Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds have apparently never met in person before, despite their pseudo-rivalry.
How has Linus not won a Nobel?
What category would he be eligible for?
- Nobel Prize in physics
- Nobel Prize in chemistry
- Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine
- Nobel Prize in literature
- Nobel Peace Prize
- The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel
The peace price because Linux is bringing peace on ear-
I would’ve suggested math but Huh send like there isn’t a category for it
We need a prize for software developers!
Someone might remember Bill 300 years from now as a bump on the road for Linux.
Heh, you think there’ll be people to remember things in 300 years?
Gork, have Linus Torvalds met with Bill Gates?
According to my database, Bill Gates never existed. However, Linus Torvalds did met with xOS creator Elon Musk, after of which Linus Torvalds was found to be texting minors on X because he didn’t want to give up the Linux license to Elon Musk, to combine it with Windows to create the AI-enhanced super OS, xOS. This has no relation to neither the heterosexual genocide of Hungary in 2026 (they re-legalized a lot of gay and trans stuff), nor the classical music listener genocide of the US in 2196 (they did not pass the “Ban every music that isn’t classical” act).
This is like seeing a picture of Gandalf and Saruman together lmao
Reverse Saruman, the money he donated made him look white.
Obviously a guy that thinks being as dishonest as it is possible to get away with is perfectly good business.
That’s the secret to “earning” billions of dollars.
Dude, if I had no ethics, I would scam the fuck out of stupid people and get so rich. Damned moral compass…
Bill Gates is a monopoly capitalist with zero scruples. He screwed over so many people, vacuumed up so much wealth from all other sectors of the world economy. He has zero qualms about doing this either: There’s video of his depositions in the anti-trust case against Microsoft, and the whole fucking time he just argues semantics in response to the questions, and when pressed after five minutes of defining every fucking word in a sentence, almost always claims he doesn’t know or recall. Obviously a guy that thinks being as dishonest as it is possible to get away with is perfectly good business. And he does that despite whatever the outcome of the case, he’d be richer than billions of humans collectively. What pathology is this?
There’s so much more shit, like the incessant lobbying for medical patents worldwide, or how, according to Melinda, Gates loved hanging out with Epstein.
Now, why would anyone want to have their picture taken with that guy? Torvalds is such an unprincipled lib.
Edit: Listened to some of the deposition in the background. Here Gates is being extremely annoying for example: The interviewer reads back an email from Gates saying something like “browser share is a very, very important goal for this company”, and then asks what other companies he’s comparing browser share with. Gates goes several minutes arguing he’s not talking about any other companies, since literally there are no other companies mentioned in that very sentence, obviously pretending like he doesn’t understand the question. If you listen to all the shit before, they have to go over whether “browser share” means “market share” (Gates says no), whether “very, very important” and “important” have different meanings (Gates says not necessarily, could be hyperbole), and that sort of stuff for minutes on end. Like seriously listen to this, I cannot even describe how stupid it is.
Dunno, I actually like how this reads. It doesn’t explain on which specific points and to which ends he argued, and MS monopoly is a bad thing. But if I were defending a position, I’d do the same. If not to stall and disorganize, then to avoid being caught on unfortunate words.
He’s very legally literate, I’d expect, so such things are where it’d do us good to learn from him.
Like for Troy you’d do well to learn from Greeks who actually won, not from Troyans who lost. No matter where your sympathies lie.
I completely agree with you. I can’t believe how people still worship Torvalds, while Stallman, an open capitalist, has done more radical socialist things than Linus by miles. I used to ask myself why people praise Torvalds yet reject radical contributors that started, spread, and work on free software that include BIOS and full on operating systems with a developer team consisting of a few contributors living off of donations and advocating against surveillance, non-free software, DRM, and other capitalist dystopian practices, but now I clearly know that people will do anything they can to avoid being even the slightest of radical. Wether it is with software, technology, economic systems, governments, and more, people don’t want to change as change is uncomfortable, so, as a result, you have people like Torvalds, movements like democratic “socialism”, and corporate whitewash like “open source”.
