Where will Windows users draw the red line? Please, for the love of Lenin, just install a Linux distribution. It's not as scary as it seems, I promise. Pick something that has a large user base, things like Fedora, Linux Mint, Ubuntu, literally anything is better than Windows at this point. This is especially important if you're doing any real life organizing that requires you to do things on your computer, don't just hand over everything to Microsoft (who will hand over everything to any government that asks) out of convenience.
For all my time educating about free software I realized that there is no red line for Windows users, nor for any nonfree program.
Silicon Valley and the USA are the world hegemon which includes curbing any and all knowledge or awareness of software freedom both domestically and abroad. It's a landlord empire but for computer science where people will defend their landlords because to not do so would be taboo. (The tech "ecosystem" myth)
GNU Project founder Richard M. Stallman points out in his writings and talks that companies like Apple will build a jail so lucrative and advanced that people will beg to be imprisoned and it makes so much more sense.
I’m not sure how it’s a myth. Yes there are some analog software on Linux, but any downtime to research, switch, and retrain people is unacceptable to these companies. It’s better for them to promote the same cycle of bullshit because it keeps their operation disruptions at a minimum.
Ecosystem when used in the context of software development (and production as a whole) is at most a buzzword for capitalists to greenwash their unsustainable and exploitative supply chains and management practices to outsiders.
There is no ecosystem (not in any definition that is analagous to its actual scientific definition), only purposeful human decisions and human made structures of power. To use the word ecosystem in this context could run the risk of erasing people's (both capitalists and the proletariat) agency as well as deter the conversation away from capitalism and into idealism about human communities
Just like you mentioned, the capitalist class has no interest in slowing down and in a capitalist society, their word is law. The field of computer science and IT is dominated by multinational corporations whose interest is to keep the inherently harmful system going.
"The fast food ecosystem" "the fossil fuel ecosystem" "the boeing whistleblower assassination ecosystem" sound horrible, so why is it different for discourse surrounding computer technology? Just because it is a term in the zeitgeist doesn't mean it should be used.
Most of the world runs windows or Mac for everyday things. They’re deeply inside of ecosystems of programs that aren’t available on Linux or don’t work as well. Individuals moving to Linux won’t do anything. The only way for it to gain traction is is large companies not only declared their switch, but also request and/or develop the same proprietary bullshit like photoshop on Linux. There are some companies like Valve trying to promote Linux and FOSS but for their own profit driven agenda, bur even that’s fine because at least it’s something. I can’t see Adobe doing the same
Most users don’t care about Microsoft watching them jerk off as long as the computer works well enough to let them do it undisturbed
If I was Tim Apple, I would simply develop macOS and Linux to take away Microsoft market share then halt resources from Linux development to draw people to apple.
If I was Tim Apple, I would simply develop macOS and Linux to take away Microsoft market share then halt resources from Linux development to draw people to apple.
They have already done this. The LLVM toolchain (like the clang compiler) and zsh were implemented in MacOS to get around GNU and assorted copyleft programs.
Individuals moving to Linux won’t do anything. The only way for it to gain traction is is large companies not only declared their switch, but also request and/or develop the same proprietary bullshit like photoshop on Linux.
I think it's more nuanced than that. It also has to do with the fact that free operating systems are not in the supply chain. In a capitalist system, nonfree software is prioritized because of its rent accumulating behaviour and control. Only a socialist system could address the inequality inherent to proprietary supply chains. In order for this socialist system to work it must not start from scratch. Individuals moving to free software and understanding their freedom should be considered a vital part of a socialist education. Educating and agitating for free software and free software communities is more important (imo) than open source photoshop.
The only way for it to gain traction is is large companies not only declared their switch, but also request and/or develop the same proprietary bullshit like photoshop on Linux.
No, state actors are also crucial. China getting rid of the NSA spyware that is Windows and MacOS on their government PCs is an important step. At a certain point, those clerical workers who spend thousands of hours per year on a Linux distro are going to continue using what they are familiar with when they get home. They're not going to waste their free time (re)learning how to use Windows or MacOS when they've already have thousands of hours of experience with Linux at work. With this boost in Linux users, Adobe and et al can either leave free money at the table by continuing to not support Linux and have that free money be snatched by Chinese developers or they can port their enterprise software to Linux. And with that, the last real roadblock towards wide desktop Linux adoption is lifted.
