Possibly controversial point, but I don’t want Linux to go mainstream.
I like that there are very few viruses developed for Linux. I like that most countries don’t regulate Linux in the way that MacOS or Windows are regulated (I live in the EU, so I know a thing or two about regulations). This could potentially make some linux distros unsupported in some regions due to being none-compliant.
And most of all, I like that Linux apps are mostly Free as in free beer, and a labour of love for all involved.
All these things would go away if linux were to reach 10-15%+ market share. Is it really worth it to invite all this scrutiny for a chance of having hardware companies make hardware run better on linux?
How do you see Linux being regulated if it grows? I imagine that Windows and MacOS are regulated because they’re for profits that e.g. harvest our data, create proprietary limitations on apps, and so on. Genuinely curious how regulating Linux would look similar - or how it might differ.
Well, the first thing that comes to mind would be some sort of “security features” that the regulatory body might believe linux should have in order to be a mass consumer product, that the linux community might not agree with/have the structure to keep up with.
Another would be, if the EU goes ahead the introducing backdoors in encrypted communications (hopefully not), what implications could that have for the current spyware-free linux distros we use?
Overall, my concern is that more eyeballs on Linux might mean increased regulation even when it’s unwarranted because some bureaucrat needs to justify his salary. I’d rather avoid that.
I’m qute happy with where Linux is ATM. 4-5% market share means there’s enough of a market that things can develop, but not so much that regulation is used to force Linux to be a particular thing.
We can argue that Cannonical and Red Hat do force Linux in a certain direction of course, but that’s another matter entirely.
I see - but given that Linux isn’t one thing, couldn’t we instead see regulation of for-profit distros (or distros managed by for-profits), while volunteer-based, open-source remains largely unregulated?
Sadly when the EU regulates, it’s the same for everyone across the board.
It’s a mess. They require that small, one-man operations or simple corner stores treat personal data with the same diligence that banks do, under the GDPR.The concept of scale is something that is foreign to the EU.
I have a few friends that work for the government in their countries and they say GDPR requirements is destroying their local municipalities.
The only regulation from the EU that I’ve seen makes a distinction at scale, is the Digital Markets Act.
Fair point - bureaucrats aren’t always good at nuance. :/
Although I still hold out hope that with Linux, there’s room for the open/volunteer approach + a for-profit model that results in investments/profits going back into the volunteer community. After all, Linux isn’t controlled by a corporation for proprietary purposes, like Windows is by Microsoft. We’ll see…or we won’t, if Linux never reaches any kind of mainstream status. :)
Possibly controversial point, but I don’t want Linux to go mainstream.
I like that there are very few viruses developed for Linux. I like that most countries don’t regulate Linux in the way that MacOS or Windows are regulated (I live in the EU, so I know a thing or two about regulations). This could potentially make some linux distros unsupported in some regions due to being none-compliant.
And most of all, I like that Linux apps are mostly Free as in free beer, and a labour of love for all involved.
All these things would go away if linux were to reach 10-15%+ market share. Is it really worth it to invite all this scrutiny for a chance of having hardware companies make hardware run better on linux?
How do you see Linux being regulated if it grows? I imagine that Windows and MacOS are regulated because they’re for profits that e.g. harvest our data, create proprietary limitations on apps, and so on. Genuinely curious how regulating Linux would look similar - or how it might differ.
Well, the first thing that comes to mind would be some sort of “security features” that the regulatory body might believe linux should have in order to be a mass consumer product, that the linux community might not agree with/have the structure to keep up with.
Another would be, if the EU goes ahead the introducing backdoors in encrypted communications (hopefully not), what implications could that have for the current spyware-free linux distros we use?
Overall, my concern is that more eyeballs on Linux might mean increased regulation even when it’s unwarranted because some bureaucrat needs to justify his salary. I’d rather avoid that.
I’m qute happy with where Linux is ATM. 4-5% market share means there’s enough of a market that things can develop, but not so much that regulation is used to force Linux to be a particular thing.
We can argue that Cannonical and Red Hat do force Linux in a certain direction of course, but that’s another matter entirely.
I see - but given that Linux isn’t one thing, couldn’t we instead see regulation of for-profit distros (or distros managed by for-profits), while volunteer-based, open-source remains largely unregulated?
Sadly when the EU regulates, it’s the same for everyone across the board.
It’s a mess. They require that small, one-man operations or simple corner stores treat personal data with the same diligence that banks do, under the GDPR.The concept of scale is something that is foreign to the EU.
I have a few friends that work for the government in their countries and they say GDPR requirements is destroying their local municipalities.
The only regulation from the EU that I’ve seen makes a distinction at scale, is the Digital Markets Act.
Fair point - bureaucrats aren’t always good at nuance. :/
Although I still hold out hope that with Linux, there’s room for the open/volunteer approach + a for-profit model that results in investments/profits going back into the volunteer community. After all, Linux isn’t controlled by a corporation for proprietary purposes, like Windows is by Microsoft. We’ll see…or we won’t, if Linux never reaches any kind of mainstream status. :)