Anyone with a real job in a moderately Big Co. can tell you that.
Look at the who's who of the Linux foundation and it's all the big tech lackeys deciding everything. Even very questionable companies like Huawei are highly represented. I don't call that anti-corporate.
The Linux foundation is not equal to Linux. The entire point of the Linux foundation is to interface with the rest of the world's beuracracies, corporations included. Anyone can be represented by putting in the work and putting up the cash.
Ultimately corporate garbage rarely leaks into the kernel proper. Most of the filth is off in driver land, which isn't even that bad given it's always going to be a vendor landfill.
That is an extremely Americanized take on that awful member list. Is Intel's history of being anticompetitive better? How about their presence in Israel? Is Meta better? Microsoft?
To a non-American, many (most) of those companies are worse than Huawei. Actually, any company who share user data with the government (as shown by Snowden) is much worse than Huawei.
Implicit bias exposed by trying to remove Huawei from the list of companies that share data with their government, combined with whataboutism trying to distract from the meaning of the comment by focusing on a minor item provided as an example.
However GPL software being corporate-friendly can be a good thing if it leads to "exvestments" into public goods that create alternatives to corporate software (such as with Linux) in ways that are not direct investments into corporate aims
That doesn't minimise the impact of open-source software.
I've yet to see an Apple user who doesn't install brew as a first step before doing anything with their computer.
From what I see, people may love Apple's OS, but they can't use it with without open-source tools.
Most Apple users don't even know what brew is, and I'd be willing to bet that most devs using Macs don't install it either.
Anyway, the larger point that gnome can't succeed because it doesn't offer "choice" is nonsense.
I moved away from Apple too for this reason in fact.
There's a whole industry of little apps that let you fix things about MacOS that doesn't really exist on Windows. Rectangle, Karabiner Elements, SteerMouse, SteerMouse, etc.
Gnome copies the worst things about MacOS.
Apple are designed to look cool, not to BE cool.
Because Preview works, KPDF works and Gview behaved weird or in the wrong way most of the time
Apple builds the automatic car by removing the gear shift, Gnome builds it by removing the gas pedal and just having a button called "Go" which makes you go at 10mph
This means that under the hood, using extensions, you can customize that Gnome car. Can an Apple automatic car do that as easily?
So between the Apple automatic and Gnome "pick customizations" I know which one I prefer (and yes Apple does have extensions, settings, etc). Yes, there won't be a perfect solution and sometimes you kinda miss some minor thing but it is minor.
For example, looking at: https://extensions.gnome.org/#page=2 there's Date and Time formatter (you can do that in Apple) and "Sound Input & Output Device Chooser" which you can do by going in settings in Apple - but it doesn't matter most of the time because the out of box experience works almost perfectly
If I'll ever buy a Mac (and I can't imagine why) I'd want to totally change its windows management and make it as close as possible to Gnome 2 and Windows XP, with virtual desktops (Gnome 2 had them.) I would probably disable all gestures except scrolling and zooming.
I'd also shed tears about the lack of physical buttons on the touchpad but that starts to be about the hardware, which is off-topic.
In contrast, KDE also supports extensions but I've never needed any because it's so configurable.
Which, btw, means that you can never overtake anyone while going up, unless your engine is 2x of the power it'd need with gears.
Sure, with a few setbacks (cue 4.0 nightmares) but overall their technological choices (Qt in primis), architecture and quality of contributors won the battle.
Gnome used to be way more polished at the Gnome 2 vs KDE 3 era but kind of lost its way over time.
It's definitely not about unchangeable defaults vs configuration (there's a market for both).
I think in fact the corporate interests already get 99% of everything they want and they simply don't care for a cohesive desktop OS.
What would that look like, then?
And in this particular case, it reminds me of Red Hat and CentOS actually. Because one project just wants to ensure that people who download <name brand> are actually getting <name brand> and not something else. That concern is just as valid in open source as it is in big enterprise.
They already serve 99% of corporate interests. A "takeover" would sacrifice the veil of what the propagandized "open source community" interprets as corporate egalitarianism.