How is “Unix philosophy” even remotely connected to the philosophy behind free software? Unix itself was proprietary. These are completely separate things.
“Stay on windows or mac”
And what if I don’t? I have the freedom to use Linux however I want, and with whatever display server I want, granted to me by GPLv2.
“What you’re doing is defending corporate funded software”
Do you even realize just how much funding and support Linux kernel itself receives from various multi-billion corporations? If that’s a bad thing in your book, I suggest you look into BSD, but even that gets a bit of funding from them.
“designed with malicious intent”
You have yet to provide an proof for that. What’s their malicious intent exactly? Just creating an FLOSS modern alternative that people are free to use or avoid?
How is “Unix philosophy” even remotely connected to the philosophy behind free software?
“UNIX philosophy” refers to modular design made up of small components that interconnect well and each focus on its own goal. It’s not about the freedom.
Unix itself was proprietary.
Bell Labs UNIX was proprietary but open source, Berkeley UNIX was FOSS. Both were developed in academic environments that valued the spirit of software freedom and often followed it by breaking the letter of the licensing imposed by their corporate sponsors.
Just wanted to correct the confusion. On a side note I don’t think Wayland goes against UNIX philosophy. It’s just that some of the components are still missing or badly divided. It will get better eventually.
The long term goal of all these “modern” alternatives is to fragment and destroy desktop linux. It is already happening, see wayland, gnome, gtk 4, systemd, immutable distros and so on.
That honestly sounds like a conspiracy theory. You think that a bunch of people and corporations are putting time, money and energy into these projects to break the very thing they are designed for? I really think you should do some research on exactly how the Wayland project got its start and who was involved. Spoiler, it was a bunch of Xorg developers as I understand it.
Plus the fact that desktop Linux was already fragmented by its nature. You think they want to fragment the already fragmented thing under the pretext of improvement? Fragment it by what? Providing a newer standard that is better enough than the old, that it actually convinces most groups to adopt it.
Its legit the opposite, but the beauty of right now is that the various fragmented Linux ecosystems (distros, desktop environments, etc) are more alive and more healthy now than ever before.
OP is the type of insufferable gatekeeper forum troll that makes people hate switching to Linux because they end up just being a firehose of smug opinionated negativity towards everyone about it all the time.
Other than gnome I don’t see fragmentation in your argument. Most of the distros have shifted to systemd, most of them are shifting to Wayland. Immutable is a way of installation.
On these basic stuff it seems they are getting less fragmented instead of more.
Linux people have always been divided emacs vs vi; gnome vs kde. Nothings gonna stop that, chill man is fun.
How is “Unix philosophy” even remotely connected to the philosophy behind free software? Unix itself was proprietary. These are completely separate things.
And what if I don’t? I have the freedom to use Linux however I want, and with whatever display server I want, granted to me by GPLv2.
Do you even realize just how much funding and support Linux kernel itself receives from various multi-billion corporations? If that’s a bad thing in your book, I suggest you look into BSD, but even that gets a bit of funding from them.
You have yet to provide an proof for that. What’s their malicious intent exactly? Just creating an FLOSS modern alternative that people are free to use or avoid?
“UNIX philosophy” refers to modular design made up of small components that interconnect well and each focus on its own goal. It’s not about the freedom.
Bell Labs UNIX was proprietary but open source, Berkeley UNIX was FOSS. Both were developed in academic environments that valued the spirit of software freedom and often followed it by breaking the letter of the licensing imposed by their corporate sponsors.
Just wanted to correct the confusion. On a side note I don’t think Wayland goes against UNIX philosophy. It’s just that some of the components are still missing or badly divided. It will get better eventually.
The long term goal of all these “modern” alternatives is to fragment and destroy desktop linux. It is already happening, see wayland, gnome, gtk 4, systemd, immutable distros and so on.
…bruh
That honestly sounds like a conspiracy theory. You think that a bunch of people and corporations are putting time, money and energy into these projects to break the very thing they are designed for? I really think you should do some research on exactly how the Wayland project got its start and who was involved. Spoiler, it was a bunch of Xorg developers as I understand it.
Plus the fact that desktop Linux was already fragmented by its nature. You think they want to fragment the already fragmented thing under the pretext of improvement? Fragment it by what? Providing a newer standard that is better enough than the old, that it actually convinces most groups to adopt it.
Its legit the opposite, but the beauty of right now is that the various fragmented Linux ecosystems (distros, desktop environments, etc) are more alive and more healthy now than ever before.
Edit: grammar and clarity
OP is the type of insufferable gatekeeper forum troll that makes people hate switching to Linux because they end up just being a firehose of smug opinionated negativity towards everyone about it all the time.
Curious to talk about fragmentation in a federated platform.
Other than gnome I don’t see fragmentation in your argument. Most of the distros have shifted to systemd, most of them are shifting to Wayland. Immutable is a way of installation.
On these basic stuff it seems they are getting less fragmented instead of more.
Linux people have always been divided emacs vs vi; gnome vs kde. Nothings gonna stop that, chill man is fun.
being a free software advocate and worried about ‘fracturing’ seems at odds, bud. fracturing is an inherent perk of the system, imho.