You must log in or register to comment.
I don’t see anyone outside so it checks out.
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?
At least it would be GPL tho.
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).
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?
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
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.
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…
they miss the statue of Linus Torvalds
No one would agree on the visual design, and most people would just want an unstyled box because it’s more efficient.
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
No, you missed the homeless encampments, forest fires and car centric cities.
There’s no
apt install utopia.Because you have forgotten sudo
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.
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?