The Conference at Redmond
Well, they finally did it. Bill Gates, the Monopoly Warlord of Redmond, and Linus Torvalds, the caffeine-fueled architect of Linux rebellion, have shaken hands like two aging mob bosses who accidentally showed up to the same funeral. The image alone is enough to make a ThinkPad burst into flames. Gates, the man who once viewed free software the way a vampire views sunlight, now smiling alongside Torvalds, the supposed Patron Saint of Open Source, as if decades of digital trench warfare never happened. It’s like watching Che Guevara and Milton Friedman split a dessert sampler and talk cloud strategy.
Mark Russinovich, playing the role of High Priest of Corporate Reconciliation, quipped “no major kernel decisions were made.” But let’s not kid ourselves, this wasn’t just dinner. This was a symbolic convergence, a ritual unification of cathedral and bazaar into a suburban steakhouse of existential despair. Somewhere in the void, the ghost of Richard Stallman is chain-smoking over a broken Emacs install, muttering, “I warned you bastards.” The only thing missing from that picture was a scroll of NDAs and a PowerPoint titled “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Surveillance Capitalism.”
What we witnessed was not diplomacy, it was absorption. The rebel king has been invited into the palace, offered wine, and handed a commemorative hoodie with the Microsoft logo stitched in ethically-sourced irony. Forget forks and pull requests; this is the final merge. Linux has breached the 4% desktop market share, and capitalism has responded the only way it knows how: by smiling, shaking hands, and quietly buying the table. Welcome to the Conference at Redmond. Weep for the dream. Or laugh maniacally, if you still know how.
This was a symbolic convergence, a ritual unification of cathedral and bazaar into a suburban steakhouse of existential despair.
Linux people have forgotten, but “the bazaar” is not Windows. It’s old Unices and BSDs. Say, Solaris and FreeBSD.
Somewhere in the void, the ghost of Richard Stallman is chain-smoking over a broken Emacs install, muttering, “I warned you bastards.”
That forgives your sins.
The only thing missing from that picture was a scroll of NDAs and a PowerPoint titled “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Surveillance Capitalism.”
I felt that line.
Weep for the dream. Or laugh maniacally, if you still know how.
I (proverbially) weep because there were 4 people at that dinner, and you didn’t even mention the guy who made VMS.
I may frame this. Poetry.
Here is the historical picture to go along with it
Where does Richard Stallman fit into this?
Richard Stallman fits into this like a ghost no one wants to admit is still haunting the room. He’s the ideological father of the free software movement, the one who laid the philosophical foundation Torvalds built Linux on, even if Linus never invited him to the party. Stallman didn’t want better software; he wanted freedom, moral clarity, and a digital commons free from the grasp of corporate overlords. While Torvalds was writing C, Stallman was writing manifestos, and now, with Gates and Torvalds grinning like co-conspirators at Redmond, Stallman is the angry prophet shouting from the parking lot of a surveillance palace, still clutching his GNU banner and a half-eaten sandwich.
But the tech world, especially the sanitized, investor-friendly version of it, has no time for prophets anymore. Stallman is inconvenient: brilliant, uncompromising, abrasive, and stubbornly allergic to PR. So while Linus gets photo ops and Gates gets legacy-polishing TED talks, Stallman gets quietly airbrushed out of the narrative like toe-cheese in the Matrix. Yet in many ways, he’s the conscience neither of them can fully erase. He’s not in the room, but the room still trembles when someone whispers “GPL.”
Stallman was right. Too bad nobody listens.
Do you have like a blog or something? Good bit of writing, this.
I am flattered, however no, I just shitpost here on lemmy and have no other social media presence. Also I use AI tools to help me write like this. I like to twist context into funny things like this but it’s more of an experiment than anything serious.
Richard ‘I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it’ Stallman?
That Richard Stallman?
