By making it free, equally stable, and updated to deal with modern hardware and security issues?
By making it ubiquitous enough to have a wealth of software available for it and a ton of resources, including documentation, for it?
By making it available to the mass of people who are interested in editing, improving, and supporting it?
By being large enough to get OEMs interested in supporting it with things like drivers and other compatibility issues?
You know, to name a few reasons. ;-)
Keep in mind that I'm an old Unix user - from many years ago. I do love me some Unix, and spent years working pretty closely with DEC and, eventually, Sun - as in a partner relationship 'cause we had some pretty intensive computation needs.
So, I do love me some Unix - but Linux is (today) a better choice. The BSD family is also a good choice - but they're just Unix-like and aren't actually Unix. MacOS is also Unix-like, but not really Unix. Most Unixes are pretty much dead and are being used in a very limited space. Most of that workload has long since been taken over by Linux.
To try to put this into perspective...
In every possible way (except aesthetics) a 2018 Honda Accord is better than a 1960 Chevy Corvette. By every possible objective metric - every last one, including performance metrics, the Accord is a better car.
Subjectively, we may prefer the old Corvette. Subjectively, it may look better.
However, the modern Accord has a better 0 to 60, lateral acceleration, efficiency, reliability, safety, carries more, has more features, is more comfortable, handles better, etc...
Today, Unix is the old Corvette. Linux is the modern Honda Accord.
While as usual I can't argue against your point, some of us still prefer the corvette. A 2018 accord may be nice and it may perform better but it has some downsides too, all the monitoring and you can't get into the ECU to change anything. Now this doesn't really translate to linux as on linux you can pretty much change anything you want. However modern linux does have its downside, ubuntu's partnership with microsoft for example.
My point being that its not exactly all that clear cut, each choice has its advantages.
This may sound strange, but I don't actually dislike Microsoft.
Based on my understanding and observations, we'd have not had the personal computing revolution without them.
Now, they could have done things better and they've done a shitton of things straight up wrong - but I believe that they have been an overwhelming positive to computation. Without Microsoft, I'm not sure we'd be anywhere near as advanced as we are today.
Consider that the vast majority of personal computers, throughout all of history, were built specifically to run Windows and Microsoft products. It was that ecosystem that enabled the proliferation of ideas, ideals, and alternatives.
So, I don't hate them.
I also have zero moral qualms about people (or businesses) choosing to keep their software closed source. It does, after all, belong to them.
Don't get me started on RMS! I know him personally. I don't really like him - but he's often right. He also doesn't smell. I just have fundamentally different ideas about freedom. Given his choices, he'd force all software to be open source. He'd outlaw proprietary software. He'd take away your right to author closed-source software.
I can not agree with that. He's personally an authoritarian prick and his actions have directly have negative impacts on my work. We went to MIT together. He pretty much usurped the entire computer department and did stupid shit like force/cajole people into not using passwords or all using the same passwords.
He's a zealot and I don't really like zealots, as a general rule.
But, I have no issues with closed source software.
In this very instance, I use VMware - instead of VirtualBox. I pay for the closed source solution - as I simply prefer it. I am glad that I have that option.
I also pay for Acronis, for another example.
They are not morally, ethically, or legally obligated to let me have access to their code. For me to say they are would mean that I put my rights, simply as a consumer, above their rights as creators. They made it. They should have the right to control it.
(They should be obligated to inform, and they do, people of their rights before they use the software.)
So, that's a short version of why I don't actually hate Microsoft. I don't use their products very often, but that's a choice that I made.
Oh I don't hate microsoft(even though I will often say I do) I know that without them we would not have modern computing the way we do today. I hate a lot of the stuff they do(windows 10 telemetry anyone) I support closed source software as much as open source software, you've mentioned your interactions with RMS before. He sounds like someone that would be interesting to interact with. If you get a chance tell him about poal! I'll argue closed source software with him all day long.
Obviously people should have the right to choose when they create something if they want to keep it closed or open it up for everyone. Freedom of Speech I think is part of that somewhere.
(post is archived)