Comon attitude among older techs. I imagine its a bit like gen z on phones.

Messaging seems immediate and demanding where as email seems to give the recipient a answer when you have time feel.

Its about not growing up with IM while email was treated like an extention to paper memo systems many work environments already used. More so as the system is older then the Internet. So many office networks had inter office email In the early 80s. And inter offfice memo systems like a little postal system were common in big companies for decades before that.

yeah, auto correct.

Only if those device makers are willing to use it. And that has always been the tightrope linux has walked.

Its very history as a x86 platform means it has needed to develop drivers where hardware providers did not care. So that code needed to run on closed hardware.

It was bloody rare in the early days that any manufacturer cared to help. And still today its a case of rare hardware that needs no non free firmware.

Free hardware is something I’ll support. But it is stallman et als fight not the linux kernel developers. They started out having to deal with patented hardware before any one cared.

proprietary

Well related to the owner is the very definition of proprietary. So as far as upstream vs not available for upstream is concerned. That is what the term is used for in linux.

So yep by its very definition while a manufacture is using a licence that other distributions cannot embed with their code. Marking it proprietary is how the linux kernal tree was designed to handle it.

EDIT: The confusion sorta comes from the whole history of IBM and the PC.

Huge amounts of PC hardware (and honestly all modern electronics) are protected by hardware patients. Its inbuilt into the very history of IBMs bios being reverse engineered in the 1980s.

So as Linux for all its huge hardware support base today. It was originally designed as a x86(IBM PC) compatible version of Unix.

As such when Stallman created GPL 3 in part as a way of trying to end hardware patients. Linux was forced to remain on GPL 2 simply because it is unable to exist under GPL 3 freedom orientated restrictions.

The proprietary title is not seen as an insult. But simply an indication that it is not in the control of the developers labelling it.

GPL3 has extra restrictions banning patients etc. So yeah a lot of GPL 2 code written by companies that open software but not hardware. Would have legal questions about running with GPL 3

GPL 3 was created to be more restrictive to non-open hardware.

I think I even used Windows XP wallpapers on Linux for some time.

Well now I suddenly care.

Why the hell do you want to watch the world burn?

;)

No bodies business but the user what wallpaper they like.

I use images from the UK canal inferstructure where I spend much of my time.

If you’re willing to tell me to do otherwise. My response is going to be short and rude.

Darktable