The GNU projects that people actually use are primarily hosted, maintained, and developed by Red Hat (IBM). They are the primary code contributors. Not just GPL, GNU specifically.
There is more permissively licensed code in most Linux distributions than there is GPL code. Not only is that permissive code not being “stolen” by “mega corps” but the majority of it is corporately funded.
Again, just facts. All pretty easy to verify if facts matter at all to you.
What part did not make sense? Just that the facts do not agree with your opinion?
The comment I responded to was stating things that sounded like facts that are not at all supported by the evidence. And if I ask for some, I am pretty sure the cherry-picked examples will be mostly companies “stealing” projects that they wrote to begin with.
The thesis that permissive licenses result in less Open Source code is wrong. In fact, they lead to greater corporate participation and employees write more code than unsponsored individuals. That is what the evidence shows.
Use whatever licenses you want. Not wanting companies to use code you wrote is a totally valid choice. But you should not have to misrepresent reality to convince other people to do the same.
I am also interested to see what kind of adoption COSMIC gets. From the comments I have seen, I looks like it may pull-away a fair number of GNOME users.
Nor sure that COSMIC calendar will have all the features you want. COSMIC is a pretty good base for GNOME apps though. It does not have to be either / or.
Everything is Wayland compatible but there is no XFWM for Wayland. So, you use a Wayland compositor like LabWC with the rest of XFCE running on top of it. This is the default XFCE config on SUSE Leap for example.
XFCE is not quite as far along on portal support as GNOME or KDE though. Depending on your use case, you may still prefer running on Xorg.
I think they mean use solar to keep the price of the electricity consumption down. It is probably a joke since old gear is going to drink a lot of juice cryptomining.
Android and Chromium. Is listing two projects that were created almost entirely by the same company and gifted to the Open Source world the best way to make your point? I mean, they sure are shafting us with Kubernetes too right?
I would say that Google is screwing us with Clang and LLVM except Apple and Microsoft contribute a lot to that too so they deserve some of the blame.
But, I mean clearly GCC is the better project. I mean sure LLVM resulted in Rust (corporate project), Swift (corporate project), and Zig but GCC is where the real innovation is. I mean GCC just added COBOL and Algol 68.
GPL code is code for the community by the community.
Lets list some GPL code developed on servers owned and operated by IBM (because they are the core developers):
Glibc
GCC
binutuls
GNU CoreUtils
systemd
pipewire
Podman
Flatpak
elfutils
Do you use any of those? About half of those projects were started by IBM. It was them that chose the GPL as a license. I wonder who forced them?
Who are the Top Contributors to the Linux kernel?
Intel
Google
Red Hat
Oracle
Ya, let’s keep those mega corps from using all that GPL code that YOU write.
FreeBSD just released a new version. It is entirely permissively licensed. It is clearly an anomaly that half the new features in this release have the names of companies that contributed them in the release notes. Who are these Netflix people?
I would say “how about gaming” but very little of that code is GPL. Any permissively licensed code used in gaming?
WINE
proton
Xorg
Wayland
Mesa
FEX
LLVM
To your point, those projects must have been totally stolen by greedy mega corps right? I mean, X has been around for decades so there has been lots of time to push Xorg out of the market.
These Valve guys are big in gaming. Surely they must be stealing all our code and not giving back right? I mean, only the license would stop them (as you say). Obviously they took that MIT WINE thing and made Proton proprietary.
Agreed. That is why I think Linux Mint Debian Edition (LMDE) is a better desktop than Debian Stable. The DE and everyday GUI tools stay fresh even if most of the distro is a time capsule.
It is funny. You and I landed in different places but for almost the same reasons.
I use a rolling release because I want my system to work. “Tinkering with my tech stuff” is an activity I want to do when I want and not something I want thrust upon me.
On “stable” distros, I was always working around gaps in the repo or dealing with issues that others had already fixed. And everything I did myself was something I had to maintain and, since I did not really, my systems became less and less stable and more bloated over time.
With a rolling distro, I leave everything to the package manager. When I run my software, most of the issues I read other people complaining about have already been fixed.
And updates on “stable” distros are stressful because they are fragile. On my rolling distro, I can update every day and never have to tinker with anything beyond the update command itself. On the rare occasion that something additional needs to be done, it is localized to a few packages at most and easy to understand.
Anyway, there is no right or wrong as long as it works for you.
Where did the idea come from that rolling releases are about hardware?
Hardware support is almost entirely about the kernel.
Many distros, even non-rolling ones like Mint and Ubuntu, offer alternative kernels with support for newer hardware. These are often updated frequently. Even incredibly “stable” distros like Red Hat Enterprise Linux regularly release kernels with updated hardware support.
And you can compile the kernel yourself to whatever version you want or even use a kernel from a different distro.
Rolling releases are more about the other 80,000 packages that are not the kernel.
They may team up