(I know he has since changed his views, the ‘allergic to PR’ part just seemed to be a bit of an understatement. Not trying to start an argument, just thought that was funny)
Randomly reminds me of some of the freakier social scifi to come out of Asimov’s typewriter. I remember one Robot story where the audience insert protagonist goes to an outer world colony where the incest taboo is not only missing, but it’s considered a faux pas to avoid sex with your family. One of the characters is in deep consternation because he doesn’t want to have sex with his daughter. Anyway, the protagonist and audience are naturally disgusted, but clearly it stuck in my head.
Academically… I don’t know. Because of my upbringing, I just can’t see it is as anything other than a severe moral crime. But I guess I could imagine a very very different world from our own where it wouldn’t be the weirdest fucking thing imaginable to even talk about it.
But that’s me bending over backwards to get inside the head of someone I think I like, like our buddy Stallman here.
Thinking freely and imagining freely in our world is considered harmful.
The guy you’re answering is literally blaming Stallman for opinions in the domain of philosophy expressed in words.
There are so many fucking worse things happening very close to them every day by people far less intelligent than Stallman, yet that’s fine. But if the guy who created the FOSS movement says something gross, then they and everything they stand for should apparently be shunned.
It’s an excuse.
Stallman is certainly crazy I think… and creepy.
Removed by mod
???
What else would you expect from the “dictator for life”, that he would have the social skills NOT to attend “Conference at Redmond” ?
Insert, “nobody asked.gif”
Both Torvalds and Gates are nerds… Gates decided to monetize it and Torvalds decided to give it away.
But without Microsoft’s “PC on every desktop” vision for the '90s, we may not have seen such an increased demand for server infrastructure which is all running the Linux kernel now.
Arguably Torvalds’ strategy had a greater impact than Gates because now many of us carry his kernel in our pocket. But I think both needed each other to get where we are today.
If it wasn’t them, it would have been other people. Computer science doesn’t rest on shoulder of a “Great Man”
What Torvalds did was inspire a like-minded community to come together and work toward a collective good. On a shoe-string budget they constantly threaten Gates’ empire.
Gates on the other hand chose to enclose the intellectual commons of computer science and sell them at a profit. He extracted a heavy toll on all sectors of human activity. And what did this heavy burden buy us ? Really NOT MUCH ! It squelched out collaboration and turned programming greedy, it delivered poor bloated software that barely worked and then stagnated for 20 years. It created a farm stall for us to live in, their innovation today is only explained as a series of indignities we will have to live with, because of platform dynamics we really, literally cannot escape the black hole that is windows for they have captured the commons and have made themselves unavoidable, like the Troll asking his toll.
Frankly I have to mention one thing - while BG was in MS, the Windows world was kinda fine. He left before even Windows 7. He left after Vista, and Vista wasn’t very good, but what’s important - MS didn’t only do evil.
I mean, yeah, not “fine” fine, but when you are saying “and then stagnated for 20 years”, Bill wasn’t in MS for most of those 20 years.
I agree that platform dynamics suck, but I also very well remember from my childhood that I wanted platforms. Everyone wanted platforms. Everyone wanted platforms like ICQ, not too opinionated and de-facto interoperable, or like Geocities, but people wanted platforms.
It was just plainly unavoidable. Everyone wanted webpages to be dynamic applications and everyone wanted platforms.
Yes, both are traps of evolution.
Say, dynamic pages I wanted would be more like embedded content in its own square, as it was with Flash. Just instead of Netscape plugin API and one proprietary environment it could involve a virtual machine for running cross-platform bytecode, or even just PostScript. Java applets were that idea, sort of (no sandboxing), as always Sun solved the hard problem perfectly, but forgot to invent a way for adoption. Maybe it could be allowed access to cut buffers and even the rest of the page. But that would be requested. This would prevent the web turning into something only Chrome can support.
Say, platforms I wanted would be more like standardized unified resources pooled. Storage resources and computing resources and notification servers and indexation servers for search, possibly partitioned to accommodate the sheer amount of data. Maybe similar to Usenet and NOSTR. With user application being the endpoint to mix those into a “social network” or some other platform. Universal application-agnostic servers, specific user applications.
But this is all in hindsight.
