Skip to content

7 years later, Valve's Proton has been an incredible game-changer for Linux

Technology
264 107 138
  • To be extremely pedantic, there's licensing costs involved with a bunch of 3rd party libraries included in the OS (HDR, h265, radios, etc), but they cover those royalties / fees via hardware sales and the license to use it follows the hardware

    That’s a pretty specific and bolt claim. Presumably, you have proof of this? I doubt it, because this sounds like, at best, a guess.

    Because every piece of evidence is that the license to use macOS is free. In fact, if you claim otherwise, then please, show me where I could possibly pay for it.

    Any windows license always cost money.

    That’s the difference between “free” and not free”. One cost money, and the other one does not.

  • does turbotax support linux?

    No but I think the point being made is that people that have been clinging to Win 10 as a refuge from the crapfest that Win 11 is are going to start running into significant problems soon. Increasingly you're not going to be able to get software for Windows 10. A lot of people are opting to migrate to Linux rather than going from Win 10 to Win 11, and as the holdouts on 10 are increasingly corned some amount of them will make the same decision.

  • Compatibility has nothing to do with how much something costs. The fact is, there’s no way to actually buy macOS. Because it doesn’t cost anything.

    As I’ve said elsewhere, by your logic, every operating system cost money to run because you have to pay money for a compatible device to run it on.

    You’re just drawing some imaginary line at Apple. That makes no sense.

    You're missing the core point: Compatibility directly impacts accessibility.
    Just because something doesn't have a price tag doesn’t mean it's actually usable without cost.
    macOS is only 'free' if you already bought into Apple’s walled garden.
    That’s like saying Disneyland is free because walking around inside the park costs nothing—after you paid $150 to get in.

  • That’s a pretty specific and bolt claim. Presumably, you have proof of this? I doubt it, because this sounds like, at best, a guess.

    Because every piece of evidence is that the license to use macOS is free. In fact, if you claim otherwise, then please, show me where I could possibly pay for it.

    Any windows license always cost money.

    That’s the difference between “free” and not free”. One cost money, and the other one does not.

    It's paid for as a part of the hardware and not listed separately on the receipts. All those 3rd party components in the OS are not free and has to be paid for. That comes from the hardware sale.

    You agree that the terms of this License will apply to any Apple-branded application
    software product that may be preinstalled on your Apple-branded hardware

    you are granted a limited, non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at any one time.

    to download, install, use and run for personal, non-commercial use, one (1) copy of the Apple
    Software directly on each Apple-branded computer running macOS Sonoma, macOS Ventura, macOS Monterey, macOS Big Sur, macOS Catalina, macOS Mojave, or macOS High Sierra
    (“Mac Computer”) that you own or control

    and you agree not to, install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or to enable others to do so.

    You're only allowed to use Mac OS and software for it on a Mac computer, which you have to pay for.

    The license additionally calls out included 3rd party licensed fonts which which you can't use unrestricted without a specific license from the market of that font

  • I don’t see how cars and engines have anything to do with the fact that macOS is free.

    And, yeah, if it’s not listed on a receipt as something I paid for, you can’t argue that I paid for it. Or that anyone did. That’s absurd.

    If including it with a paid product has a cost for the manufacturer, then you did pay for it as a part of the price of the product which you did pay for.

  • macOS has been free for, like, 15 years.

    Yes, you have to already own an Apple computer, but Apple users don’t pay for OS upgrades.

    Technically, anyone could download the OS images, but there’s not a lot that non-Apple users can do with them.

    Are you ASD? I'm not saying MacOS isn't free man since anyone can get a copy and use virtual PC. I'm saying I will never get a Mac because they are too damned expensive.

    Nuance, man. Nuance.

  • That’s a pretty specific and bolt claim. Presumably, you have proof of this? I doubt it, because this sounds like, at best, a guess.

    Because every piece of evidence is that the license to use macOS is free. In fact, if you claim otherwise, then please, show me where I could possibly pay for it.

    Any windows license always cost money.

    That’s the difference between “free” and not free”. One cost money, and the other one does not.

    Here you go https://www.cnx-software.com/2017/10/30/h-265-hevc-license-pricing-updated-for-low-cost-devices/

    The license to use macOS is not free. You must run it on a Macintosh computer and, keeping in terms of the license, cannot be run on non-Macintosh hardware. You must therefore purchase a Macintosh computer to use macOS. See Page 2, Section 2 of the Software License Agreement.

