Theoretically but Apple is so hostile to gaming that generally they cant
Theoretically but Apple is so hostile to gaming that generally they cant
Your question is reasonable, most people are not aware of CPU architectures
RiscV is a fundamentally different story then Arm, currently speaking RiscV is not there yet however I have more hope in the future of RiscV then Arm. Both hardware and software side RiscV is not ready however the idea of a fully open source computer still excites me. I understand however that I may be speaking more out of idealism and im certainly biased however I still hope that RiscV overtakes Arm.
You’re still paying an insane amount of money for something that can basically only do basic document editing and web browsing.
The Arm architecture (Arm_64) which powers Apple and Snapdragon in comparison to AMD_64 (x86_64) which powers Intel and AMD (Intel created x86 and AMD created x86_64)
Arm on Laptops and Desktops
Native repos > AUR > compile from source > Flatpak
Nuh uh, obviously its AmogOS
It should be default, its a good security practice and not every app needs super user permissions.
Its a lot harder and can do significantly less damage if it doesnt have root privileges, its like how putting a lock on the door to your house wont stop thieves but its better then not having one.
Thats why on Linux you need to run the sudo command and type the root password (or user password) to install something. I get this isn’t Linux but its a serious security vulnerability that someone could run a super user level command by clicking yes on a confirmation box that pops up so often that nobody thinks twice.
Counterpoint it would be the year of the Linux desktop if we all agreed on
Arch is extremely easy to install
:3
They would rather make it harder for people to access their content rather than making it easier to be a paying customer
It means less freedom for developers but has proved that it provides more freedom for users. Does MacOS have an open source version? No but ChromeOS and Android do (ChromiumOS and ASOP respectively). Even when companies make a proprietary fork of Linux they still contribute massively in terms of code, not just money.
Because on Linux the vast majority of its users run a complete operating system under the GPL, meanwhile on FreeBSD the vast majority of people use a proprietary dirivitive. Also significantly more companies sponsor Linux and it’s not even comparable.
The closest FreeBSD has to users is its proprietary derivatives, at this point FreeBSD might as well be considered proprietary.
I’m saying that when code is open source it helps the open source ecosystem and when using open source code means contributing your modifications everyone benefits.
Personally I believe that the rights of users to privacy and freedom are more important then a corporations right to use open source software to make proprietary software. There’s a reason why nobody uses FreeBSD and why Linux is the dominant open source operating system.
Fuck spez