Linux…
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.
And the only reasonably successful way we’ve found so far for doing so is…money.
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.
Aren’t the majority of computers already on Linux? Unless you mean desktops
Majority… yeah, Android smartphone and servers would be a really really big number.
Most computers in the world are not desktops
deleted by creator
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.
Windows Server for usage in actual servers? Those companies must be retarded to the core.
Windows Server is rather common in large enterprise software. All the stuff you pray you never have to interface with
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
Because Linux isn’t really one thing. If the kernel developers do something bad, just fork the kernel and remove it.
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”
No, you missed the homeless encampments, forest fires and car centric cities.
There’s no
apt install utopia.Because you have forgotten sudo
they miss the statue of Linus Torvalds
deleted by creator
No, because everyone would be sitting around jacking each other off about using linux, if current trends are to be believed.
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”.
No place for bazaar. Looks more like corporations wet dream.
I mean, you could put one inside a building, I guess. It’s really just a very downscale mall.
Would expect the architecture to be a bit more on the brutalist side of things
So you mean we would have weird useless concrete structures everywhere? I doubt it
Linux kernel
Nah bro, chrome OS is fucking ridiculous not to mention android too.
We need the other linux not just kernel.
Until the moment someone finds a privilage escalation bug.
:D
Come to think of it that’s kind of how society works no?
Well not completly, but yes most of the servers run linux
It does run on Linux 😁😁😁