    You keep repeating this argument of "show me where I can possibly pay for it" presumably because you know that it is not for sale and this is common knowledge.

    What is being omitted here is that because anyone has the ability to put a PC of their own components together, Microsoft has two roads for these people: give Windows away where Microsoft sees none of that money back, or sell you a license to use Windows - they choose the second option. This is why you can buy a license for Windows. If you could only use prebuilt machines and were unable to make your own PC, the license cost would be passed onto the manufacturer and thus amortised in the final sale price, and you would also not have the ability to purchase a Windows license directly

    Apple doesn't need to do these extra steps because they are both the software vendor and manufacturer, thus the development costs associated in macOS is also amortised in the final sale price.

    Please stop defending a trillion dollar corporation over specific pedantics and omissions. macOS is complementary software, it is not free.

  • Yeah, the big reason to do that was so you could attach an EGPU which wasn’t supported natively. Now it is, though, so the need for that mostly disappeared. Plus, macOS is now so reliant on proprietary interval hardware like the T2 chip, then I won’t run on anything, but Apple hardware.

    eGPUs? I ran a Hackintosh because Apple didn't sell hardware in the configuration I wanted. Less to do with GPUs and more to do with the lack of hard drive slots or PCIe slots. I had a nice workflow with some pieces of shareware that slowly lost support with each major OS update and every major update also came with less customizing for Finder. By the time they switched to their own ARM chips, I was ready to drop it. Apple's idea of game support was just mobile shit anyway. They should have become partnered with Valve on Proton.

  • You're missing the core point: Compatibility directly impacts accessibility.
    Just because something doesn't have a price tag doesn’t mean it's actually usable without cost.
    macOS is only 'free' if you already bought into Apple’s walled garden.
    That’s like saying Disneyland is free because walking around inside the park costs nothing—after you paid $150 to get in.

    I cannot believe there is this long, drawn out argument over whether MacOS is free or not when my intention was MacOS + Mac = me not buying because it's too much money for a meh system that doesn't run half of the games or apps (though that's been changing).

    I feel like reading between the lines is a skill, or an art form that has gone extinct with young folk.

  • Ok, that makes a bit more sense then.

    eGPUs got pretty good support on Intel Macs in the years leading up to Apple Silicon. And that transition started 5+ years ago. And now all Apple Silicon Macs have no eGPU support.

    I find it weird that you cite eGPU support since hackintoshes almost always have PCI slots. And the eGPU support still comes from Apple (at the driver level) even on a hackintosh. AFAIK.

    I did a little digging. It seems like mainline Apple hardware with Thunderbolt 2 had limited eGPU support because of bandwidth constraints. Thunderbolt 3 had full support.

  • Well, then show me a receipt where you (or anyone) paid for macOS. Should be interesting.

    So when someone buys [anything] with a screen, the OS on the screen if free?

    I don't have a receipt for the OS in my car, so it means I must've gotten it for free. Same with the seats, steering wheel, mirrors, buttons, doors, you bang it! But what did I actually pay for then?

  • As they need to be installed on Apple hardware, there's an implicit cost associated with it.

    If you want to be super pedantic for no reason, you're correct, it is technically free.

    Is hackintosh not still a thing? Did they neuter it somehow? Or are we just not considering that since it's a pain in the ass to set up and works out of the box on a very limited selection of hardware?

  • So when someone buys [anything] with a screen, the OS on the screen if free?

    I don't have a receipt for the OS in my car, so it means I must've gotten it for free. Same with the seats, steering wheel, mirrors, buttons, doors, you bang it! But what did I actually pay for then?

    I never said that. But it does show how this black-and-white all the nothing approach makes no sense.

    macOS is free because it’s free.

  • Here you go https://www.cnx-software.com/2017/10/30/h-265-hevc-license-pricing-updated-for-low-cost-devices/

    The license to use macOS is not free. You must run it on a Macintosh computer and, keeping in terms of the license, cannot be run on non-Macintosh hardware. You must therefore purchase a Macintosh computer to use macOS. See Page 2, Section 2 of the Software License Agreement.

    You keep repeating this argument of "show me where I can possibly pay for it" presumably because you know that it is not for sale and this is common knowledge.

