Apparently, the uptake of Microsoft's "Windows Linux Subsystem" is miniscule despite it being blared from all MS PR speakers at full volume. Smart technologists realise that enclosing Linux within Windows is a stage in Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Locking the magnificent eagle, symbol of freedom, into a dingy little cage... is not a compelling proposition. Just drop Windows and use Linux. Only a fool puts on the shackles voluntarily.


I partially disagree. My own theory, concocted about 12 years ago is that in 20–25 years #Windows would simply be a compatibility layer running on a #Linux kernel. We're about half way there now.

Plus, I got a drunken mate to agree with it once (don't believe anyone telling you he was just trying to change the subject).

@0 problem is that keeping Windows in the mix perpetuates the fundamental brokenness of proprietary software. Proprietary software, like censorship, is a fundamental bug the world should be routing around, not incorporating into the mix.


Not really. Windows already is a relic of a bygone era. Proprietary software has existed before and will continue to exist after it, in spite of increasing commoditisation. In some cases for perfectly legitimate competitive reasons.

The underlying principle hasn't changed though. Proprietary software was just one mechanism that got abused. Nowadays it's data silos that one has to worry about.

@0 I think proprietary software should be outlawed. My reasons: I think the argument is unassailable, but I'd like to hear an example of a "legitimate reason"...


> an example of a "legitimate reason"...

Software or firmware required for the provision of a service, or implementation of a product, in a highly vertical #B2B application, especially one where you might have only one or two other competitors.

Insofar as the software implements the results of your R&D efforts, you need to protect those from competitors if you are to recover the investment and eventually make a profit.

If you can think of a better way I'm all ears.

@0 I dunno - with this example, you're only thinking about the developer's perspective, not the perspective of the user of the tool. I'd say that if everyone was on a level playing field, e.g. where gov'ts around the world mandated that all software was open source with a copyleft license, there'd still be plenty of innovation. Companies would just need to get used to lower profit margins for software (and folks would have to search for some other field to rort the market).


What you are suggesting is possibly a breach of fundamental rights in many modern states, most notably the right to property.

Note that something like what you suggest has been tried and failed, for instance in the early days of the #USSR.


> you're only thinking about the developer's perspective

I'm thinking from the business owner perspective, as long as he gets paid the dev usually couldn't care less. When we do software (which is not our core business) we generally offer clients the option to open source for $$, to get a licence for $$$ or to get full economic rights for $$$$$. Everyone goes for $$$ (bar one $$$$$ ever).

We always share the source code, etc. with clients, unless they're direct competitors.


@0 We used to have a similar arrangement - I've been using these terms of engagement for the past 15ish years:

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon - NZOSS

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!