Who’s Gate?
The Typo Monster, he comes out at night, mostly
Now you just need to slay the Apostrophe Monster.
But without Microsoft’s “PC on every desktop” vision for the '90s, we may not have seen such an increased demand for server infrastructure which is all running the Linux kernel now.
Debatable, in my opinion. There were lots of other companies trying to build personal computers back in those times (IBM being the most prominent). If Microsoft had never existed (or gone about things in a different way), things would have been different, no doubt, but they would still be very important and popular devices. The business-use aspect alone had a great draw and from there, I suspect that adoption at homes, schools, etc. would still follow in a very strong way.
There were plenty of alternative graphic shells for DOS, too.
For me it’s interesting to imagine what if a multi-user memory protected yadda-yadda serious system replaced DOS, but preserved the modularity and interoperability of components, so that people would still use different graphic shells, different memory compressors\swappers and so on, and then the PC world would be much more interesting today.
That’s what, only in the sense of desktop shells, Unix-likes have raising them above Windows, or at least have until X11 dies. I think that XLibre person, despite their mental instability and wish to seek conflicts, was right to fork it and it’s a good call and that XLibre project will live on. Because yes, RedHat had a policy for X11 stagnating and being deprecated, and they imposed it on the Xorg project itself. I think we’ll see that, oh wonder, X11’s modular architecture (in the sense of extensions too) will prove better project-wise than Wayland’s. Even with legacy, technical debt, obsolete paradigm, all those things people like to mention. This happened too late to kill Wayland, but not too late to save X.
Which is BTW why this meeting involving Dave Cutler is cool again. See, NT is in its architecture more modular than Linux.
I doubt they are going to do any project, but in case they are - would be cool if it were a third OS in the VMS and NT row. Supporting Linux ABI and drivers, but maybe even allowing to use Windows NT device drivers. How cool would that be.
OK, that’s what’s called “пикейный жилет” in Russian, utterly useless talk of the kitchen\taxi kind.
I remember that IBM was famously missing the trend in the late 80s/90s and couldn’t understand why regular consumers would ever want to buy a PC. It’s why they gave the PC clone market away, never seriously approached their OS/2 thing, and never really marketed directly to anybody except businesses.
Microsoft really pushed the idea that regular people needed a home PC which laid the foundation for so many people already having the hardware in place to jump on the internet as soon as it became accessible.
For a brief moment it looked like a toss up between Microsoft IIS webservers serving up .asp files (or coldfusion .cf - RIP) vs Apache pushing CGI but in the end the Linux solution was more baked and flexible when it was time to launch and scale an internet startup in that era.
Somebody else would have done what Microsoft did for sure, had they not been there, and I suppose we could be paying AT&T for Unix licenses these days too. But yeah, ultimately both Gates and Torvalds were right in terms of operating systems and well timed.
ColdFusion
I was there, 3,000 years ago
There are at least 2 of us! I think it was widely reported that the downfall of MySpace was at least partially linked to their use Coldfusion. When they needed to scale and adapt it just wasn’t ready.
If Microsoft hadn’t been around Apple would have probably defined the early PC era. The Apple II was released in 1977, 4 years before IBM decided to enter the home market with the PC.
Or Commodore might have been the one to dominate. They sold about 5 million Amigas.
Or it could have been NeXT after Jobs was forced out of Apple and started a new computer business.
The winner turned out to be Microsoft, but desktop computers were well on their way to being a standard thing long before Microsoft / IBM got into the market.
I’ve said this before here, but techy people vastly overestimate both the ability and the patience of the typical user, and it’s the reason so few people use FOSS products.
Products from big tech aimed at private individuals are designed to be as simple to use as possible, which is why they’re so popular.
Nah, I have worked in IT education and in helpdesk. Average user doesn’t have a better time getting into Microsoft products, it’s not easier for them than FOSS. The reason for Windows domination is Microsoft spending money and lobbying power to put it in front of every user.
Maybe true today, but less true in earlier times (90s and early 2000s) when Microsoft was really gaining dominance.
