this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
1151 points (97.7% liked)
Technology
60116 readers
2883 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I won't dispute that fanboyism is thing, but also I don't think many evangelists as it were view Linux as a "silver bullet", just as the most ethical option given the alternatives. And they feel very strong feelings about this, that come across as Weird and Scary to people not used to seeing software treated with the same enthusiasm as politics.
Also, I should add that many view open source software as having the potential to one day be the "silver bullet" in a way commercial software can never be due to it's structure.
I’ve been reading about its potential for a long time. Maybe next year will be the year of Linux ;)
If your barometer for "potential" relies on market share, then you don't really understand what motivates a person to contribute effort to a FOSS project in the first place.
What’s your barometer, bearing in mind you said it had the potential to be a silver bullet? Silver bullet for what?
I don’t want to sound defensive, but please don’t assume I’m not invested in FOSS. I’m on Lemmy, Mastodon, Pixelfed and am the developer of half a dozen small FOSS projects on GitHub.
At achieving the task it was designed for. I do not think it's correct to say that Linux can have "market share" in the market of commercial operating systems because it isn't commercial software. By not using proprietary software we are exiting the market.
Linux absolutely does not exist “outside the market”, that’s absurd. Red Hat, Canonical, SUSE etc aren’t charitable organisations. These major contributors to the Linux kernel aren’t doing so out of love for their fellow man.
For you, yes, Linux is “free” if your measurement of cost is purely financial outlay.
There’s a great back and forth here, and the original thread on Mastodon, which nicely covers both the evangelism (my original issue) and the “cost” of Linux. There’s plenty of reactions in there from people talking about the same things, from both sides of the coin.
FOSS