If Linux was dominant it wouldn’t be Linux. There would be more pressure to monetize and there would always be someone willing to sell out for that money. You can see this even in the Linux community today. I’m sorry I had to be so negative about it though, it sounds nice.
Which is more fantastical? Unlimited profits and line going up forever in a finite world? Or capitalism actually ending so all lives can live free from subjugation?
If Linux was dominant it wouldn’t be Linux. There would be more pressure to monetize and there would always be someone willing to sell out for that money. You can see this even in the Linux community today. I’m sorry I had to be so negative about it though, it sounds nice.
This is a very Desktop/workstation-centric view of the situation and you’re completely neglecting 3/4ths of the story. Linux is alreadyhilariously dominant on the on-prem server and Cloud side of things. Like, it’s not even close. Pretty much any website you visit, the odds are overwhelming that it’s running Linux. Even Microsoft runs most of the underlying infrastructure for Azure and Github on Linux. Android is the #1 mobile phone platform in the world, which runs on, you guessed it, Linux.
And it’s already monetized to the gills. Red Hat has multi-billion earnings per quarter, every quarter, and Canonical is almost certainly going to IPO this year.
It’s already dominant in pretty much every space it touches and it has been for a very long time. Desktop/workstation is pretty much the singular exception to that.
Yeah man it’s more of what you might call an allegory for how capitalism works. Language is my thing, looks like Linux is yours. I’m sure this information will be very helpful for anyone who might read my post and mistake me for an expert. Thanks for your service.
Who, exactly, do you think would “sell out for money”, and why would they have the power to do so? Linux is huge, and the pressure to monetize is there now. Plenty of people have been trying to monetize Linux - and in many cases, succeeding - for decades now. Why do you think being dominant would change that?
It’s more complicated to make money producing FOSS, capitalism or not. Lots of reasonable developers would still choose closed source even without capitalism.
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.
Dirty secret is that FOSS is a product of capitalism and nothing else.
A bunch of nerds being allowed to own and control the means of production created personal computers while the central planners in both communist countries and big companies both thought it was a dumb idea. A bunch of nerds being allowed to own and control the means of production meant that someone could decide to release their product free with source code. Private ownership of intellectual property such as source code allowed people to release their privately owned code under a license specifying that changes must be made public.
From there, the proof in the pudding is in the eating. How many FOSS projects do you use, and who made them?
I mean.... More computers run Linux or gun hurd than virtually any other OS at this point... Virtually every phone, virtually every smart device -- my smart light bulbs run Linux! My ptz camera ran Linux! A lot of smart televisions run Linux!
Slap some buttons down and have them do math. I made an NPC generator for every RPG I ran in VB as a teen. I felt like I was a hero putting out something that looked “good” for the time.
About 20 developers on one repo in my case, we use a rebase merge strategy with fairly small feature branches so I think that helps keep merge conflicts down. Another thing is our codebase is LARGE, so changes don’t often conflict.
I see… No one cares here and everyone just merges randomly. We have about 20 people working on one repo as well but a lot of times it’s the changes to the same file 😭
Geeksforgeeks, I agree because of the paywall. I’m a beginner and I guess I don’t see the problem with W3Schools yet. What are better resources beyond the official documentation?
I always use MDN if I need to check anything JS related. For React, I don’t see why use anything else other than the official documentation. If you’re learning I’d suggest Full Stack Open or even Odin Project which are courses that at least bother to explain a little of best practices.
Generally I’m not against w3 schools for quickly checking the syntax of something or how to use a specific method, but I always try stay clear of their larger code examples.
I was learning PHP a couple years back for some hobby side projects I was working on. They provide some code here about how to connect to an SQL database. I ended up using this code for almost a year on some publicly hosted sites.
The code they provided isn’t secure, though. It can output database errors to the client, and give away information about your database which a random user shouldn’t have access to.
Additionally, the beginning few pages for their SQL insertion examples doesn’t mention anywhere that you should be using prepared statements. There is a page slightly further down, but for the average person learning the language, there’s no reason for them not to just copy parts the extremely insecure code and use it in their projects.
W3 schools imo is great for quickly checking up on something, but generally it’s probably better to avoid their examples and look up the language standards somewhere else.
programmer_humor
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.