• Boogeyman4325@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not really. Having heterogeneity among operating systems is better than pure homogeneity. Say, if everyone ran Linux, and some massive security flaw was discovered, we would all be screwed at the same time. However, if we ran different stuff, and some massive security hole was found for just one operating system, then only a small portion of the world is vulnerable at once. Besides, more operating systems can lead to more innovation, as long as there is good competition between them.

      • CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s probably one computer at most per employee, but each employee already has a non Windows cell phone. Most servers run Linux. Then there’s Linux in a bunch of small devices as well. Windows is a small part of that pie and only getting smaller.

      • Asudox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Windows Server for usage in actual servers? Those companies must be retarded to the core.

        • alcasa@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Windows Server is rather common in large enterprise software. All the stuff you pray you never have to interface with

          • Asudox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It sure is convenient. You get a user friendly GUI. But the stability, the resource intensity and the spyware. It’s really a retarded decision to build your servers on Windows Server.

            • msage@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, but some software, and it’s usually a financial application, requires a Windows Server.

              I’ve seen it more than once, as I had to set up the machine, I was dying inside, but there was just no alternative that the accounting could use.

        • LinuxSBC@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s really common. The IT people know how to use Windows, and they need Active Directory to manage their Windows devices, so they just use Windows Server.

  • floofloof@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem is capitalism, not which kernel everything runs. And the reason FOSS isn’t universal is also capitalism.

    • zagaberoo@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s more complicated to make money producing FOSS, capitalism or not. Lots of reasonable developers would still choose closed source even without capitalism.

        • vrkr@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The premise that we need money to figure out how to allocate resources is foolish

          Money not necessarily, we need to calculate costs (and minimize it) in distributed fashion.

        • ursakhiin@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s a bunch of ways to allocate resources but ideas like money have an advantage of allowing people to choose how they live.

          A good example would be that not every person would be satisfied living in an apartment in the city. Some prefer living more rural for any number of reasons. Some want to be inside playing video games and others outside biking on a mountain. Some want to be able to do both. Giving them the ability to choose small apartment in the city or bigger house in the woods is important for happiness.

          The biggest issue is the discrepancy of resource allocation between individuals not the method that allocation is done on paper.

    • mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Its not dominating everything but we can make foss our own. I.e. Linux don’t dominate over us but “we are using linux the way we want”

    • AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because Linux isn’t really one thing. If the kernel developers do something bad, just fork the kernel and remove it.

  • Rakust@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, because everyone would be sitting around jacking each other off about using linux, if current trends are to be believed.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s a weird secretive compound on the edge of town. If you go up to the gate and try to talk to them they just reply “I use Arch BTW”.

  • mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Linux kernel

    Nah bro, chrome OS is fucking ridiculous not to mention android too.

    We need the other linux not just kernel.

    • towerful@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why?
      I’ve tried to Google this, but it’s such a general statement I can’t find anything about it.
      Is it more mature in that regard? Sane/sensible/safe defaults for networking? More tools as part of the distribution for networking?
      Did FreeBSD (or it’s predecessor/upstream/whatever) define the standards, so the implementation is more correct?

      Or is it just that so many firewall applications run on top of FreeBSD (or a BSD flavour) eg opnSense, pfSense, openWRT (is openWRT actually BSD, idk)?
      So, kinda a historical/momentum thing. With the benefits of wide spread specific use

      • LinuxSBC@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        OpenBSD is focused on being incredibly secure, and they generally succeed. Firewalls need good security.

        • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Everything needs good security. Firewall devices only cover a specific, limited portion of the attack surface of machines behind them. One successful browser exploit or attack on an exposed port, and the firewall may as well be a paperweight.

          • LinuxSBC@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            True, but it’s hard to get end users to use OpenBSD. It’s really easy to make a firewall based on OpenBSD.

      • linearchaos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        FreeBSD this focused on making a general use operating system

        Open BSD is focusing on security the developer insists on regular audits.

        Under most circumstances I wouldn’t really care, we’re getting a long well enough on Microsoft and Android with security updates all the time. That firewall man, it’s sitting out there with its ass hanging in the wind, The only thing between you and a billion hastily written scripts.