I mean it's also socialist, with how it's developed and distributed. Despite capitalists making use of it too. It's one of the few things in this world the people truly own collectively.
Capitalists making use of and profiting from socialist programs and structure is a tale as old as capitalism.
Pharma as an example. Crowdsourced research, government funding with money from the people only to be bought by a capitalist corpo where they do the last 10% of the work by industrialization, jack up the price by 1000x, and take 100% of the profits and don't even pay back their fair share in taxes, and then get a state-sponsered monopoly for an outrageous period.
You have just single handedly chased away some potential Linux users and prevented Year of the Linux Desktop 2024! Just with that comment! I hope you are happy now!
A lot of complaints I've seen is that it's bloated - it's not only a system manager but also has a DNS relay, network manager, container manager, and so on.
That said, codifying service startup and managing them with cgroups is IMO MUCH better than init scripts that think running killall apache is a good way to stop a service.
I will switch to Gnome when it can handle multiple workspaces on multiple displays properly. The fact that I can't have multiple independent workspaces for each display is a complete deal breaker for me.
It's hard to overcome the Hurd problem though. Although it would be fascinating to see how it would diverge on the design of the Linux kernel. How much can you still act like Linux while not being Linux? Or would it just be a direct algorithmic translation, basically doing the same processes under the hood with the same architecture? I'm sure there's more than a few things Linux is doing in C that the Rust compiler would frown upon.
They're also similar in that if you tell them you use Linux but like Canonical and/or Lennart Poettering they'll yell at you and call you all sorts of names but if you tell them you're a Windows user they'll leave you alone
Free Software is Leftism because it has got us great software and maybe the only bad thing I can say is that release schedules aren't a thing
Open Source is Capitalist Friendly because, ummmmm, extremely shitty Community Editions and putting everything cool in proprietary side, uhhhhh, random license changes to shit that isn't actually OSD compliant, unghhhhhh, need of constant vigilance against license violations.
Like I am happy cheap hardware vendors have adopted OSS components but why are they frequently so shitty about everything
Haha yeah. Well I'm an arch user for at least a decade, and i saw manjaro come.. It was very popular in the beginning. Then they started making strange decisions, but I think many people are still happy with it. Otherwise I think endevourOS is doing good. :)
Was chilling with some friends of friends the other week and operating systems came up and one guy said he ran Ubuntu (I'm on KDE Neon) so we started chatting about that and a guy in the back seat said "Hey, aren't you guys supposed to be fighting?".