    What is being omitted here is that because anyone has the ability to put a PC of their own components together, Microsoft has two roads for these people: give Windows away where Microsoft sees none of that money back, or sell you a license to use Windows - they choose the second option. This is why you can buy a license for Windows. If you could only use prebuilt machines and were unable to make your own PC, the license cost would be passed onto the manufacturer and thus amortised in the final sale price, and you would also not have the ability to purchase a Windows license directly

    Apple doesn't need to do these extra steps because they are both the software vendor and manufacturer, thus the development costs associated in macOS is also amortised in the final sale price.

    Please stop defending a trillion dollar corporation over specific pedantics and omissions. macOS is complementary software, it is not free.

    You sent me the license of agreement for a completely different piece of software and think that’s evidence of macOS costing money?

    Are you hallucinating?

  • Are you ASD? I'm not saying MacOS isn't free man since anyone can get a copy and use virtual PC. I'm saying I will never get a Mac because they are too damned expensive.

    Nuance, man. Nuance.

    Exactly what nuance is there to blatant insults and ableism?

  • If including it with a paid product has a cost for the manufacturer, then you did pay for it as a part of the price of the product which you did pay for.

    That’s a guess, not evidence of your claim.

  • It's paid for as a part of the hardware and not listed separately on the receipts. All those 3rd party components in the OS are not free and has to be paid for. That comes from the hardware sale.

    You agree that the terms of this License will apply to any Apple-branded application
    software product that may be preinstalled on your Apple-branded hardware

    you are granted a limited, non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at any one time.

    to download, install, use and run for personal, non-commercial use, one (1) copy of the Apple
    Software directly on each Apple-branded computer running macOS Sonoma, macOS Ventura, macOS Monterey, macOS Big Sur, macOS Catalina, macOS Mojave, or macOS High Sierra
    (“Mac Computer”) that you own or control

    and you agree not to, install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or to enable others to do so.

    You're only allowed to use Mac OS and software for it on a Mac computer, which you have to pay for.

    The license additionally calls out included 3rd party licensed fonts which which you can't use unrestricted without a specific license from the market of that font

    You have to agree to that same license agreement even if you download macOS from Apple’s website without paying for it. So I still don’t see what in the world you’re talking about except for twisting yourself into pretzels to make sense of your nonsense argument.

  • Exactly what nuance is there to blatant insults and ableism?

    Yep. Definitely ASD. Concrete thinking. Hyperfixation. Inability to pick up on social cues, online or not.

    Thanks for confirming it for me, bud.

  • You're missing the core point: Compatibility directly impacts accessibility.
    Just because something doesn't have a price tag doesn’t mean it's actually usable without cost.
    macOS is only 'free' if you already bought into Apple’s walled garden.
    That’s like saying Disneyland is free because walking around inside the park costs nothing—after you paid $150 to get in.

    You’re missing the point: macOS is free. Just because you have to buy hardware to run it on doesn’t make it any different than any other free operating system like Linux. There’s plenty of hardware that doesn’t support Linux , too, so your argument, especially falls apart there.

  • You’re missing the point: macOS is free. Just because you have to buy hardware to run it on doesn’t make it any different than any other free operating system like Linux. There’s plenty of hardware that doesn’t support Linux , too, so your argument, especially falls apart there.

    There’s a massive difference: Linux doesn’t require you to buy specific hardware from a specific vendor to legally run it. macOS does.
    With Linux, if your hardware isn’t supported, it’s a technical limitation. With macOS, it’s an intentional restriction enforced by Apple through both legal terms (EULA) and hardware locks.

    That's the difference between open and closed systems. Linux lets you try on anything—even if it might not fit perfectly. Apple forces you to buy their clothes before you're allowed in the store.

    Difference my guy.

  • Thingiverse uses AI to block production of ghost guns

    Technology technology
    38
    1
    158 Stimmen
    38 Beiträge
    233 Aufrufe
    T
    Finally someone using new tech tools in a sensible and useful way .
  • 25 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    20 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • VMware’s rivals ramp efforts to create alternative stacks

    Technology technology
    10
    1
    77 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    138 Aufrufe
    B
    I don't use any GUI... I use terraform in the terminal or via CI/CD. There is an API and also a Terraform provider for Proxmox, and I can use that, together with Ansible and shell scripts to manage VMs, but I was looking for k8s support. Again, it works fine for small environments, with a bit of manual work and human intervention, but for larger ones, I need a bit more. I moved away from a few VMs acting as k8s nodes, to k8s as a service (at work).
  • An AI video ad is making a splash. Is it the future of advertising?