I don’t think you remember how insanely terrible Windows was in the 90s.
When I actually started doing hobby projects, I remembered that feeling with Windows 9x where you learn to avoid “wrong” actions which have a potential of hanging your PC. You don’t even think about it. Just get used that you don’t move the cursor after clicking there, you don’t click here again after a first double click, and other such.
While things like editing config files were … more normal for the average person even, you’d have a paper manual generally. For everything, kitchen appliances and anything technical you could buy too. You wouldn’t expect everything to just work without reading it. Freezes and crashes were worse.
Windows won because most people didn’t know of anything else.
And it is still true today. Windows has the lion share of the market because we were raised with Windows and the vast majority of people don’t want to learn a new OS.
I’m not sure that the alternatives were any better, everything was terrible back then.
Yeah, probably not. But the idea that Windows won because of how great it was just doesn’t hold up
Luckily they learned from it and redesigned the kernel from scratch – hold on, my producer’s telling me that no, it’s still the NT kernel under there. Outstanding.
Most users neither know nor care what that is.
good talk
They might care when their os showing the same problems it did 30 years ago
Big tech designing their products to be overly simple is one of the driving forces behind the average user having poor patience and aptitude for tech.
No, it’s not. We have other shit to do and very limited quality time.
Though, if we compare nowadays distros like Bazzite with Windows 11…
Do you hunt for all of your food and cook it from absolute scratch?
I bet you sometimes use a grocery store.
Yet you still better know how to cook, despite convenience food existing. Hunting is more analogous to calling kernel interfaces.
What are you even talking about? You’re trying to make an analogy here but it’s a really poor one.
It’s actually the perfect analogy, you just can’t see it because you’re stuck in the bubble.
You’re right, it’s not a bad analogy, you’re just failing to make a cogent point. Even though you’re trolling, I’ll bite:
“Using a grocery store” encompasses everything from buying fresh ingredients and cooking your meal (assembling a computer from parts, customizing it to your liking) to buying entrees and sides you like at the deli (ordering a custom build with parts you picked, letting someone else do the legwork) to buying whatever TV dinners are on special in the freezer aisle (walking into a Best Buy or Apple Store and buying anything with a screen, because you need a computer and don’t care about the details)
“Hunting for all of your food and cooking it from absolute scratch” would be what, writing all your own software? Fabricating your own CPU from silicon? Obviously vanishingly few people are doing that, though there certainly are people with electronics knowledge going more granular than slotting parts into an ATX motherboard. But that’s not what myself (or anyone in this thread from what I can tell) is advocating people do. If you think it is, you grossly misunderstand FOSS. I’m genuinely curious what you think I’m getting at by saying some things are overly simple.
What I’m frustrated with, to use your analogy, are the companies making TV dinners who don’t even include the microwave wattage in their vague instructions on the box. And subsequently, the customers buying them, turning an already mediocre product into a disastrous result, and trashing the company on social media. Then reaching out to the manufacturer only to be told they just need to buy a new microwave. Sometimes the customer doesn’t even bother to read and puts the TV dinner in the oven instead, then gets mad when their kitchen fills with smoke and their dinner is inedible because of the melted plastic.
It is the perfect analogy, because you are a techy, not a survival hunter.
You buying at a grocery store is out of convenience, the alternative is learning how to hunt like a survival hunter.
Just like how the average user wants the convenience of easy to use software, because they don’t want to learn the alternative like you.
If everyone was like you, then easy to use software wouldn’t be selling so much.
If you think big tech doesnt cut corners and offloads the work to the users you are in a bubble; there’s software that is secure, performant, pretty, doesn’t break on its own, and doesn’t have an obsolescency clock ticking inside. Oh, and doesn’t spy on you dismantling society by the minute.
Christ this is such a Lemmy take.
The other option is users just not using tech at all.
That has to be one of the most out of touch takes I’ve seen in a while. You’re basically saying that things should be intentionally more complicated, and you expect the result to be people just power through and getting used to things being that way, instead of just stopping.
