like what if linux still was open source but had a lot of proprietary dependencies and packages and became more popular and therefore proprietary software came to it?? but it still would let you use any desktop environment and there would be a new proprietary desktop environment which was like gnome but easier
You must log in or register to comment.
I think that’s called a mac
MacOS is open-source in its core?
Yeah it’s based off of Darwin
There’s is already an operating system like that.
any distro except the ones listed here https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.en.html technically already “took” that “route”
Linux is a kernel which is often bundled with proprietary components. Android, for example uses the Linux kernel. The whole desktop operating system you seem to be thinking of is a Linux distribution.
There have been many Linux distributions with proprietary components over the years. SUSE’s YaST configuration tool used to be proprietary, for example. There’s probably something current along the same lines, but there’s not much demand for semi-proprietary desktop Linux.
like what if linux still was open source but had a lot of proprietary dependencies and packages…
At that point, it’s not really open source anymore. Once it has proprietary dependencies, it’s no longer open.
but it still would let you use any desktop environment and there would be a new proprietary desktop environment which was like gnome but easier
What you’re describing is a closed-source version of Pop!_OS with a closed source version of Cosmic, their latest DE still in Alpha.
Businesses and software companies don’t make software for operating systems based on their openness or proprietary-ness. They make it based on market share. Your idea would still have to compete with Linux, MacOS, and Windows, and it would have to get a better share of the market than at least Linux before businesses would even bother making software for your closed system.
The reason Linux is as successful as it is, is because it’s open, and hobbyists can and do contribute to it for free. When you close that off, you then have to pay for development, and you’ll have to overcome the gigantic barrier to entry set up by the likes of Microsoft and Apple.
Um
linux or ubuntu?
wtf?
I prefer that over NT or Windows.
ubuntu is a linux distro. nothing more, nothing less.
It seems that you need to read up on Linux and how it is different from closed source systems.
You are getting downvoted by people that were once where you are, but have since forgotten what it is to be a newbie.
That’s what I hated about the Reddit Linux communities. Everyone, or nearly, was super hostile towards nubs. Ask a question anywhere, sometimes even in the “newbie” r/ s, and it’d just be an echo chamber of “don’t you know how to use Google?” Or similar stuff.
I’ve been dabbling with Linux for almost 2 decades at this point, and when I get stuck it’s because I’ve already exhausted my web search abilities.
The most frustrating is when you hit a super niche issue, and the only relevant result is a single forum post with the exact same issue, and the only reply is OP saying “nevermind, figured it out myself.”
And then to be told to fuck off and learn how to do a web search…and web searching keeps getting worse and worse…
Have you tried turning it off and on again? You may have Cancer. Heres a different issue on Windows: rtfm …
Get me my cat-hat, I’m going for a walk.
Unlike what people reply here out of ignorance, your thinking is correct, meaning, that Google has already done the hard work to create a TRULY modern OS, with proper usability, security, and yes, a way better compositor than wayland (in fact, android has the best compositor in the world, compared to ANY OS). A properly modified desktop OS based on it (better than Samsung’s DeX for example), that is also able to run normal Linux apps, would be a huge winner.
TRULY modern OS
What does this even mean? So iOS, MacOS, Windows11, Linux aren’t modern?
a way better compositor than wayland (in fact, android has the best compositor in the world, compared to ANY OS)
Wayland is not a compositor, it’s a protocol. SurfaceFlinger can totally be made in Wayland. Saying SurfaceFlinger is better than Wayland is like saying words are better than English.
A properly modified desktop OS based on it (better than Samsung’s DeX for example), that is also able to run normal Linux apps, would be a huge winner.
Nobody will ever use this on Linux, unless it is implemented in Wayland. It is infinitely more likely for Android to rewrite its compositor for Wayland than SurfaceFlinger being adopted as Linux’s main compositor.
Wayland is not as advanced as android’s system, so i don’t see why not use android’s. The license for it is fine.
Why do you consider android compositor so good?
Linux does have proprietary blobs, Canonical has signed some NDAs, so not that far off from Android (which is linux-based and certainly has proprietary firmware).
Then it wouldn’t really be Linux, then, would it?
macOS, ChromeOS, SteamOS, AWS, Samsung Tizen, literally any embedded device, …
Well, Ubuntu or any company could certainly do something like that. But then this company would simply be competing with Android with an incompatible app platform built on top of Linux. App developers who have a hard enough time developing their apps for both Android and iOS would not want to write their app for yet another incompatible proprietary platform, even if the underlying OS kernel was Linux.
As others have said, the real advantage to Linux, the real reason to use it, with desktop environments like Gnome or KDE, in spite of their minor flaws, is that the software is owned by all of us. Unlike proprietary software which you are basically renting for a monthly fee, on Linux you actually own your software and your data.
