• douglasg14b@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Not trying to start an argument here but I do want to point out that your argument foundations on blaming other competitors instead of looking at what can make the platform you’re passionate about more palatable.

    There are many, MANY, reasons people will choose Mac and windows on their own accord.

    Your argument hand waves that away to make a boogieman out of mac and windows, and erodes the true viability of Linux as a platform by not looking at how it can improve, and instead focusing on how the competition “is bad”.

    Taking the ego stance that Linux “would be great if it wasn’t being held back by the bad guys” doesn’t actually help Linux desktop adoption…

    • K0W4L5K1@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      The problem is linux is palatable there are many distros that are prebuilt to run like a Mac or windows they just have no way of marketing like Microsoft or apple.

      that is because of the Open source licences. If they were able to sell their product do you think linux would be as far behind as it is today?

      If those thousands of companies that use linux every single day had to pay a sub fee instead of measily (tax writeoff)donations do you think think XZ would have been hacked? If they could compete in the capitalist race would they be this far behind? IMO no and the open source license is a blessing and a curse

      I agree both windows and Mac were once great viable OSes now they are just an advertising machine with apps

      linux distros have been held back not by those companies specifically but with how licensing works its really fucked any sort of fulltime development

      a company telling me that my perfectly working hardware is not viable for their new OS and not giving me an option with security updates is a boogieman IMO