(no title)
kennysoona | 11 months ago
This sounds very much like an edge case. Why didn't you use Windows or MacOS on the mini PC instead? Was it because you were unable to do so?
> Or how about the huge fight that systemd has been (and continues to be).
That fight was over pretty much when Devuan and Artix formed.
> If we imagine a world where os init was regulated by the EU,
The EU would only be interested in regulating this if it were an OS init controlled by a monopoly abusing their position.
tpmoney|11 months ago
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=linux%20radeon%20audio...
> Why didn't you use Windows or MacOS on the mini PC instead? Was it because you were unable to do so?
Because despite what you might assume from reading what I've written here today, I'm not against or opposed to open source and open protocol stuff. Everything I personally write I release open source. I push my own company to publish as much as we can as open protocols. I've been running some form of linux in one form or another since I first pulled down the MkLinux CDs over a 33.6 modem. I don't hate open systems. But I recognize that open systems have their own disadvantages and that a system being open doesn't inherently mean it's going to be a better experience or solution.
> The EU would only be interested in regulating this if it were an OS init controlled by a monopoly abusing their position.
And so as I've asked before in other places, what monopoly are they regulating here? If the other comments in this discussion are to be believed, iOS represents < 50% of the EU market. Not only that, but iOS represents a single os and a single hardware vendor. The only way to run iOS is to buy Apple hardware, and the only OS you can run on the Apple hardware is iOS. Meanwhile the entire rest of the cellphone market exists, has a fully open OS just like people want, and supposedly has an equal or superior experience to iPhone/iOS. Apple doesn't do anything to prevent retailers from selling non-Apple devices, they don't require app developers to sign exclusivity agreements, they don't require accessory vendors to sign exclusivity agreements. They don't require retailers to buy iOS licenses even for hardware sold without iOS. The only way one can construe Apple to have a monopoly is to say that they have a monopoly on the hardware that they manufacture. Which is a tautology. Sony has a monopoly on their TVs, Bose has a monopoly on their stereos, and Nintendo has a monopoly on their consoles. This is not a useful definition of a "market"
kennysoona|11 months ago
This supports that it seems to be an edge case.
> Because despite what you might assume from reading what I've written here today, I'm not against or opposed to open source and open protocol stuff.
And the point of asking what I did was to point out maybe you wouldn't be able to get as far as you did without linux; certainly macos wasn't an option, right? Not a modern version at least. Why criticize an area linux is falling short when you're preferred OS isn't even an option? It just doesn't make sense in this context.
> And so as I've asked before in other places, what monopoly are they regulating here?
Are you the same type of person who would argue never had a monopoly because Apple and Netscape were available?