804
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by atmur@lemmy.world to c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 month ago

Personally I believe that the rights of users to privacy and freedom are more important then a corporations right to use open source software to make proprietary software. There's a reason why nobody uses FreeBSD and why Linux is the dominant open source operating system.

[-] MashBoilPitch@lemm.ee 10 points 1 month ago

The reason is not the license.

[-] suzune@ani.social 5 points 1 month ago

Hi. Nobody here. Do you know that if you own a PS5 or Nintendo Switch, you're a FreeBSD user?

Maybe we've got a different idea what it means to be a user.

[-] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago

The closest FreeBSD has to users is its proprietary derivatives, at this point FreeBSD might as well be considered proprietary.

[-] suzune@ani.social 2 points 1 month ago

At the moment large companies sponsor the development, without being forced to do so. And they allow developers to spend time on the project for free.

The foundation also makes sure that devs sign an agreement otherwise the code is not accepted.

So where is this all proprietary?

[-] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

Because on Linux the vast majority of its users run a complete operating system under the GPL, meanwhile on FreeBSD the vast majority of people use a proprietary dirivitive. Also significantly more companies sponsor Linux and it's not even comparable.

[-] suzune@ani.social 1 points 1 month ago

If you think about how many people use proprietary Android by Google, it is exactly comparable.

Comparing numbers is pointless here. Fact is that GPL has more conditions when you're allowed to use and modify the code. More conditions means more restrictions. And this means, less freedom.

[-] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

It means less freedom for developers but has proved that it provides more freedom for users. Does MacOS have an open source version? No but ChromeOS and Android do (ChromiumOS and ASOP respectively). Even when companies make a proprietary fork of Linux they still contribute massively in terms of code, not just money.

[-] MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I don't get what you're trying to say here: the BSDs aren't private and secure?

[-] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago

I'm saying that when code is open source it helps the open source ecosystem and when using open source code means contributing your modifications everyone benefits.

this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
804 points (97.9% liked)

linuxmemes

21019 readers
331 users here now

Hint: :q!


Sister communities:


Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
  • These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
  • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
  • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.

  • Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

    founded 1 year ago
    MODERATORS