• tias
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I mean canonical also tries to monetize its users. The problem is more shareholders who want profit than the software being proprietary.

    • summerof69@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Canonical has nothing to do with Arch Linux, so I don’t see what’s the issue.

      • tias
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        And I don’t see why Arch is relevant to the discussion. My point is that software being non-proprietary is not a guarantee for preventing fuckery like Microsoft’s. Profit-maximizing companies will maximize their profits, proprietary software or not. Canonical, which sells a non-proprietary Linux distribution, is an example of this.

    • umbrella@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      yeah, ive been meaning to switch, but it doesnt really compare in sheer quantity of little crappy things stacked on top of one another.

      i think the main thing though, is that i can switch away from ubuntu and still be on same ol linux. and switching the rare stuff i dont like is as easy as doing it once and never worrying again.