• MrMamiya@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months 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.

        • soweli Jemi@kulupu.duckdns.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          10 months ago

          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?

    • vettnerk@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months 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
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months 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).

    • tool@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months 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
        ·
        10 months 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
      ·
      10 months 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?

  • floofloof@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

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

      • CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        10 months 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
        15
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

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

        • alcasa@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months 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
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

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

            • msage@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months 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
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months 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.

  • HellAwaits@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    No because as others have already said, why would 1 thing dominating everything be good?

    • AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

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

    • mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months 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”

  • Rakust@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months 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
      ·
      10 months 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”.

  • mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Linux kernel

    Nah bro, chrome OS is fucking ridiculous not to mention android too.

    We need the other linux not just kernel.

  • Sigmatics@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    10 months ago

    So you mean we would have weird useless concrete structures everywhere? I doubt it

  • halvar@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Until the moment someone finds a privilage escalation bug.

    • towerful@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      Why?
      I’ve tried to Google this, but it’s such a general statement I can’t find anything about it.
      Is it more mature in that regard? Sane/sensible/safe defaults for networking? More tools as part of the distribution for networking?
      Did FreeBSD (or it’s predecessor/upstream/whatever) define the standards, so the implementation is more correct?

      Or is it just that so many firewall applications run on top of FreeBSD (or a BSD flavour) eg opnSense, pfSense, openWRT (is openWRT actually BSD, idk)?
      So, kinda a historical/momentum thing. With the benefits of wide spread specific use

      • LinuxSBC@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        OpenBSD is focused on being incredibly secure, and they generally succeed. Firewalls need good security.

      • linearchaos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        FreeBSD this focused on making a general use operating system

        Open BSD is focusing on security the developer insists on regular audits.

        Under most circumstances I wouldn’t really care, we’re getting a long well enough on Microsoft and Android with security updates all the time. That firewall man, it’s sitting out there with its ass hanging in the wind, The only thing between you and a billion hastily written scripts.