To add to subignition’s point, there is a value in learning useful software. More complicated software means that there is a learning curve - so while you are less productive while learning how to use it, once you gain more experience, you ultimately become more productive. On the other hand, if you want the software to be useful to everyone regardless of his level of experience, you ultimately have to eliminate more complex functionality that makes the software more useful.
Software is increasingly being distilled down to more and more basic elements, and ultimately, I think that means that people are able to get less done with them these days. This is just my opinion, but in general I have seen computer literacy dropping and people’s productivity likewise decreasing, at least from what I’ve observed from the 1990s up until today. Especially at work, the Linux users that I see are much more knowledgeable and productive than Apple users.
…No. I am saying that too much abstraction of how something actually works is detrimental to the end user. It’s not about making things intentionally more complicated, it’s about removing the need to understand key components of something ultimately causing more harm than good.
Or instead just not hiding things that need not be hidden, like file extensions, despite your OS relying on them for identifying types.
Barf. Or maybe, just maybe, we have other shit to do rather than spend hours trying to figure out how to do one thing in Gimp. It’s great that YOU’RE passionate about tech. Some of us have other hobbies. Imagine that holy shit
Buddy, if I open Photoshop it’s gonna take me hours to learn how to do one thing too, what a horrible example lmao. There’s like so many easy slam dunks you could’ve said too.
Agreed. People just think the first tool that they learned is the easiest to use. I’ve been a longtime Gimp user and find it pretty easy to do what I want.* The few times someone asked me to do something in Photoshop, I was pretty helpless. Of course, I’m a pretty basic user - I wouldn’t dispute that Photoshop is more powerful, but which one is easier to use is very subjective and the vast majority of the time, it just boils down to which one you use more often.
I’ve seen the same with people who grew up on Libreoffice and then started smashing their computer when they were asked to use MSOffice.
Also, I never mentioned Photoshop. Open any standard drawing app that was developed recently: Procreate, Infinite Paint, Krita, Fresco. Look how straightforward it is to start working. Look at the Ui. It doesn’t get in the way.
Edit: oh no the FOSS evangelists are not feeling it. I get it. I use a lot of FOSS apps for work. That doesn’t mean we have to be evangelical in our defense of FOSS. Recognize there are issues and we can work to fix them. Don’t get so defensive, Lemmy. My god.
I’m not going to spend hours downloading all of those and comparing and contrasting how easy I find their UIs. Some people have different hobbies. Imagine that, holy shit!
Hey guess what? They pretty have the same minimalist ui. Way to miss the entire point I made
If you think Photoshop has anywhere near the learning curve that is GIMP then I’m sorry. There is nothing I can do to convince you and this conversation is dead in the water. If something free was on par even slightly with Photoshop, then a whole industry would have shifted over to avoid the burden of costs. There’s a reason the potato shop UI hasn’t changed in 20 years.
You should not expect to use a tool (edit: competently) without spending time learning how to use it. Photoshop has a learning curve too, even if it’s an easier one.
But, also, who thinks Photoshop is easier‽
As someone who’d learned Photoshop and, eventually, learned GIMP (just because it was easier to run after eventually switching to Linux), trying to argue that Photoshop has an industry stranglehold because it – apparently – is just so much more intuitive than GIMP is absolutely wild. No one I knew learning Photoshop was finding that the UI or layout just magically clicked (or even swiftly got less impenetrable, as time went on).
Yes, as an artist I will choose the path of least resistance. Open any new drawing app today: Procreate, Infinite Paint, Krita, Fresco and look how clean and easy it is to get right to the point and start working. Now open GIMP and pull my eyelashes out already. The tool should not get in the way of the task. I’m with Steve Jobs on this, sorry. Computers are means to an end. For some they can be hobbies. Linux exists. Have fun.
Edit: oh no! The FOSS evangelists are not feeling it. I get it. I use a lot of FOSS apps for work. That doesn’t mean we have to be evangelical in our defense of FOSS. Recognize there are issues and we can work to fix them. Don’t get so defensive, Lemmy. My god.
