979
7 years later, Valve's Proton has been an incredible game-changer for Linux
(www.gamingonlinux.com)
this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2025
979 points (99.3% liked)
Technology
74592 readers
4170 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The arguments were provided by others, I simply stated what I observed. You are right that Apple doesn't make you pay for macOS separately, but in my opinion, it's like saying that Apple processors are free because you don't pay for them when you buy a Macbook. You also don't pay for Windows separately when you buy a Windows laptop, you know, but the manufacturer is paying for Windows which is added to the overall cost of the laptop.
MacOS developers have an income, and where does that income come from?
You have to pay money to buy the computer you used to run Linux. So, by your logic, Linux isn’t free either. You see how this argument is nonsense.
And you can speculate all you like about how Apple makes money to pay for its developers. I don’t know, they make this other thing called the iPhone that seems pretty popular. I bet that makes them a lot of money.
Linux has an entirely different story.
You can also donate to them.
But what about Android? Android is definitely not paid.
Android is based on the Linux kernel, which uses the GPL license.
If you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.
Therefore, Google cannot close Android's source code, and force manufacturers to pay for it.
When you buy an Android phone, however, there are some closed-sourced components installed on them: Google Play Services, YouTube, ..., which Google can profit from.
In its earnings reports, the company combines revenue from multiple sources, under the sub-heading “Google Services”. This includes income from Android, Chrome, Maps, and hardware (like Pixel and Nest smart home devices). In the first quarter of 2022, this “services” division brought in $6.8 billion in revenue for the company. ... Oracle’s attorneys estimated that Android had generated a total of $31 billion in revenue and $22 billion in profit.
So Google does profit from Android. It's free, but Google definitely generates enough to develop Android.
Apple's situation is different from Google's. It is the sole maker of devices that run macOS, and macOS is close-sourced. It can add a price to each macOS device sold for macOS development. It would be illogical for Apple not to do this, and use the profit brought by the sale of other devices. Therefore, there's a high probability you're also paying for macOS when buying a Mac device.
Just because Linux is open source doesn’t magically mean macOS isn’t free (which it is). This reasoning is so ridiculous. And it doesn’t get any less ridiculous them or you keep repeating it. You’re wasting your time arguing with an objective fact: macOS is free.
Unless Apple starts charging for it, there is literally nothing else that will change that. I’m sorry you just can’t accept that.
Are our definitions of "free" not the same? The way I think of "free" implies that, if the cost of a CPU/RAM/operating system is added to the overall cost of a device, that CPU/RAM/operating system is not free. You are paying for it.
You're right, because you didn't read my comment carefully. I wrote, clearly, that Linux is funded. That's where the money for its development comes from.
Linux's license means Google can't close Android's source and make manufacturers pay for it, it has other ways to profit from Android.
Windows is paid.
Every major operating system has some way to obtain money for its development. The most logical thing for Apple is to add macOS's cost to the price of Mac devices. Given this definition of not-free, the probability of macOS not being free is higher.
None of this changes the fact that macOS is free
I just don’t understand why you keep wasting your time arguing objective fact.
I have written four comments here regarding this (five when I send this one). How many have you written? I won't argue over this any further. It's not worth the time, for both of us.
It’s not a competition, kiddo. But telling me you finally give up isn’t really the insult you think it is.
Bye!
AFAIK manufacturers don't have to pay for Linux And if MacOS is really free you would be able to manufacture and sell devices using it but there is not a single one
MacOS is free just like Windows is free (the license is included in your purchase of the hardware)
So yeah idk what you are smoking or if you get high just by being the most pedantic person in the lemmyverse
That’s not what free means here. “Free“ as in costs no money for the user. Can download and install it without having to pay for it. Because it is free. You’re using the word “free” to means something obviously different than what I’m talking about.
MacOS is free just like Windows is free (the license is included in your purchase of the hardware). Except windows isn’t free. It cost is enumerated on the invoice. macOS is not. Because it is free.
Obviously, you don’t know because you keep saying things that are very, obviously not true. Are you feeling OK?