More users means there is more interest from private companies to reach these users and to port their software/products to Linux.
Ie Adobe, Games, AutoCAD Suit, etc.
I’m not sure you need data to understand that if more people use a product, there’s a greater chance someone will develop FOSS for it, as FOSS developers tend to also be users.
The BSDs don’t have the dev resources of Linux simply because Linux has a much larger install base.
Really?
I don’t think OpenBSD is as funded as Debian but it could maintain software like OpenSSH (even the portable version for Linux and Windows); LibreSSL (still not much used, but funded because of this), OpenSMTPD.
But OpenBSD can maintain its ports which in my opinion is relatively large (no update for -release, sorry :) ). And base. For so many hardware platform. Even VAX until 6.9
But why do we want more proprietary software running on Linux?
You’re right, there’s downsides for the FOSS community, but it’s much better for many individuals.
Usability, accessibility and privacy for a user is better when any proprietary software, that they cannot avoid, can at least run relatively sandboxed inside an OS they have control over.
Wouldn’t we be recreating the same situation that Windows has?
Good point, but thankfully, an open OS mitigates these issues a great deal.
Proprietary software is one of the last anchors holding people to Windows or macOS.
Ideally, people would switch to FOSS alternatives on a FOSS OS, but proprietary software on top of a FOSS OS is better than FOSS software on a proprietary OS.
Also, people are going to charge for software in some form or fashion. The economic model would need to change in order to allow people to develop software without any economic motives.
The difference is that, with a base FOSS OS, you’re not locked in to an flavor you don’t like. Dislike the way Ubuntu is headed? Switch to Debian, Pop, or Mint and use the same exact programs you’re used to. If you dislike Windows 11, you’ve only got a few years before you’re forced to switch to it. Makes it much easier for them to force shitty decisions.
More adoption of Linux also means more incentive for FOSS projects to support it. Yes, it also means more proprietary software, but the truth is that most people don’t care what kind of software they use as long as it works for them. At least Linux can’t become beholden to the demands of that software.
But why do we want more proprietary software running on Linux?
Because it’s what reality looks like right now. Everything FOSS would be ideal, but it’s probably not going to happen for a looooong time. In the meantime more software is always good, and it also means more FOSS software you can choose as an alternative.
Wouldn’t we be recreating the same situation that Windows has?
No, because the base OS is still open, so you have choices that you don’t have under Windows.
Why downvote me instead of replying with a reason why I’m “wrong” or discussing further?
Tbh it sounds a bit disingenuous when you say that you don’t understand such a basic thing. It should be pretty obvious that more users means more interest from devs+companies and more support for the platform.
People don’t like frequently dual-booting or switching operating systems. If someone needs a specific program for work, and that program only works on windows, chances are they will only use windows.
Many people have to use proprietary software at work, which means most computers for work have to run windows. If linux can get enough marketshare to get support for the necessary programs that people have to use, that will free them up to not use windows at all.
You’ve never understood how support works? It doesn’t matter that it’s harder to find apps that work on Linux than windows and Mac? It matters less to me than most people but it definitely still matters
I would certainly benefit if more hardware supported Linux out-of-the-box.
Many people will benefit if that one key application they need is supported on Linux.
We all benefit from the paid developers working on Linux. The number of such people are linked to the profitability of Linux for companies which is a function of popularity.
Your point is a very important one. The numbers have to come up so that manufacturers notice. It might make the difference in a laptop designer choosing a well-Linux-supported wifi chip, instead of a shitty, closed chipset like Broadcom. When the price-per-unit difference is pennies, knowing that you’re potentially losing some thousands of customers in exchange for saving a few cents per unit can make the difference in how you choose.
It also matters in user choice in the workplace. The more normalized Linux is, the more likely there will be skills in IT support, more mass-management tools, and more willingness to allow employees to choose their OS.
But where it really matters is in standards. Diversity puts pressure on software developers to use standardized and open data exchange standards. I can’t emphasize enough how important diversity in OSes is to driving creation of, and conformance to, standards, and how much of an anathema to standards monocultures are.
Even within OSS this is true: github and git have become monocultures; they aren’t standards, they’re tools developers are forced to use if they want to interact with the wider development world in any meaningful way. They’re not bad; git became dominant largely because github used to be so fantastically better than anything else available at the time; but now, their very dominance stiffles diversity and innovation. Want to try the rather exciting pijul, the patch-based spiritual successor to darcs? Fuck you, because you won’t be able to collaborate with anyone, and you repos won’t work with any proglang module systems like cargo or Go modules, because it isn’t git[1]. Monocultures are bad, whether they’re evil corporation software, or FOSS.
Higher Linux use increases diversity, encourages data format standards, and creates a healthier ecosystem. That’s why these numbers are important.
[1] Go and Rust’s cargo support more VCSes than git, but they could easily not, and I’m sure the maintainer’s of the vcs code wish they could drop support for some of the long tails - and everything that isn’t git is on the long tail at this point. There are attempts at creating some standards around this; ActivityPub has tossed around ideas, forgefriends has been trying for a breakthrough for years - none of them address the root issue of how tools can access sourcecode efficiently in a way abstracted from the underlying vcs. Any such tool currently must have some bespoke code to speak the network language of the vcs, for every vcs. And since git is the most popular, when faced with the daunting task of supporting N vcses, when N-1 of them are in toto used by a small percent of users, it’s just easier to support only git.
I’ve never understood how this is good for Linux. Why is having more users so important?
More users means there is more interest from private companies to reach these users and to port their software/products to Linux. Ie Adobe, Games, AutoCAD Suit, etc.