Where will Windows users draw the red line? Please, for the love of Lenin, just install a Linux distribution. It's not as scary as it seems, I promise. Pick something that has a large user base, things like Fedora, Linux Mint, Ubuntu, literally anything is better than Windows at this point. This is especially important if you're doing any real life organizing that requires you to do things on your computer, don't just hand over everything to Microsoft (who will hand over everything to any government that asks) out of convenience.
For all my time educating about free software I realized that there is no red line for Windows users, nor for any nonfree program.
Silicon Valley and the USA are the world hegemon which includes curbing any and all knowledge or awareness of software freedom both domestically and abroad. It's a landlord empire but for computer science where people will defend their landlords because to not do so would be taboo. (The tech "ecosystem" myth)
GNU Project founder Richard M. Stallman points out in his writings and talks that companies like Apple will build a jail so lucrative and advanced that people will beg to be imprisoned and it makes so much more sense.
I’m not sure how it’s a myth. Yes there are some analog software on Linux, but any downtime to research, switch, and retrain people is unacceptable to these companies. It’s better for them to promote the same cycle of bullshit because it keeps their operation disruptions at a minimum.
Ecosystem when used in the context of software development (and production as a whole) is at most a buzzword for capitalists to greenwash their unsustainable and exploitative supply chains and management practices to outsiders.
There is no ecosystem (not in any definition that is analagous to its actual scientific definition), only purposeful human decisions and human made structures of power. To use the word ecosystem in this context could run the risk of erasing people's (both capitalists and the proletariat) agency as well as deter the conversation away from capitalism and into idealism about human communities
Just like you mentioned, the capitalist class has no interest in slowing down and in a capitalist society, their word is law. The field of computer science and IT is dominated by multinational corporations whose interest is to keep the inherently harmful system going.
"The fast food ecosystem" "the fossil fuel ecosystem" "the boeing whistleblower assassination ecosystem" sound horrible, so why is it different for discourse surrounding computer technology? Just because it is a term in the zeitgeist doesn't mean it should be used.
Most of the world runs windows or Mac for everyday things. They’re deeply inside of ecosystems of programs that aren’t available on Linux or don’t work as well. Individuals moving to Linux won’t do anything. The only way for it to gain traction is is large companies not only declared their switch, but also request and/or develop the same proprietary bullshit like photoshop on Linux. There are some companies like Valve trying to promote Linux and FOSS but for their own profit driven agenda, bur even that’s fine because at least it’s something. I can’t see Adobe doing the same
Most users don’t care about Microsoft watching them jerk off as long as the computer works well enough to let them do it undisturbed
If I was Tim Apple, I would simply develop macOS and Linux to take away Microsoft market share then halt resources from Linux development to draw people to apple.
They have already done this. The LLVM toolchain (like the clang compiler) and zsh were implemented in MacOS to get around GNU and assorted copyleft programs.
I think it's more nuanced than that. It also has to do with the fact that free operating systems are not in the supply chain. In a capitalist system, nonfree software is prioritized because of its rent accumulating behaviour and control. Only a socialist system could address the inequality inherent to proprietary supply chains. In order for this socialist system to work it must not start from scratch. Individuals moving to free software and understanding their freedom should be considered a vital part of a socialist education. Educating and agitating for free software and free software communities is more important (imo) than open source photoshop.
No, state actors are also crucial. China getting rid of the NSA spyware that is Windows and MacOS on their government PCs is an important step. At a certain point, those clerical workers who spend thousands of hours per year on a Linux distro are going to continue using what they are familiar with when they get home. They're not going to waste their free time (re)learning how to use Windows or MacOS when they've already have thousands of hours of experience with Linux at work. With this boost in Linux users, Adobe and et al can either leave free money at the table by continuing to not support Linux and have that free money be snatched by Chinese developers or they can port their enterprise software to Linux. And with that, the last real roadblock towards wide desktop Linux adoption is lifted.