I think it's more "they will give less control in order to please the peasants, and as a result I will lose control".
And I agree with that concern, though my hope is that we can make it easier for the peasants without sacrificing control for the nerds (trying to find a word that would work with "peasant" in this context :D).
I disagree with the concern, because obviously making Free Software easier for non-technically inclined people to use does not make the software harder for technically inclined people to use. This is strictly an issue for proprietary software.
> This is strictly an issue for proprietary software.
it really isn't, as Google Chrome and Chromium shows there's no clear dividing line in the real world. Linux isn't developed by Bob the free software enthusiast, take a look at the code contributions to the kernel.
Overall I'm also in favour of driving linux adoption because it's still a better world but the idea that this has no spill over effect on anyone else is wrong. It's a fiction to think that Linux, just like a browser is anything but a collective project with most development driven by very few organizations who also have commercial or proprietary interests.
My point being that it's okay for some projects to sacrifice control, as long as others don't. I can't tell Ubuntu how they should make their distro; what I can do is choose Gentoo (or anything in between).
I know you are making it seem like this is a very cringe position, but its in fact a very valid one.
The problem in most any technology sector is that its impossible for one person in reasonable amount of time to put together systems for use. Maybe in the future when LLMs are advanced enough to where I can have it code a full OS for me to my liking this will change, but right now, I have to depend on other people doing work.
Linux happens to be in a sweet spot where the collaborative development is guided by technical decisions instead of market forces, but Linux is just an OS. It needs open hardware to run. It just so happens that laptop manfuacturers who target Windows just don't see Linux as a big enough threat to start locking things down.
But historically, along came Apple, made the iPhone, realized most people want jewelry more than functionality, realized they could monetize this, and now their Macbooks are locked down to MacOS pretty hardcore.
If Linux went the same route, you could very well see a distinct lack of hardware being made that can run open source Linux. Which then limits you to smaller manufacturers that don't have capital or bandwidth to compete with bigger ones.
It feels similar to people complaining about their favorite tabletop game becoming popular with normies and then normies come and don't treat the game with the reverence the og fans believe it should.
Same response: just do your own thing then and ignore the normies, it's not a big deal.
The problem when the masses come in is then we lose the whimsy. They will be offended by commands like "kill" and "fsck" and there will be stupid campaigns to change things.
It happened with git a few years ago, when people were up in arms over its use of the word "master". Stupid, pointless changes will be made to appease these people.
I think it's more "they will give less control in order to please the peasants, and as a result I will lose control".
And I agree with that concern, though my hope is that we can make it easier for the peasants without sacrificing control for the nerds (trying to find a word that would work with "peasant" in this context :D).
I disagree with the concern, because obviously making Free Software easier for non-technically inclined people to use does not make the software harder for technically inclined people to use. This is strictly an issue for proprietary software.
> This is strictly an issue for proprietary software.
it really isn't, as Google Chrome and Chromium shows there's no clear dividing line in the real world. Linux isn't developed by Bob the free software enthusiast, take a look at the code contributions to the kernel.
Overall I'm also in favour of driving linux adoption because it's still a better world but the idea that this has no spill over effect on anyone else is wrong. It's a fiction to think that Linux, just like a browser is anything but a collective project with most development driven by very few organizations who also have commercial or proprietary interests.
2 replies →
If they take out options, then you might have to maintain a fork or write a plugin to keep them.
5 replies →
Yeah, I think I agree with you after all. As long as it's open source, it's okay.
Gnome has sacrificed a lot of control.
i3wm and sway haven't :-).
My point being that it's okay for some projects to sacrifice control, as long as others don't. I can't tell Ubuntu how they should make their distro; what I can do is choose Gentoo (or anything in between).
1 reply →
I know you are making it seem like this is a very cringe position, but its in fact a very valid one.
The problem in most any technology sector is that its impossible for one person in reasonable amount of time to put together systems for use. Maybe in the future when LLMs are advanced enough to where I can have it code a full OS for me to my liking this will change, but right now, I have to depend on other people doing work.
Linux happens to be in a sweet spot where the collaborative development is guided by technical decisions instead of market forces, but Linux is just an OS. It needs open hardware to run. It just so happens that laptop manfuacturers who target Windows just don't see Linux as a big enough threat to start locking things down.
But historically, along came Apple, made the iPhone, realized most people want jewelry more than functionality, realized they could monetize this, and now their Macbooks are locked down to MacOS pretty hardcore.
If Linux went the same route, you could very well see a distinct lack of hardware being made that can run open source Linux. Which then limits you to smaller manufacturers that don't have capital or bandwidth to compete with bigger ones.
The users arent the problem. The predatory corporations who will try to take advantage of them are the problem.
If you see alot of sheep coming into your glade, the jackels are close behind
It feels similar to people complaining about their favorite tabletop game becoming popular with normies and then normies come and don't treat the game with the reverence the og fans believe it should.
Same response: just do your own thing then and ignore the normies, it's not a big deal.
Just switch to Qubes OS, and you're special again. (Worked for me.)
The problem when the masses come in is then we lose the whimsy. They will be offended by commands like "kill" and "fsck" and there will be stupid campaigns to change things.
It happened with git a few years ago, when people were up in arms over its use of the word "master". Stupid, pointless changes will be made to appease these people.
The default branch name is still master, this hasn’t changed.