this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2024
251 points (93.4% liked)
Asklemmy
44186 readers
1107 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
These aren't Linux issues that Windows does better. It's just companies that decided their software shouldn't run on Linux.
Well, then Windows is better at getting third party producers to support it. Same problem, same result, different wording.
Sure, but there's a big difference between the support existing within the Linux architecture and it not. Almost every issue in the parent comment could be fixed without any input from Linux developers at all.
But fundamentally Linux and open source are ethically orthogonal to for-profit software. The fact that big software companies don't prioritize Linux is in some ways a feature, and is why we actually have the proliferation of high-quality open source alternatives. I doubt Blender or GIMP would exist if the proprietary leaders in their fields offered Linux versions from the beginning, especially if they were free.
There are people in the thread talking about how all Linux needs is for big software companies to ditch Microsoft and get with Linux, but that would never happen as they're imagining. Big for-profit tech would always put itself into a walled garden. What needs to happen is that the few big unassailable tech stacks that keep people chained to the proprietary products need real open replacements -- namely GIMP needs to get its redesign finished and figure out the last few features it needs for professional parity, and we need a real AutoCAD competitor. I think we already have good DAWs and professional audio through JACK/Pipewire, and there's probably a couple others that I'm forgetting... But if Photoshop and AutoCAD alone were not viewed as unreplaceable, that would be a massive boost in the number of people who could use Linux for their jobs.
That's how business works. What company is going to dedicate a bunch of resources to make 1% of their market happy?
Personally, I hope the market share grows sufficiently that commercial enterprises start to develop for it. With the direction windows is going we need alternatives more than ever.
I 100% agree, but it's a catch 22. No one develops for Linux because it doesn't have a market share, and it doesn't have a market share because no one develops for it.
Exactly! But I really, really hope that the growing share in India and other places starts to catalyze commercial development.
Immutable packages like flatpak (or whatever is your format of choice) makes the software side way, way easier. It'll take a bit more convincing to get HW makers to dive in though.
It's no joke making supported software let alone HW for multiple flavours sites of kernel, architecture.
It's a lot better than 25 years ago when I used as a daily driver, but we're just not quite there yet. I keep trying!
3.8%
Also redhat.
I'll give you the 3.8 as total userbase, but I'm willing to bet that it's only about 1% that are exclusive to Linux and don't use a Windows machine at all.
Right. I mean, macs used to be the bees' knees.