• QuestionMark@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    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.

    Just because Linux is open source doesn’t magically mean macOS isn’t free

    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.

    • floo@retrolemmy.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      None of this changes the fact that macOS is free

      I just don’t understand why you keep wasting your time arguing objective fact.

      • QuestionMark@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        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.

        • floo@retrolemmy.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          It’s not a competition, kiddo. But telling me you finally give up isn’t really the insult you think it is.

          Bye!