you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -142 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Linux is just Microsoft for oblivious nerds

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 63 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Interesting concept, what do you mean by this?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -126 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (9 children)

    Linux is #1 run by corporate interests like Red Hat (who controls the entire Linux ecosystem, see systemd etc.) in the exact same way as Microsoft. Linux being open source doesn't mean it isn't a corporate project by cumulative billion value companies. It's not free software. It is what's called "embrace extend extinguish".

    In short, you can only defend Linux over Windows once Linux stops accepting patches from Microsoft.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 65 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If you don't like Microsoft's contributions to Linux, you can fork it and remove them. If you don't like Microsoft's contributions to Windows, you have to use something else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -18 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    It's not just Microsoft tho. Redhat, oracle, facebook, Google, intel, AMD, they all contribute to linux. Removing their contribution would effectively make the kernel unusable

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Isn't taking corporate money and extracting it into a public good a positive?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    So what's the problem with that? We get contributions for free to make newer hardware working, they improve already existing stuff, they solve bugs and everyone take advantage from that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Hardware manufactures (Intel, AMD, etc) SHOULD be contributing to Linux. How could they EEE if they aren't directly competing? The better compatibility they have with Linux, the more server CPUs they can sell. That's their motivation, and it's aligned with the OSS community.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Microsoft also uses Linux. They have both Windows Subsystem for Linux, and they also use it in house I'm certain. Linux is technically competition for MS, but not really. They aren't trying to sell Windows to the people choosing Linux. To assume malice when there's perfectly reasonable reasons for them to be contributing is likely wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    At least he took his own initiative

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Out of curiosity, what perfect wonderland operating system are you using then?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Weirdly I’m getting BSD vibes, even leaning a little towards MacOS.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    What's it like having your head that far up your own asshole?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -20 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Warm and cozy? What do you expect? Why else would I be here? God you people are dumb.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago*

    Red hat may be a contributor to the kernel but development is open source. See the difference between American mega corp with closed source software vs red hat contributing to the Linux kernel?

    My network firewall blocks thousands of Microsoft tracking attempts per hour in my home network. My linux machine has zero packets blocked. How is this the same?

    I guess you claim it's the same because you don't understand the difference, or we are talking about something else being the same, like both have desktop environments....

    One is hostile against the user privacy and the other is not. They are very different. Systemd is a boot system and it's great. It doesn't call home.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    I agree that Linux is the product of corporate investment and corporate priorities.

    I also agree that it is “embrace and extend”. Not everybody loves the extension. The Internet is chalk full of moaning about systemd, pukseaudio, and wayland for example.

    There is a lot less moaning about how great Linux gaming is now or that GNOME is pretty great now ( I don’t use it ), or that networking is super fast, or that HDR is being worked on. So, not all corporate investment is unpopular.

    I guess that is why there has been so little extinguishing. Or the opposite of it. Corporate interests that invest in Linux tend to end up extinguishing their other offerings over time. Check out Microsoft in the cloud even. How much of Azure is Linux vs Windows.

    Meanwhile, I can use systems that use the bits I like and replace the bits I don’t. I am loving Chimera Linux right now. No systemd in that. My main work machines use EndeavourOS which does use it but there are certainly lots of other high quality choices. Lots of other choices that are thriving ( not being extinguished ). Most of them benefit from the embracing and extending.

    Microsoft has not been able to use EEE in Linux. I think they have learned there is way more money in not doing so actually.

  • source
  • parent