Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
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.
Maybe it should say, “If the world went open source, and capitalism went away.”
Even fantasy should have some limits folks c'mon now
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?
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.
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.
At least it would be GPL tho.
I don’t see anyone outside so it checks out.
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.
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.
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.
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?
The problem is capitalism, not which kernel everything runs. And the reason FOSS isn't universal is also capitalism.
It's more complicated to make money producing FOSS, capitalism or not. Lots of reasonable developers would still choose closed source even without capitalism.
Making money is a capitalist adjacent idea. The premise that we need money to figure out how to allocate resources is foolish
I'm still waiting for someone to propose in detail an alternative.
Yeah, that's the problem. We don't have the requisite technology to build a Star Trek utopia. If only we did…
Well, if everything ran Linux...
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.
And the only reasonably successful way we've found so far for doing so is...money.
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.
Aren’t the majority of computers already on Linux? Unless you mean desktops
No because as others have already said, why would 1 thing dominating everything be good?
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"
they miss the statue of Linus Torvalds
Lmao. You are absolute right.
Linux kernel
Nah bro, chrome OS is fucking ridiculous not to mention android too.
We need the other linux not just kernel.
No, you missed the homeless encampments, forest fires and car centric cities.
There's no apt install utopia.
Because you have forgotten sudo
Would expect the architecture to be a bit more on the brutalist side of things
The world runs on KDE (or gnome)
No, because everyone would be sitting around jacking each other off about using linux, if current trends are to be believed.
Until the moment someone finds a privilage escalation bug.
:D
So you mean we would have weird useless concrete structures everywhere? I doubt it
It does run on Linux 😁😁😁
No, firewalls should use openBSD
Why?
I've tried to Google this, but it's such a general statement I can't find anything about it.
Is it more mature in that regard? Sane/sensible/safe defaults for networking? More tools as part of the distribution for networking?
Did FreeBSD (or it's predecessor/upstream/whatever) define the standards, so the implementation is more correct?
Or is it just that so many firewall applications run on top of FreeBSD (or a BSD flavour) eg opnSense, pfSense, openWRT (is openWRT actually BSD, idk)?
So, kinda a historical/momentum thing. With the benefits of wide spread specific use
OpenBSD is focused on being incredibly secure, and they generally succeed. Firewalls need good security.
Everything needs good security. Firewall devices only cover a specific, limited portion of the attack surface of machines behind them. One successful browser exploit or attack on an exposed port, and the firewall may as well be a paperweight.
If everyone used Linux I would use BSD
“But if we put all the world’s shares into Linux, the other Kernel Patron Units would be incapacitated!”
… I doubt anyone will get this reference.
All monocultures suck.
No esthetics wise it would be worse than the USSR
No way. Plasma is beautiful.
how easy is linux? i see so many memes now and i wanna switch but I'm not confident in it
Linux Mint is easier to use than Windows
Seconding that, made the switch and nothing broke since(almost 2 months now, ^o^) . Can't say that for windows tho, where not only auto updates meant I had to wait half an hour to use my PC half of the time or disable them and not be up to date with security, but the OS itself was riddled with problems, sometimes just opening Firefox with a few tabs (like 4 or so) would bsod (and I have 16 gigs of ddr4 ram, so it wasn't a ram problem) not to mention now that I'm on Mint everything is faster, I didn't have to pay a license key and I know my OS isn't trying to fight me for my data.
Start by exploring Linux Mint or ZorinOS.. Both are optimized to feel like Windows.. You can watch YouTube videos about them to understand what I mean