You give up all control over your system to other US corporations though, like Red Hat (who are - and should be held, IMO - responsible for systemd) and Microsoft (who contribute quite some code to the kernel). The only system you control is a system you write, I’m afraid.
Red Hat: Hi here’s some tools we made, you can see how every single one of them works in full detail and you can modify them as you see fit, and distribute modified copies.
Microsoft: Hi we peddle proprietary spyware and we aren’t even secretive about it.
Basically the same thing?
Also systemd rocks, and the kernel is widely audited OSS, Microsoft will have a very hard time sneaking in anything malicious.
“Everyone can see the code” does not mean that everyone understands what’s going on, by the way. The X server had had a security hole for 23 years just a while ago. Could it be that “it’s OSS” and “many people read and understand what’s going on” are not the same thing?
Setting aside the fact that that is not even remotely true, do you think Linux = Red Hat? What about almost every other distro being run by volunteeers?
I’ve only ever seen redhat used by government and some corporations. As far as the broader community goes (especially the foss community), they are a pretty minor player.
It’s honestly insane that you can sit there and shill for Microsoft these days. They’ve always been pretty evil, but now they’ve gone so far off the deep end they’re even driving away people who have been all-in on Microsoft their whole lives. Even non-tech people are getting simply fed up with all of the spying and intrusive, AI-infested bullshit. Linux marketshare has been steadily increasing over the last couple of years, and it doesn’t look like it’s slowing down anytime soon. And all of it is, ultimately, because Windows is forcing people away.
What about almost every other distro being run by volunteeers?
You misunderstood: Red Hat The Linux Distribution (not quite relevant for Linux development) is not Red Hat The Commercial Entity (quite relevant for Linux development). However, volunteers repackaging (“distributing”) Red Hat software still don’t change the nature of the software, but that’s a different discussion.
It’s honestly insane that you can sit there and shill for Microsoft these days.
I do not do that. What I actually wrote is: By moving from Windows to Linux (assuming you use Linux-libre), you gain a certain level of freedom, but that freedom still relies on commercial entities and their own ideas that are contributed to the kernel. Just because you can see the code, you still can’t decide about the code.
Note that I do not use Windows. You make it sound like I would.
Let’s leave it at that. We probably won’t solve this debate over Christmas, and life is too short to argue about software. :-)
Have a good one.
It’s not just that your comparison is so far fetched it already disconnected, what you say is also plain wrong. You don’t give up anything in this constellation.
You give up all control over your system to other US corporations though, like Red Hat (who are - and should be held, IMO - responsible for systemd) and Microsoft (who contribute quite some code to the kernel). The only system you control is a system you write, I’m afraid.
Red Hat: Hi here’s some tools we made, you can see how every single one of them works in full detail and you can modify them as you see fit, and distribute modified copies.
Microsoft: Hi we peddle proprietary spyware and we aren’t even secretive about it.
Basically the same thing?
Also systemd rocks, and the kernel is widely audited OSS, Microsoft will have a very hard time sneaking in anything malicious.
I disagree.
Minus the proprietary blobs, that is.
“Everyone can see the code” does not mean that everyone understands what’s going on, by the way. The X server had had a security hole for 23 years just a while ago. Could it be that “it’s OSS” and “many people read and understand what’s going on” are not the same thing?
TIL letting my teacher make suggestions on my draft means they control the entire contents of the final paper
Setting aside the fact that that is not even remotely true, do you think Linux = Red Hat? What about almost every other distro being run by volunteeers?
I’ve only ever seen redhat used by government and some corporations. As far as the broader community goes (especially the foss community), they are a pretty minor player.
It’s honestly insane that you can sit there and shill for Microsoft these days. They’ve always been pretty evil, but now they’ve gone so far off the deep end they’re even driving away people who have been all-in on Microsoft their whole lives. Even non-tech people are getting simply fed up with all of the spying and intrusive, AI-infested bullshit. Linux marketshare has been steadily increasing over the last couple of years, and it doesn’t look like it’s slowing down anytime soon. And all of it is, ultimately, because Windows is forcing people away.
You misunderstood: Red Hat The Linux Distribution (not quite relevant for Linux development) is not Red Hat The Commercial Entity (quite relevant for Linux development). However, volunteers repackaging (“distributing”) Red Hat software still don’t change the nature of the software, but that’s a different discussion.
I do not do that. What I actually wrote is: By moving from Windows to Linux (assuming you use Linux-libre), you gain a certain level of freedom, but that freedom still relies on commercial entities and their own ideas that are contributed to the kernel. Just because you can see the code, you still can’t decide about the code.
Note that I do not use Windows. You make it sound like I would.
Let’s leave it at that. We probably won’t solve this debate over Christmas, and life is too short to argue about software. :-) Have a good one.
It’s not just that your comparison is so far fetched it already disconnected, what you say is also plain wrong. You don’t give up anything in this constellation.
I don’t use systemd, and Linus Torwalds controls what’s actually allowed into the kernel.