> Absolutely zero bullshit features installed and never changes things on its own.
That's it.
For me, that's [unfortunately] the only "realistic" alternative out there, if one wouldn't mind the extra bucks, is somehow dependent on Windows environment and/or has no time to keep hacking and experiencing with Linux desktops.
I've grown to love Linux as a wonderful server OS, and as an occasional Desktop OS to play with on a VM.
Unless you're a hacker (at both work and in your free time), it's hard to keep using Linux as a main daily Desktop OS.
Is using server editions of Windows as desktop OSs any better? I mean in regards to making such changes (without explicit user's consent, at least) and wasting system resources with [background running] junkware, for instance.
A bit out of context, but I would really appreciate some explanation/answers here.
Has anyone shared some sort of analysis of external/community contributions to Hashicorp's OSS products, following their licensing change, to then come to a conclusion about some "internal to external" contributions ratio that would justify all the frustration with which that decision has been received?
I mean, people tend to always assume that OpenSource software is the ownership of a world-wide community of contributors, and not the person (or group of people) that had initiated it and decided to share the code; but, I've hardly seen cases outside of these two, when serious problems surface:
1. Indie OSS maintainer that suffering from some burnout, or even struggle to make a living, while their work is being freely used by thousands of people, and even help dozen of companies make money in some way.
2. OSS project that is mainly supported and maintained by some company/corporate, to the point that if they would ever decide to stop doing it, the software would not as actively receive significant fixes/updates (if any). Which basically means: the sofware is freely available (along with its source code), mainly because there are people paid to work on it.
That's it. For me, that's [unfortunately] the only "realistic" alternative out there, if one wouldn't mind the extra bucks, is somehow dependent on Windows environment and/or has no time to keep hacking and experiencing with Linux desktops.
I've grown to love Linux as a wonderful server OS, and as an occasional Desktop OS to play with on a VM. Unless you're a hacker (at both work and in your free time), it's hard to keep using Linux as a main daily Desktop OS.