Linux

48186 readers

1510 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

252

The future of Linux (lemmy.sdf.org)

submitted 1 year ago by pmk@lemmy.sdf.org to c/linux@lemmy.ml

187 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm not proposing anything here, I'm curious what you all think of the future.

What is your vision for what you want Linux to be?

I often read about wanting a smooth desktop experience like on MacOS, or having all the hardware and applications supported like Windows, or the convenience of Google products (mail, cloud storage, docs), etc.

A few years ago people were talking about convergence of phone/desktop, i.e. you plug your phone into a big screen and keyboard and it's now your desktop computer. That's one vision. ChromeOS has its "everything is in the cloud" vision. Stallman has his vision where no matter what it is, the most important part is that it's free software.

If you could decide the future of personal computing, what would it be?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] version_unsorted@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The problem I am alluding to is the way that "financial interests" means somebody reaping the value from others' labor. There is more than enough talent, interest and time available to develop robust solutions to hardware enablement if we stop feeding the machine what it consumes today. There is simply no reason that a manufacturer shouldn't be producing hardware with open specifications to a global market that consumes its product. Additionally there is more than enough revenue that goes to paying people that contribute less than they produce for the hardware purchased by consumers. We fix this by making it illegal to create walled gardens that make us beholden to vendors.

[–] dino@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is simply no reason that a manufacturer shouldn’t be producing hardware with open specifications to a global market that consumes its product.

Are you aware of Intel scandal in regards to AMD? What do you think Microsoft was/is doing? Also if you criticism is aimed at hardware manufacturers, then this is the wrong topic for it? Linux cannot do anything about it, because it has no financial interest.

[–] version_unsorted@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

I was talking about how the corrupt corporations are literally the reason we can't have nice things. We are on the same side here. I'm just trying to express that "financial interest" is only of interest to capitalists so they can continue to profit from the efforts of common peoples. The point was to shift the discussion from trying to interest someone financially to fostering an environment in which social interest can actually cause movement and development.