35
submitted 1 day ago by cm0002@lemy.lol to c/linux@programming.dev
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] LadyMeow@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago

Did you read it?

I’m talking about this part:

that's just even more confusing for people picking between Linux distributions and desktop environments.

Being exempt from building or using the system doesn't save Linux and open source from being locked out of the room by companies who then require it by law.

Which seems to imply that they think open source projects should do it because they will face adoption issue. Which might be true, but really we need to stop these laws from happening in the first place. I will grant that the poster does not attribute foot nor bad to the situation.

[-] Scoopta@programming.dev 4 points 1 day ago

but really we need to stop these laws from happening in the first place. I will grant that the poster does not attribute foot nor bad to the situation.

What I think everyone is trying to tell you is that nobody is disagreeing with this sentiment. These laws are bad, I doubt the poster of the article would disagree. What is trying to be said here is if these laws go into affect (which is bad), and they exempt Linux (which seems good), they will quite possibly condemn Linux to an even smaller niche of tech nerds than it already belongs to and that is bad for Linux being a desktop platform, and it may be better for Linux to comply for its survival as a desktop platform. That is all that's being said here, nobody is arguing the merits of the laws.

this post was submitted on 27 May 2026
35 points (75.4% liked)

Linux

13801 readers
320 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS