If you want free software to take off...

You always have the freedom to stop using propriety software and use a (often functionally inferior) free equivalent. Looks like freedom to me. What human rights are being violated?

You really are lost, aren't you?

Nobody. Else. Cares.

I am using and will continue to use proprietary software, and if you want me to use free software, it must compete on it's own merits. No "b-b-but it's free!" get out of jail cards.

Obviously if you stop using it then it's not a problem. But proprietary software uses many tricks to keep it so you can't switch to something else, this is called vendor lock-in.

Vendor lock-in can be insidious. For example, Windows keeps users locked in by actually being compatible with most software, unlike Linux.

No, you misunderstand, it is I who does not care about you. If you want to give up your freedom that's your loss. And indeed, if you don't care about your freedom, then it's very apparent that you would easily give it up in exchange for whatever you perceive as merit. To put that in perspective, for most zoomer smartphone apps these days, "merit" seems to mean "it has 100 new emojis". Nevermind that the app spies on you and forbids you from disabling the spying. Is some emojis really worth giving up your freedom?

You have it backwards, it's the software which is incompatible with other OSes. If the software was free as in freedom, it would be a lot easier to port to another OS.

>Is some emojis really worth giving up your freedom?
Maybe if freetards actually accepted that some people say "yes" to this, they could implement basic features into free software. Refusing to be competitive because you think you have a moral high ground only results in your software being uncompetitive.

>No, you misunderstand, it is I who does not care about you.
what is "reason why linux has fewer users than palm os"

I can't help that people are going to say yes to that and I'm not going to waste my own time by pandering to them. If you want to be a person who doesn't say yes to that then take the first step by saying no.

Linux is a kernel, and your statement is false because Android.

I've already said this and I'll say it again. Produce competitive free software and you'll get users and support. Continue to fail at producing competitive software, and the Linux community will continue shrinking. Eventually, Linux will be nothing more than a GPL kernel used in a variety of proprietary systems, like Android. You will lose everything you've worked for if you don't produce actual, competitive products.

Do you want a future where free software exists, or not?

Since you're obviously autistic, I'll take the time to explain this clearly for you. In my post I use the term "Linux" as a larger catch-all for free Linux based operating systems. These are called, by their creators, "Linux distributions". Either you knew that and wish to be obtuse, or you don't know the first thing about Linux.

Proprietary software can never compete with free software in the one dimension that matters the most, which is freedom. So I'm not really worried because in a free society, proprietary software will always lose. But if for some reason our society became less free, and there was no free software, I simply wouldn't use a computer.

>So I'm not really worried because in a free society, proprietary software will always lose.
Jesus fucking Christ you people are actually religious. This is literal cultist logic. "Worry not dear, for if we act justly, the Prophet will reveal the path to the Year of the Linux Desktop".

As Linux distributions fall further behind Windows and MacOS in every measurable aspect, you will continue to lose ground. The current Linux desktop marketshare is below 1%, and dropping.

>Linux based operating systems
Android fits that description.
I don't suggest using the term "Linux" for anything besides the kernel because otherwise it is incredibly confusing and requires a long explanation for what you actually meant, as you have demonstrated.

I don't care what the marketshare is because I am not here to sell you anything. There is no religion. My observation is very basic, which is that throughout history, societies become more free over time. This is because in the past, the people saw that this was good, and worked towards it. I don't want to live in an oppressive society. Do you?

>Societies become more free over time
No, it's cyclical. The Catholic Church in the early medieval period was far more moralist and authoritarian than the Roman Empire that preceded it, which was more authoritarian than the Roman Republic.

I don't find it useful to compare two societies like that, I look at history as a whole.

Hello Stallman

>on its own merits; without crutching in "it's free!"
"it's free" ***IS*** a feature. mental gymnastics aside, freedom comes with many practical benefits.

aeiou

>get someone else
Delegation of work and expectation of free labour. Yay communism.
What freedom? The freedom to make and use 100 different crappy programs that do the same thing as opposed to everyone contributing to the top 3?

I would actually say most free software is better quality, professional commercial software is typically absurdly bad crapware. The main problem is free software devs do not make programs that people want to use. 3d modeling is a good example, most of the major programs run on linux but a handful of critical programs are windows only and have no competitors or practical alternatives. Trying to get open source devs to work on something highly demanded among non-developers is extremely difficult.