But why do we want more proprietary software running on Linux? Wouldn’t we be recreating the same situation that Windows has?
Edit: Why downvote me instead of replying with a reason why I’m “wrong” or discussing further? Is Lemmy turning into Reddit already?
There’s also more chances of FOSS being developed for Linux if more people use it. FOSS is better the more popular it gets.
This seems like wishful thinking to me. Is there any data that supports that with more users comes more FOSS developers?
I’m not sure you need data to understand that if more people use a product, there’s a greater chance someone will develop FOSS for it, as FOSS developers tend to also be users.
Bigger platforms attract more devs.
The BSDs don’t have the dev resources of Linux simply because Linux has a much larger install base.
Really?
I don’t think OpenBSD is as funded as Debian but it could maintain software like OpenSSH (even the portable version for Linux and Windows); LibreSSL (still not much used, but funded because of this), OpenSMTPD.
But OpenBSD can maintain its ports which in my opinion is relatively large (no update for -release, sorry :) ). And base. For so many hardware platform. Even VAX until 6.9
Yeah, really. OpenBSD punches above its weight. There are many things they would like todo, but don’t have the resources.
You’re right, there’s downsides for the FOSS community, but it’s much better for many individuals.
Usability, accessibility and privacy for a user is better when any proprietary software, that they cannot avoid, can at least run relatively sandboxed inside an OS they have control over.
Good point, but thankfully, an open OS mitigates these issues a great deal.
Proprietary software is one of the last anchors holding people to Windows or macOS.
Ideally, people would switch to FOSS alternatives on a FOSS OS, but proprietary software on top of a FOSS OS is better than FOSS software on a proprietary OS.
Also, people are going to charge for software in some form or fashion. The economic model would need to change in order to allow people to develop software without any economic motives.
The difference is that, with a base FOSS OS, you’re not locked in to an flavor you don’t like. Dislike the way Ubuntu is headed? Switch to Debian, Pop, or Mint and use the same exact programs you’re used to. If you dislike Windows 11, you’ve only got a few years before you’re forced to switch to it. Makes it much easier for them to force shitty decisions.
More adoption of Linux also means more incentive for FOSS projects to support it. Yes, it also means more proprietary software, but the truth is that most people don’t care what kind of software they use as long as it works for them. At least Linux can’t become beholden to the demands of that software.
Because it’s what reality looks like right now. Everything FOSS would be ideal, but it’s probably not going to happen for a looooong time. In the meantime more software is always good, and it also means more FOSS software you can choose as an alternative.
No, because the base OS is still open, so you have choices that you don’t have under Windows.
Tbh it sounds a bit disingenuous when you say that you don’t understand such a basic thing. It should be pretty obvious that more users means more interest from devs+companies and more support for the platform.
People don’t like frequently dual-booting or switching operating systems. If someone needs a specific program for work, and that program only works on windows, chances are they will only use windows.
Many people have to use proprietary software at work, which means most computers for work have to run windows. If linux can get enough marketshare to get support for the necessary programs that people have to use, that will free them up to not use windows at all.
You’ve never understood how support works? It doesn’t matter that it’s harder to find apps that work on Linux than windows and Mac? It matters less to me than most people but it definitely still matters
I would certainly benefit if more hardware supported Linux out-of-the-box.
Many people will benefit if that one key application they need is supported on Linux.
We all benefit from the paid developers working on Linux. The number of such people are linked to the profitability of Linux for companies which is a function of popularity.
Your point is a very important one. The numbers have to come up so that manufacturers notice. It might make the difference in a laptop designer choosing a well-Linux-supported wifi chip, instead of a shitty, closed chipset like Broadcom. When the price-per-unit difference is pennies, knowing that you’re potentially losing some thousands of customers in exchange for saving a few cents per unit can make the difference in how you choose.
It also matters in user choice in the workplace. The more normalized Linux is, the more likely there will be skills in IT support, more mass-management tools, and more willingness to allow employees to choose their OS.
But where it really matters is in standards. Diversity puts pressure on software developers to use standardized and open data exchange standards. I can’t emphasize enough how important diversity in OSes is to driving creation of, and conformance to, standards, and how much of an anathema to standards monocultures are.
Even within OSS this is true: github and git have become monocultures; they aren’t standards, they’re tools developers are forced to use if they want to interact with the wider development world in any meaningful way. They’re not bad; git became dominant largely because github used to be so fantastically better than anything else available at the time; but now, their very dominance stiffles diversity and innovation. Want to try the rather exciting pijul, the patch-based spiritual successor to darcs? Fuck you, because you won’t be able to collaborate with anyone, and you repos won’t work with any proglang module systems like cargo or Go modules, because it isn’t git[1]. Monocultures are bad, whether they’re evil corporation software, or FOSS.
Higher Linux use increases diversity, encourages data format standards, and creates a healthier ecosystem. That’s why these numbers are important.
[1] Go and Rust’s cargo support more VCSes than git, but they could easily not, and I’m sure the maintainer’s of the vcs code wish they could drop support for some of the long tails - and everything that isn’t git is on the long tail at this point. There are attempts at creating some standards around this; ActivityPub has tossed around ideas, forgefriends has been trying for a breakthrough for years - none of them address the root issue of how tools can access sourcecode efficiently in a way abstracted from the underlying vcs. Any such tool currently must have some bespoke code to speak the network language of the vcs, for every vcs. And since git is the most popular, when faced with the daunting task of supporting N vcses, when N-1 of them are in toto used by a small percent of users, it’s just easier to support only git.