Comment by palata
2 months ago
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.
> Google Chrome and Chromium shows there's no clear dividing line in the real world.
There are lots of Chromium forks. I don't really see how this contradicts my point.
1 reply →
If they take out options, then you might have to maintain a fork or write a plugin to keep them.
And thus, nothing was lost except the superiority complex :)
4 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).
Gnome can do whatever they like with their own project, but fragmentation is the biggest problem with Linux.