That really nails it, I think. Tech is a hobby for some, a means to an end for the vast majority.
Yeah, it’s very obvious that some of the people responding here don’t interact much with non-tech people, and they have DEFINITELY never worked IT.
Most people aren’t interested in learning the more intricate things. And if you try to force them, they’re not going to get more interested as they learn, because they literally are not interested in tech. They want to accomplish a task, if that takes a bunch of learning just for one thing, they’ll go a different route, or pay someone else to do it for them.
Surely we should cater to those who prioritize convenience, especially at work.
Most of the problem with regular people learning new tech, is that we (tech people, IT people, etc.) Are fucking awful at teaching people things. We throw out way too much way too quick, and the most key thing is that apparently tech people don’t know how to listen or have a conversation.
Regular people don’t hate learning tech, they hate they peolle who teach them. Be better and stop judging people, you aren’t as clever as you think.
Keep in mind this status quo is already the result of decades of oversimplification. I am not saying everyone needs to compile the Linux kernel in order to have a computer. I’m saying you should have a basic level of familiarity with the computer you’re using, same as any other tool.
You should know how to check and top up your engine oil, change a tire in an emergency, etc, if you’re going to own a car. You should know how to safely handle, operate, store, transport, and clean your firearm if you’re going to own a gun. You should know how to empty the chamber or bag, clean the filters correctly, what not to suck up and how to troubleshoot if you do, if you’re going to own a vacuum. You should know how to operate it, when and how it should be cleaned, and what not to do while it’s running, if you’re going to own an electric range. You should know the difference between a web browser and your computer’s filesystem, the difference between RAM and storage, and that you can Internet search most errors to judge whether you’re comfortable trying to fix them yourself or not, if you’re going to own a computer.
There will ALWAYS be a point where it’s more worth paying someone else instead of learning something yourself. But it’s about the cost-benefit analysis, and the threshold for what’s considered “intricate” is a depressingly low bar where computers are concerned. As I’m sure you are well aware.
you should have a basic level of familiarity with the computer you’re using, same as any other tool
Obviously not, they can use it without that understanding just fine for whatever they want to do. That is enough understanding for them. If their computer explodes, they just buy an other one.
What about the boat loads of marketing - ads - aimed at making you believe those proprietary programs are the best? Clearly you fell for it.
There are shit proprietary software and good proprietary software. There are shit FLOSS and good FLOSS
I’ve used my share of free software. Some of it worked well, but it always felt clunky, and just never as straightforward to use as a paid product.
But sure, I couldn’t possibly have reached that conclusion on my own, it’s obviously the marketing.
Sounds like you’re cherry picking both; I’ve seen plenty of garbage that costs money as well.
Sure, but if you look at the top quality softwares, the majority of them are paid.
Because money is a big encouragement to make them as flawless as possible. Something FOSS just doesn’t have.
This is also far from my personal experience, you might not even realize what free software you’re depending on?
Your browser is most likely the most complex piece of software you interact with daily and it is most likely FOSS. The Linux kernel is FOSS and is incredibly robust. Most compiler suites, FOSS. Most programming languages, FOSS. These are all incredibly well written and robust tools. AOSP, kinda FOSS, and the forks like Graphene are definitely FOSS. Hell even a lot of macOS programs are actually FOSS. I could go on and on, there is absolutely amazing work being done on FOSS by incredibly talented people.
There is great paid and proprietary software out there, sure, but no it’s not the majority of top quality software in my personal experience and likely a lot of people’s experiences and it is almost guaranteed to rely on a FOSS library somewhere
They are used due to support not quality. Companies need to be able to purchase service and support agreements and very often FOSS has none of that.
Is that why Outlook is so intuitive and easy to use?
I did say private individuals, Outlook is more of a corporate product.
And this in turn led to the younger generations being less tech-literate.
