Linux

This person uses an 8GB mac, and tried to defend Apple in the debate, going as far as to say that Apple hardware is "not that expensive", and within 2 months regrets buying the 8gb mac.

They think Open Source is "overrated", insecure, and not important. They think Linux users are "normies" and fakers, Linux is not a desktop OS, and have explicitly stated "F*** LINUX".

That's a lot of terrible opinions in just 4 months, especially for someone who calls the internet "stupid", and supposedly doesn't have any education.

This is either a troll account, or someone with less than zero credibility considering their opinions and statements.

Summary

According to the video, open source software is not necessarily as important for servers and IT in the modern world as it was in the past. This is because software updates are now delivered electronically over the internet, making it less important to have access to the source code. Additionally, companies typically pay for service agreements with software vendors, which means that the vendor will fix bugs and update the software for them. Even if a company has access to the source code, they may not have the expertise to fix the software themselves.

I believe this is a perfect example of what I believe is called the Dunning-Kruger effect. In the same way that I'm glad amateurs are given a platform, I rue the fact that amateurs are given a platform as a little bit of research would've prevented them making themselves look so stupid. "Servers don't need open source" with 97% of the top 100 servers running Linux looks like an odd position to take. Maybe they're trolling.

That youtuber is posting garbage for rage baiting to get interactions.

Just ignore him entirely. Might as well ask a dog for technical advice. At least a dog can’t give you straight up wrong advice

thanks for the brain rot, op 🙏

Why my pee pee is the big pee pee: 5 reasons why

Never seen an opinion more biased than this

Open source is the very worst thing currently going on because it is so incredibly exploitative, it's far more exploitative than any actual company is of the workers who work at the company.

Even the people who are getting paid in open source are getting massively underpaid to do it compared to how much the people who are using their code are making, it's nothing compared to the power that is accreted by the people who have co-opted that work thanks to the open source model. And then mark zuckerberg gets to define how the internet works despite having paid for almost none of the software that his company actually needed to make that work.

It's like feudalism or serfdom, these people did the work and got nothing for it. It's like you took the worst aspects of capitalism for workers and the worst aspects of socialism for workers and put them together, that's open source. You get no power and you get no money.

It's exploitative whether the people chose to be exploited, just because someone chooses to let you exploit them does not meant that you didn't exploit them. And for the record that's how most exploitation works; convincing people to do something that turns out to be very bad for them and very good for you, and that's exactly what the open source movement has turned out to be.

I really don't see the "we post stuff on github under a gpl2 or lgpl or apache or mit license", all that is to me now is just exploitation. You can say that there's solutions but until someone demonstrates that those solutions work, it's the standard "real communism has never been tried" argument. AGPL is the only thing that I've seen so far that's an attempt to fix these fundamentally unfair compensation practices.