Comment on 7 years later, Valve's Proton has been an incredible game-changer for Linux

• desertdruid@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  AFAIK manufacturers don’t have to pay for Linux And if MacOS is really free you would be able to manufacture and sell devices using it but there is not a single one

  MacOS is free just like Windows is free (the license is included in your purchase of the hardware)

  So yeah idk what you are smoking or if you get high just by being the most pedantic person in the lemmyverse

  source

  • floo@retrolemmy.com ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    AFAIK manufacturers don’t have to pay for Linux And if MacOS is really free you would be able to manufacture and sell devices using it but there is not a single one

    That’s not what free means here. “Free“ as in costs no money for the user. Can download and install it without having to pay for it. Because it is free. You’re using the word “free” to means something obviously different than what I’m talking about.

    MacOS is free just like Windows is free (the license is included in your purchase of the hardware). Except windows isn’t free. It cost is enumerated on the invoice. macOS is not. Because it is free.

    So yeah idk

    Obviously, you don’t know because you keep saying things that are very, obviously not true. Are you feeling OK?

    source
• QuestionMark@lemmy.ml ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Linux has an entirely different story.

  The Linux Kernel Organization is managed by The Linux Foundation, which provides full technical, financial and staffing support for running and maintaining the kernel.org infrastructure.

  Funding for the Linux Foundation comes primarily from its Platinum Members, who pay US$500,000 per year according to Schedule A in LF’s bylaws, adding up to US$7.5 million. The Gold Members contribute a combined total of US$1.2 million and Silver members contribute between US$5,000 and US$20,000 based on the amount of employees, summing up to at least US$6,240,000.

  You can also donate to them.

  But what about Android? Android is definitely not paid.

  Android is based on the Linux kernel, which uses the GPL license.

  If you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program’s users, under the GPL.

  Therefore, Google cannot close Android’s source code, and force manufacturers to pay for it.

  When you buy an Android phone, however, there are some closed-sourced components installed on them: Google Play Services, YouTube, …, which Google can profit from.

  In its earnings reports, the company combines revenue from multiple sources, under the sub-heading “Google Services”. This includes income from Android, Chrome, Maps, and hardware (like Pixel and Nest smart home devices). In the first quarter of 2022, this “services” division brought in $6.8 billion in revenue for the company. … Oracle’s attorneys estimated that Android had generated a total of $31 billion in revenue and $22 billion in profit.

  So Google does profit from Android. It’s free, but Google definitely generates enough to develop Android.

  Apple’s situation is different from Google’s. It is the sole maker of devices that run macOS, and macOS is close-sourced. It can add a price to each macOS device sold for macOS development. It would be illogical for Apple not to do this, and use the profit brought by the sale of other devices. Therefore, there’s a high probability you’re also paying for macOS when buying a Mac device.

  source

  • floo@retrolemmy.com ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Just because Linux is open source doesn’t magically mean macOS isn’t free (which it is). This reasoning is so ridiculous. And it doesn’t get any less ridiculous them or you keep repeating it. You’re wasting your time arguing with an objective fact: macOS is free.

    Unless Apple starts charging for it, there is literally nothing else that will change that. I’m sorry you just can’t accept that.

    source

    • QuestionMark@lemmy.ml ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Are our definitions of “free” not the same? The way I think of “free” implies that, if the cost of a CPU/RAM/operating system is added to the overall cost of a device, that CPU/RAM/operating system is not free. You are paying for it.

      Just because Linux is open source doesn’t magically mean macOS isn’t free

      You’re right, because you didn’t read my comment carefully. I wrote, clearly, that Linux is funded. That’s where the money for its development comes from.

      Linux’s license means Google can’t close Android’s source and make manufacturers pay for it, it has other ways to profit from Android.

      Windows is paid.

      Every major operating system has some way to obtain money for its development. The most logical thing for Apple is to add macOS’s cost to the price of Mac devices. Given this definition of not-free, the probability of macOS not being free is higher.

      source

      • floo@retrolemmy.com ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        None of this changes the fact that macOS is free

        I just don’t understand why you keep wasting your time arguing objective fact.

        source

        • -> View More Comments