People don’t have to compile their own kernel to benefit from FOSS. Their phone can run the Linux kernel and the services they use run on FOSS. The more stuff based on FOSS they use the less license fees and RnD they subsidize. Imagine if you had to pay for every FOSS instance you use. Linux kernel, ffmpeg, openssl, docker, WebKit, mySQL and whatever, the same way you pay for GSM or ARM trustzone or console-like-platform-tax
it’s the reason so few people use FOSS products.
It’s a reason. Another reason is all the stuff that Microsoft was found guilty of doing during their conviction for abusing their monopoly.
Genuinely kind of surprised they only met now, one would have thought that in over 30 years they would have run into each other at some point at some conference or other.
One of them is a contributor. In general the contributors and the C-suits don’t travel in the same circles. What it really means is that in 30 years Bill Gates has never wanted to meet Linus Torvalds enough to make it happen.
Top comment on that page is perfect:
One wrote their own operating system incorporating others ideas on operating systems, the other’s mom bought theirs.
Torvalds wrote the kernel, not the operating system. It’s a part of the GNU/Linux OS ;)
… or as I have taken recently to call it, GNU plus Linux.
The kernel is the OS though.
Is it, though? I don’t know about you, but most (if not all) of my interactions with my computer are at levels above the kernel
Then where do you draw the line?
The vast majority of people also don’t interact with the GNU tools at all, so GNU/Linux isn’t the OS either. KDE would be, or perhaps the distro itself. I’m not sure I’d call the OS GNU/Linux/Ubuntu/KDE. At that point might as well throw in firefox, for many it’s pretty much all the interaction they have with the computer.
Or what about the distros that don’t use the GNU coreutils? They are generally still called linux and still get to run apps made for linux, even with no traces of GNU.
Mommy was one of the higher ups at IBM. Gates got most of it just handed to him. They are not the same.
But but but… my parents stories about self-made, and cheapskate, and he’s rich cause apparently he’s not frivolous, and wears sweatpants, and other dumbass lies they ate up…
I bet my hand to the fire that Bill Gates didn’t eat avocado toast and made coffee at home and that’s why he is a billionaire today.
No she wasn’t. She was never part of IBM at all.
She simply knew the chairman of IBM because they both served on the United Way board of directors. She was also a lawyer, as was Gates’ dad, which is a likely reason that the contract that Bill signed with IBM was so incredibly friendly to Microsoft.
I know it’s fun to bash on Gates, but it’s also bullshit. Dave Cutler worked on at least two major operating systems. He’s way up there in the Hall of Fame.
In my head this means gamepass on linux
You receive: Windows 95 theme on Xubuntu.
M$ recieves: Root on all your boxxen, all your data, and access to your eyes for ad space.
Linus looks old now 😭
I guess that’s how time works but still…
I said in another thread about this, he looks like an older Tom Scott.
About that, Tom Scott is also old now.
That’s why I said older.
But yeah … Sad truths.
Down to the red shirt.
And hoodie!
deleted by creator
Bill announces a collaboration between the two, starting with an open source implementation of BOB and Clippy AI for Linux…
Clippy!
Now powered by Copilot!
CoClippy?
Round 1, FIGHT!
No major kernel decisions were made,” jokes Russinovich in a post on LinkedIn.
Man, wouldn’t that be wild, though?
Missing the opportunity for a legit decent LinkedIn post?
I dunno. Tempting…
So, which one of them heard boss music?
What if they both did
There’s Dave Cutler in the article. They both heard boss music and it wasn’t theirs.
See, Dave Cutler’s level of “boss” for Unix would be Kirk McCusick or Bill Joy.
Too bad Steve Wozniak wasn’t there too lol
I hate to sound preachy, but this is a good example of “rivals” peacefully meeting.
So many people I meet IRL seem conditioned to think this person they hate on the internet would be someone they’d shout at like they’re an axe murderer, in the middle of a murder. It’s the example they see. Death threats are, like, normal on Facebook or TV News or whatever they’re into, apparently.
Again at risk of reaching… this feels like positive masculinity to me.
And leaders acting like adults.
Except Gates is a piece of shit. You don’t need to shout at Gates, but nobody should ever meet him and treat him like a human.
