979
7 years later, Valve's Proton has been an incredible game-changer for Linux
(www.gamingonlinux.com)
this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2025
979 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
74646 readers
2500 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Because I am capable of critical and complex thinking. Just because something is labeled as "free" does not necessarily mean there are no costs associated with procuring or using a product. If you're handed a proprietary piece of technology for "free", but the only way to use it is to pay for another piece of technology or software that you have to pay for... it's not free. It's complementary, but it's not free. You still need to pay some amount to use it.
This is the same faulty logic as arguing that Linux also costs money because you have to pay for a computer to run it on. Any operating system requires that you own a compatible device to run it on.
You’re just drawing some imaginary line at Apple computers. It makes no sense.
What? No. Your "payment" to Apple continues as you use OSX.
You don't need to pay "Linux" anything (though you can donate to distros and app devs if you're a sweetie).
You don't even need to pay for a computer. You can steal one or find one in the garbage. Apple hates recycling hardware, that's why they sue 3rd party Apple repair and maintenance shops. I used OSX for a decade. They were cool for a little while, being somewhat novel for adopting a UNIX-like as their backbone, but that goodwill and logic is long dead.
I hate them as much as I hate Microsoft, perhaps even more, because not only have they abandoned the ideals they marketed in the 00's, they are draconian in their enforcement of their control. Their planned obsolescence is absolutely criminal. They embezzle tens of billions of dollars overseas to avoid taxation. And Tim Cook now blows Donald Trump for breakfast.
To hell with Apple and their whole shitty thing.
What a fascinating hallucination you’ve had.
Regardless, macOS is free. It’s been free for the last 15 years, and if you want to prove otherwise, show me a receipt where you paid for it.
Or even the tiniest shred of proof of your claims beyond wild speculation and hatred for Apple.
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.
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?
The first link is evidence that video codecs cost money and, as per that source:
This was in response to the earlier discussion about third party libraries costing money.
OK, I guess some third-party libraries do cost money, which is to be expected. That doesn’t change the fact that macOS is free.
It's clear you're acting in bad faith at this point - you've completely skipped over anything else I said in my original comment.
Me: points out of fact
You: you’re acting in bad faith!
It still doesn’t make any sense to me. Do you think I’m acting in bad faith because I acknowledge a fact, and you won’t? Or is it because I keep poking holes in your logic?
Sounds like hurt feelings to me
You misinterpreted what I said in that initial comment, asked if I was hallucinating, and when I clarified this misinterpretation, you proceeded to skip over anything I had said beyond the first link.
You are not giving any valid counter arguments to what I said in my original comment (in fact detracting from the original point of this whole thread by speculating you hurt my feelings?), this is why I believe you are acting in bad faith.
Am I supposed to feel bad for you?
Your entire comment threat has been bad faith. It’s amusing that you’re accusing me of what you’re doing. But whatever.
Ah, yes. Projection.
It's extremely amusing that you're accusing others of accusing you of doing what they're doing, while in fact you're accusing others of doing what you're doing.
is not a very convincing argument. I’m sorry you want to turn this into some sort of psychological mind game. But the fact remains that macOS is free. I’m sorry you struggle so much to accept that.
And if you equate “stating facts” with “acting in bad faith”, then that’s your own problem.
The arguments were provided by others, I simply stated what I observed. You are right that Apple doesn't make you pay for macOS separately, but in my opinion, it's like saying that Apple processors are free because you don't pay for them when you buy a Macbook. You also don't pay for Windows separately when you buy a Windows laptop, you know, but the manufacturer is paying for Windows which is added to the overall cost of the laptop.
MacOS developers have an income, and where does that income come from?
You have to pay money to buy the computer you used to run Linux. So, by your logic, Linux isn’t free either. You see how this argument is nonsense.
And you can speculate all you like about how Apple makes money to pay for its developers. I don’t know, they make this other thing called the iPhone that seems pretty popular. I bet that makes them a lot of money.
Linux has an entirely different story.
You can also donate to them.
But what about Android? Android is definitely not paid.
Android is based on the Linux kernel, which uses the GPL license.
If you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.
Therefore, Google cannot close Android's source code, and force manufacturers to pay for it.
When you buy an Android phone, however, there are some closed-sourced components installed on them: Google Play Services, YouTube, ..., which Google can profit from.
In its earnings reports, the company combines revenue from multiple sources, under the sub-heading “Google Services”. This includes income from Android, Chrome, Maps, and hardware (like Pixel and Nest smart home devices). In the first quarter of 2022, this “services” division brought in $6.8 billion in revenue for the company. ... Oracle’s attorneys estimated that Android had generated a total of $31 billion in revenue and $22 billion in profit.
So Google does profit from Android. It's free, but Google definitely generates enough to develop Android.
Apple's situation is different from Google's. It is the sole maker of devices that run macOS, and macOS is close-sourced. It can add a price to each macOS device sold for macOS development. It would be illogical for Apple not to do this, and use the profit brought by the sale of other devices. Therefore, there's a high probability you're also paying for macOS when buying a Mac device.
Just because Linux is open source doesn’t magically mean macOS isn’t free (which it is). This reasoning is so ridiculous. And it doesn’t get any less ridiculous them or you keep repeating it. You’re wasting your time arguing with an objective fact: macOS is free.
Unless Apple starts charging for it, there is literally nothing else that will change that. I’m sorry you just can’t accept that.
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.
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.
None of this changes the fact that macOS is free
I just don’t understand why you keep wasting your time arguing objective fact.
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.
It’s not a competition, kiddo. But telling me you finally give up isn’t really the insult you think it is.
Bye!
AFAIK manufacturers don't have to pay for Linux And if MacOS is really free you would be able to manufacture and sell devices using it but there is not a single one
MacOS is free just like Windows is free (the license is included in your purchase of the hardware)
So yeah idk what you are smoking or if you get high just by being the most pedantic person in the lemmyverse
That’s not what free means here. “Free“ as in costs no money for the user. Can download and install it without having to pay for it. Because it is free. You’re using the word “free” to means something obviously different than what I’m talking about.
MacOS is free just like Windows is free (the license is included in your purchase of the hardware). Except windows isn’t free. It cost is enumerated on the invoice. macOS is not. Because it is free.
Obviously, you don’t know because you keep saying things that are very, obviously not true. Are you feeling OK?
It not making sense to your useless brain doesn't make it false.
Now you’re just talking to yourself.
macOS is free, and no one here has been able to give a single shred of evidence to prove to the contrary.
They did and you didn't get it.
I can hardly be blamed for not participating in another person’s delusion. Or yours.
macOS is free. But you’re free to try to prove otherwise. A lot of people have tried and failed hilariously.
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.
https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/
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.
You're not allowed to use it after downloading it for free unless you use it on Apple hardware that it paid for. If you don't have Apple hardware you only have a file you're not allowed to use. Paying for Apple hardware pays for the license permitting you to use it.
That's like saying that using a fixed cost subscription service is free because you're not paying at the time that you access it.
That doesn’t mean macOS costs money. Just the Apple hardware. It’s really weird that you can’t tell the difference between a piece of software and a piece of hardware. What’s worse as you think I have the same trouble you do.
macOS is free. Just because Apple hardware isn’t also free doesn’t mean macOS isn’t free.
"taking the train is free once you've paid for the ticket"
We’re talking about operating systems here, not to trains, try to keep up
Just give up already
Why? I’m right. It’s a fact that macOS is free.