Does anyone else remember when Ubuntu releases felt...significant? Since 12.04 changes have felt incremental.
I want to pay for my Linux.
I’d write a wishlist but anyone could write another one, but I’d take any OS that convinces me to pay $300 a year.
I’d pay for anything as nice as macOS (with the old control panel). I pay that price for my IDE and an OS is worth way more, open-source at that, which actually advances humanity. Linux is the VIIth wonder of the human civilization, a demonstration of human selflessness, as opposed to Windows, Linux will be here in 50 years becauE OSS is a donation of code to our children; Also no human construction has ever been so widespread across the world and even on other planets (Linux is powering the helicopter flying on Mars), of course I wish I could pay for… for a Linux that made me productive, not like Ubuntu.
Also paying means it would actually receive good marketing teams.
Is this not the theory behind Red Hat?
You're welcome to use that $300/year to sponsor individual projects / developers.
Go for it: https://ubuntu.com/pro/subscribe.
It’s been systematic that each time someone says “I’d pay for a good linux”, they’re given the link as if to assume we’re not already paying. You forgot that I want a nice OS in exchange.
Moreover, I left Ubuntu. It’s software that I can’t be convinced to use even if it were free. Canonical’s choices (with Unity at the time, but also the mouse issue, and so on) are of the rare kind that they can convince someone to uninstall it and go buy 2x more expensive hardware to run macOS.
What’s missing is, I’d pay good money, but I don’t want to fiddle around with the OS. I’d pay for the betterment of the OS, but with distribs, if you pay, you’re still not the customer.
And I pay for Debian. But it’s not my desktop OS.
> It’s been systematic that each time someone says “I’d pay for a good linux”, they’re given the link as if to assume we’re not already paying.
Sorry, maybe I misunderstood what you said. You said that "you want to pay". "Wanting to pay" kind of implies that you don't pay today but you would if given an option. I simply thought you were being a jerk. Thanks for clarifying. No offence.
> You forgot that I want a nice OS in exchange.
Ah, special wishes. The guy next to you wants something that looks like ... beos. Or windows. It's all customizable. You know how it works because
> And I pay for Debian. But it’s not my desktop OS.
You don't want to, you already pay for some Linux distribution. Apologies, it's difficult to predict what you wanted to say when so much context is missing :)
Everyone has special requests, especially around the idea of having a decent UI that doesn’t make you lose heaps of time with Linux, and as I said, what Linux lacks is proper PMs and marketing guys who would sort and address these UX issues.
And fewer obnoxious mobs who just give you the link to pay up and ask you to shut up about your special requests.
That's... let's go with unlikely to happen.
All of those were pretty major changes and definitely not just incremental. And that is just top of my head, I probably missed lot of things. On the other hand, most gnome2 era releases are pretty much a blur in my mind. What to you made those feel more significant?
> addition of zfs, snap, livepatch, lxd, and dropping 32bit support.
For AAPL investors - every version after that is more "significant", especially after OS X was renamed to macOS and dark mode was used to keep nose-y media out of anti-privacy changes like user being informed what is "shared with Apple" instead of being asked whether anything should be "shared with Apple".
Downhill after that - children are used in hideous manner by Cook to invade users' privacy, like scanning and profiling their files as a pretense of looking for child porn. I find Cook's use of child porn argument to spy on all users absolutely disgusting.