• @Boogeyman4325@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    471 year ago

    Not really. Having heterogeneity among operating systems is better than pure homogeneity. Say, if everyone ran Linux, and some massive security flaw was discovered, we would all be screwed at the same time. However, if we ran different stuff, and some massive security hole was found for just one operating system, then only a small portion of the world is vulnerable at once. Besides, more operating systems can lead to more innovation, as long as there is good competition between them.

    • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -11
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If the whole world focused and used just 1 OS for every system for a long enough time line, I think it would evolve fast enough to reach a point of perfection, where there are no security holes or flaws of any kind. I do believe that while programming has many ways of doing the same task, there is always an objectively best way to do it. Eventually the best way to do everything an OS needs to do would be found; it would be faster if there was only 1 OS to work with to reach that point.

      • @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        191 year ago

        I do believe that while programming has many ways of doing the same task, there is always an objectively best way to do it.

        I’ve been writing code in one form or another for some 30 years now, and my observation so far has been the exact opposite: there are many problems in programming for which there is no one clearly superior solution, even in theory. Just like life in general, programming is full of trade-offs, compromises, and diminishing returns.

      • @Nintendo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        191 year ago

        where there are no security holes or flaws of any kind

        this in itself is straight up impossible to know or prove. when can you say your program has no vulnerabilities? ever hear of zerodays? finding the best way to do everything in software will never be found or stay constant either.

      • @KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        I do believe that while programming has many ways of doing the same task, there is always an objectively best way to do it.

        Language has many ways of expressing the same thing, is there an objectively best way to do it?

        Is that sentence the best way to ask that question?

  • @MrMamiya@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    411 year ago

    If Linux was dominant it wouldn’t be Linux. There would be more pressure to monetize and there would always be someone willing to sell out for that money. You can see this even in the Linux community today. I’m sorry I had to be so negative about it though, it sounds nice.

    • Frog-Brawler
      link
      fedilink
      381 year ago

      Maybe it should say, “If the world went open source, and capitalism went away.”

        • soweli Jemi
          link
          fedilink
          91 year ago

          Which is more fantastical? Unlimited profits and line going up forever in a finite world? Or capitalism actually ending so all lives can live free from subjugation?

    • @vettnerk@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      151 year ago

      If windows didn’t exist, linux would dominate with the problems you describe, and we’d still see this meme, but advocating for FreeBSD instead.

      That being said, I like them both. It’s been a while since I last used bsd, so I think it’s about time I give it another spin.

      • @itsJoelle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        I’m unsure. I switch between MacOS and Linux regularly.

        I’d reckon Apple’s OS would dominate the “user friendly” space(not saying Linux is bad, just what everyone memes).

    • @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      13
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Linux is already dominant on just about everything except the desktop, and it has yet to suffer significant enshittification.

      Edit: Well, a bunch of Linux distributions have suffered enshittification, if that counts.

    • @tool@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      51 year ago

      If Linux was dominant it wouldn’t be Linux. There would be more pressure to monetize and there would always be someone willing to sell out for that money. You can see this even in the Linux community today. I’m sorry I had to be so negative about it though, it sounds nice.

      This is a very Desktop/workstation-centric view of the situation and you’re completely neglecting 3/4ths of the story. Linux is already hilariously dominant on the on-prem server and Cloud side of things. Like, it’s not even close. Pretty much any website you visit, the odds are overwhelming that it’s running Linux. Even Microsoft runs most of the underlying infrastructure for Azure and Github on Linux. Android is the #1 mobile phone platform in the world, which runs on, you guessed it, Linux.

      And it’s already monetized to the gills. Red Hat has multi-billion earnings per quarter, every quarter, and Canonical is almost certainly going to IPO this year.

      It’s already dominant in pretty much every space it touches and it has been for a very long time. Desktop/workstation is pretty much the singular exception to that.

      • @MrMamiya@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Yeah man it’s more of what you might call an allegory for how capitalism works. Language is my thing, looks like Linux is yours. I’m sure this information will be very helpful for anyone who might read my post and mistake me for an expert. Thanks for your service.

    • Doc Avid Mornington
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      Who, exactly, do you think would “sell out for money”, and why would they have the power to do so? Linux is huge, and the pressure to monetize is there now. Plenty of people have been trying to monetize Linux - and in many cases, succeeding - for decades now. Why do you think being dominant would change that?

  • @floofloof@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    261 year ago

    The problem is capitalism, not which kernel everything runs. And the reason FOSS isn’t universal is also capitalism.

    • @zagaberoo@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      It’s more complicated to make money producing FOSS, capitalism or not. Lots of reasonable developers would still choose closed source even without capitalism.

        • @vrkr@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          3
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The premise that we need money to figure out how to allocate resources is foolish

          Money not necessarily, we need to calculate costs (and minimize it) in distributed fashion.

        • @ursakhiin@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          There’s a bunch of ways to allocate resources but ideas like money have an advantage of allowing people to choose how they live.

          A good example would be that not every person would be satisfied living in an apartment in the city. Some prefer living more rural for any number of reasons. Some want to be inside playing video games and others outside biking on a mountain. Some want to be able to do both. Giving them the ability to choose small apartment in the city or bigger house in the woods is important for happiness.

          The biggest issue is the discrepancy of resource allocation between individuals not the method that allocation is done on paper.

      • sj_zero
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Dirty secret is that FOSS is a product of capitalism and nothing else.

        A bunch of nerds being allowed to own and control the means of production created personal computers while the central planners in both communist countries and big companies both thought it was a dumb idea. A bunch of nerds being allowed to own and control the means of production meant that someone could decide to release their product free with source code. Private ownership of intellectual property such as source code allowed people to release their privately owned code under a license specifying that changes must be made public.

        From there, the proof in the pudding is in the eating. How many FOSS projects do you use, and who made them?

    • @mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      Its not dominating everything but we can make foss our own. I.e. Linux don’t dominate over us but “we are using linux the way we want”

    • @AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      Because Linux isn’t really one thing. If the kernel developers do something bad, just fork the kernel and remove it.

  • stilgar [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    151 year ago

    No, you missed the homeless encampments, forest fires and car centric cities.

    There’s no apt install utopia.