I guess the base version of windows is relatively ok but Microsoft Office and Overdrive/SharePoint are both completely unusable. Which is insane considering they are industry standards.

Although Linux seems to be generally much more stable in my experience. Of course it depends on the distro.

WARNING they may suffer from less bugs, less annoying updates, better performance, less spyware and functional package management.

Before anyone says anything I am aware there are trade-offs due to switching from what you know.

Luckily I only need a house…

Just checking is this sarcasm or a genuine reply?

Why did it spike so much in just the last few months? That is a huge change!

Just because AI was used in the development process doesn’t mean it is bad. Doesn’t mean it’s good either but you can’t just ignore it because AI had something to do with the process. Things being made by humans doesn’t make it good either people can write really bad code.

Because the license has other strengths as well.

What are it’s strengths?

So having an alternative that can be used easier in other software where GPL is a bit problematic is not a bad thing.

The GPL is only problematic when used alongside proprietary software, something we want to avoid. So far people have used the original coreutils for decades and it hasn’t been a problem.

If the GNU+linux operating software shifts towards a permissive license (like MIT) it makes way for companies such as Red Hat and Canonical to start making proprietary operating systems. This would be a massive shame to Linux since the whole community benefits a lot from their contributions.

And the MIT License isn’t giving up on more Open Source too. So there is an opportunity.

I described earlier exactly why the MIT license is giving up on open source software so allow me to repeat myself.

Think about comparing macos with aosp.

Since android used linux which is licensed under the GLP they had to make it open source and they contributed back to the open source community.

Macos on the other hand used a lot of software from freebsd and other bsd projects. Since freebsd isn’t free software macos never contributed back to the community since they didn’t have to.

Not using the GPL can result in less open source.

OK sure, but why should we give away an opportunity to get more open source software?

Not nessesarily think about comparing macos with aosp.

Since android used linux which is licensed under the GLP they had to make it open source and they contributed back to the open source community.

Macos on the other hand used a lot of software from freebsd and other bsd projects. Since freebsd isn’t free software macos never contributed back to the community since they didn’t have to.

Not using the GPL can result in less open source.

I argue that using MIT will mostly result in a worse outcome than the GPL since our goal should always be having as much FOSS software as possible. Allowing people to make proprietry software from open source software results in less open source software.

No. I’m talking about the free software foundations definition of free software. The mit license is an open source licence, not a free software license.

Anyway, I’m interested as to why you don’t think the MIT license is worse than the GPL.

Because it isn’t a free software license. Software licensed by the MIT license can be copied and made into proprietary software. Since (I hope) we agree proprietary software should be minimised licensing under a free software license ensures big tech can’t make there own corporate software from it without ever giving back.

Why don’t you think the MIT license is bad?

Proton has worked really well for me, 90% of my games just work. But the final 10% dont and that is something I miss.

There is proton and protondb which are great tools I use all the time, just not as good as not having to worry about compatibility at all.

Much better game compatibility and not having to worry if a game will work or not. Although in some ways it’s part of the fun.

Even if that is the way they chose, if it means games are compatible I dont see an issue.

But I don’t think they will, ultimately if games are properly compiled esspecially for linux they will be better than wine, and of course game devs want there game to run as fast as possible.

Proton is filling a role until Linux gets popular enough. Once there is enough demand for Linux, devs will start making games with Linux support in mind meaning more well compiled native games. While proton is very good it’s far from perfect and devs will want people to have the most seamless experience possible with their game.

Wow I had no idea.

I mean neither of the other people in the challenge are having issues, because there using Bazzite and Cachyos. Not Popos.