I’m not sure you need data to understand that if more people use a product, there’s a greater chance someone will develop FOSS for it, as FOSS developers tend to also be users.
The BSDs don’t have the dev resources of Linux simply because Linux has a much larger install base.
Really?
I don’t think OpenBSD is as funded as Debian but it could maintain software like OpenSSH (even the portable version for Linux and Windows); LibreSSL (still not much used, but funded because of this), OpenSMTPD.
But OpenBSD can maintain its ports which in my opinion is relatively large (no update for -release, sorry :) ). And base. For so many hardware platform. Even VAX until 6.9
Proprietary software is one of the last anchors holding people to Windows or macOS.
Ideally, people would switch to FOSS alternatives on a FOSS OS, but proprietary software on top of a FOSS OS is better than FOSS software on a proprietary OS.
Also, people are going to charge for software in some form or fashion. The economic model would need to change in order to allow people to develop software without any economic motives.
But why do we want more proprietary software running on Linux?
You’re right, there’s downsides for the FOSS community, but it’s much better for many individuals.
Usability, accessibility and privacy for a user is better when any proprietary software, that they cannot avoid, can at least run relatively sandboxed inside an OS they have control over.
Wouldn’t we be recreating the same situation that Windows has?
Good point, but thankfully, an open OS mitigates these issues a great deal.
The difference is that, with a base FOSS OS, you’re not locked in to an flavor you don’t like. Dislike the way Ubuntu is headed? Switch to Debian, Pop, or Mint and use the same exact programs you’re used to. If you dislike Windows 11, you’ve only got a few years before you’re forced to switch to it. Makes it much easier for them to force shitty decisions.
More adoption of Linux also means more incentive for FOSS projects to support it. Yes, it also means more proprietary software, but the truth is that most people don’t care what kind of software they use as long as it works for them. At least Linux can’t become beholden to the demands of that software.
People don’t like frequently dual-booting or switching operating systems. If someone needs a specific program for work, and that program only works on windows, chances are they will only use windows.
Many people have to use proprietary software at work, which means most computers for work have to run windows. If linux can get enough marketshare to get support for the necessary programs that people have to use, that will free them up to not use windows at all.
But why do we want more proprietary software running on Linux? Wouldn’t we be recreating the same situation that Windows has?
Edit: Why downvote me instead of replying with a reason why I’m “wrong” or discussing further? Is Lemmy turning into Reddit already?
There’s also more chances of FOSS being developed for Linux if more people use it. FOSS is better the more popular it gets.
This seems like wishful thinking to me. Is there any data that supports that with more users comes more FOSS developers?
I’m not sure you need data to understand that if more people use a product, there’s a greater chance someone will develop FOSS for it, as FOSS developers tend to also be users.
Bigger platforms attract more devs.
The BSDs don’t have the dev resources of Linux simply because Linux has a much larger install base.
Really?
I don’t think OpenBSD is as funded as Debian but it could maintain software like OpenSSH (even the portable version for Linux and Windows); LibreSSL (still not much used, but funded because of this), OpenSMTPD.
But OpenBSD can maintain its ports which in my opinion is relatively large (no update for -release, sorry :) ). And base. For so many hardware platform. Even VAX until 6.9
Yeah, really. OpenBSD punches above its weight. There are many things they would like todo, but don’t have the resources.
Proprietary software is one of the last anchors holding people to Windows or macOS.
Ideally, people would switch to FOSS alternatives on a FOSS OS, but proprietary software on top of a FOSS OS is better than FOSS software on a proprietary OS.
Also, people are going to charge for software in some form or fashion. The economic model would need to change in order to allow people to develop software without any economic motives.
You’re right, there’s downsides for the FOSS community, but it’s much better for many individuals.
Usability, accessibility and privacy for a user is better when any proprietary software, that they cannot avoid, can at least run relatively sandboxed inside an OS they have control over.
Good point, but thankfully, an open OS mitigates these issues a great deal.
The difference is that, with a base FOSS OS, you’re not locked in to an flavor you don’t like. Dislike the way Ubuntu is headed? Switch to Debian, Pop, or Mint and use the same exact programs you’re used to. If you dislike Windows 11, you’ve only got a few years before you’re forced to switch to it. Makes it much easier for them to force shitty decisions.
More adoption of Linux also means more incentive for FOSS projects to support it. Yes, it also means more proprietary software, but the truth is that most people don’t care what kind of software they use as long as it works for them. At least Linux can’t become beholden to the demands of that software.
People don’t like frequently dual-booting or switching operating systems. If someone needs a specific program for work, and that program only works on windows, chances are they will only use windows.
Many people have to use proprietary software at work, which means most computers for work have to run windows. If linux can get enough marketshare to get support for the necessary programs that people have to use, that will free them up to not use windows at all.