    Technology technology
    2
    10 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    38 Aufrufe
    apfelwoischoppen@lemmy.worldA
    Gobble that AI slop NPR. Reads like sponsored content.
  • No, Social Media is Not Porn

    Technology technology
    3
    1
    21 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    49 Aufrufe
    Z
    This feels dystopian and like overreach. But that said, there definitely is some porn on the 4 platforms they cited. It's an excuse sure, but let's also not deny reality.
  • The New Digg’s Plan to Use AI for Community Moderation

    Technology technology
    17
    1
    32 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    163 Aufrufe
    L
    trying to be reddit 2.0
  • 1k Stimmen
    95 Beiträge
    2k Aufrufe
    G
    Obviously the law must be simple enough to follow so that for Jim’s furniture shop is not a problem nor a too high cost to respect it, but it must be clear that if you break it you can cease to exist as company. I think this may be the root of our disagreement, I do not believe that there is any law making body today that is capable of an elegantly simple law. I could be too naive, but I think it is possible. We also definitely have a difference on opinion when it comes to the severity of the infraction, in my mind, while privacy is important, it should not have the same level of punishments associated with it when compared to something on the level of poisoning water ways; I think that a privacy law should hurt but be able to be learned from while in the poison case it should result in the bankruptcy of a company. The severity is directly proportional to the number of people affected. If you violate the privacy of 200 million people is the same that you poison the water of 10 people. And while with the poisoning scenario it could be better to jail the responsible people (for a very, very long time) and let the company survive to clean the water, once your privacy is violated there is no way back, a company could not fix it. The issue we find ourselves with today is that the aggregate of all privacy breaches makes it harmful to the people, but with a sizeable enough fine, I find it hard to believe that there would be major or lasting damage. So how much money your privacy it's worth ? 6 For this reason I don’t think it is wise to write laws that will bankrupt a company off of one infraction which was not directly or indirectly harmful to the physical well being of the people: and I am using indirectly a little bit more strict than I would like to since as I said before, the aggregate of all the information is harmful. The point is that the goal is not to bankrupt companies but to have them behave right. The penalty associated to every law IS the tool that make you respect the law. And it must be so high that you don't want to break the law. I would have to look into the laws in question, but on a surface level I think that any company should be subjected to the same baseline privacy laws, so if there isn’t anything screwy within the law that apple, Google, and Facebook are ignoring, I think it should apply to them. Trust me on this one, direct experience payment processors have a lot more rules to follow to be able to work. I do not want jail time for the CEO by default but he need to know that he will pay personally if the company break the law, it is the only way to make him run the company being sure that it follow the laws. For some reason I don’t have my usual cynicism when it comes to this issue. I think that the magnitude of loses that vested interests have in these companies would make it so that companies would police themselves for fear of losing profits. That being said I wouldn’t be opposed to some form of personal accountability on corporate leadership, but I fear that they will just end up finding a way to create a scapegoat everytime. It is not cynicism. I simply think that a huge fine to a single person (the CEO for example) is useless since it too easy to avoid and if it really huge realistically it would be never paid anyway so nothing usefull since the net worth of this kind of people is only on the paper. So if you slap a 100 billion file to Musk he will never pay because he has not the money to pay even if technically he is worth way more than that. Jail time instead is something that even Musk can experience. In general I like laws that are as objective as possible, I think that a privacy law should be written so that it is very objectively overbearing, but that has a smaller fine associated with it. This way the law is very clear on right and wrong, while also giving the businesses time and incentive to change their practices without having to sink large amount of expenses into lawyers to review every minute detail, which is the logical conclusion of the one infraction bankrupt system that you seem to be supporting. Then you write a law that explicitally state what you can do and what is not allowed is forbidden by default.
  • Windows 10 reaches 70% market share as Windows 11 keeps declining

    Technology technology
    2
    1
    0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    A
    I'm just surviving the latest windows update that I did not as for, agree to or want. Fuck Microsoft! My otherwise fast computer is barely crawling, super slow, unresponsive. I can move the mouse but not much else. God fuck that company so good it never comes back up! Please! And free Ukraine.... And free Gaza.