Stop Using Pop!OS -- It's Failing New Linux Users in 2026
Pop!OS used to be one of the best Linux distro recommendations — but that was years ago. In 2026, with Cosmic Desktop still in beta and shipped as the default in Pop!OS 24 LTS, new users are walking into a minefield of memory leaks, GPU bugs, audio issues, and an unresponsive GitHub with 1,700+ open issues
The other day on another forum when I pointed out that all Linux users are beta testers, nobody disagreed.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Goonch
(5,420 posts)
QueerDuck
(1,899 posts)I've been a Linux Mint user since Victoria (21.2) from July 2023.
Wow... hard to believe it's coming up on three years now. I gave up windows and I'll never go back. (Well, I visit my old NUC once a year because TurboTax doesn't run on Linux.)
Goonch
(5,420 posts)TurboTax Online works well on Linux Mint 22.3 using a web browser (Chrome or Firefox) . However, the downloadable/desktop version of TurboTax is not natively supported on Linux and requires Windows emulation (Wine) or a Virtual Machine .
hunter
(40,795 posts)Looks to be the creation of a company that sells it pre-installed on overpriced machines, rather like Apple's business model.
Anyone can create their own Linux distribution, even a one-off distribution that only they themselves use on their own personal computers.
Obviously some Linux distributions are more robust than others. And some are more robust than Apple or Microsoft operating systems.
Any problems with one niche Linux Distribution which probably represents less than 0.01% of all Linux installations doesn't support your claim "that all Linux users are beta testers."
Personally, I won't use Apple or Microsoft products unless someone is paying me. But it's not any kind of popularity contest. Use the OS that works for you.
I use Linux on my personal machines and "it just works." I've had Linux machines with up-times approaching two years with thousands of sleep/wake cycles. That means no crashes, no reboots, no problems. When I shut my main computers down it's usually because I'm mucking about with the hardware. I also have machines that are just for play. My favorite thing about Linux is that you can take a machine you found on the curb or looted from the e-waste bins and bring it back to life again.
The most I've ever paid for a computer was $299. That was for a 386 running Windows 3.1 that I found on a department store clearance shelf. The last Windows version I used on my personal computers was 98SE.
Sector 001
(358 posts)The worldwide market share for all desktop Linux distros currently at about 3%.
BadgerKid
(5,023 posts)All Windows 60%; all linuxes 40%.
Sector 001
(358 posts)"Desktop"
LPBBEAR
(675 posts)Linux isn't marketed on store shelves. Microsoft has used it's monopoly position in the PC desktop market to make sure it stay's that way. A buyer has to go out of their way to find a way to purchase a pre-loaded retail Linux system.
The numbers you are using in an attempt to discredit Linux share more reflect the fact that the majority of systems sold in a retail setting are Windows based not that Linux isn't a viable worthy alternative. That fact is no more surprising than if we were talking about Cars with the majority of those available in the retail market being only Fords and the alternative brands not available at all in a retail setting. Of course the Fords would dominate the numbers.
What is more interesting is that despite that anti-competitive retail situation Linux share on the desktop has slowly but steadily grown. Additionally Linux is used in just about everything technology consumers use these days from wireless routers, to streaming devices like Roku, to cell phones, to Car operating systems, to fridges, to the vast majority of web servers and services, etc. Linux is everywhere, Windows has failed everywhere except the desktop and office servers.
Windows is an unreliable shitty operating system that comes from a ruthless monopoly that NO progressive should support and I would question anyone who claims to be politically progressive who uses it and then tries to denigrate the choice of users of other operating systems.
I could cite numerous examples of Microsoft interfering with companies who did try to offer Linux as a retail alternative with Microsoft using their monopoly power to bully those companies out of existence with the help of corrupt Republican politicians.
To get an idea of Microsoft's monopoly abuse read the following article. This one is about how Microsoft bullied another company out of existence who offered a much superior operating system named BeOS using the same kinds of tactics they used on Corel Linux, Xandros, Lindows, and other Linux based companies.
(Interestingly the original source for this article from Byte has been removed from the original website and replaced by a 404 Not Found notice from a Microsoft Azure webserver which......wait for it........RUNS ON LINUX.)
https://birdhouse.org/beos/byte/30-bootloader/
LPBBEAR
(675 posts)
IbogaProject
(6,015 posts)I'm having wake from sleep issues and am curious of which distro you're using. I am aware my issues may be partly hatdware or a driver issue as it has gotten worse at some point.
hunter
(40,795 posts)I haven't explored the Red Hat branch of Linux much.
I was running Ubuntu for a time but it's become too bloated for the sorts of computers I use.
Complex desktops don't interest me, I prefer LXDE or MATE. I like to keep things simple.
It's annoying when hibernate and suspend don't work, especially on a laptop where they are essential. It happened to me a couple of years ago on a Debian install but I don't remember how I fixed it. I'm guessing I messed it up playing around with multiple desktop environments on a single install. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should...
Someone could probably tell you an elegant way to solve this problem, but that ain't me. I'm a caveman. Smash problems with big rock.
Note to Windows users: There's a wide selection of desktop environments available for Linux. Some resemble various versions of Microsoft Windows (98, XP, 7, etc.), some resemble various Apple Macintosh desktops, some are very minimalist and keyboard oriented, and some are truly bizarre. LXDE reminds me of Windows 98 and doesn't use a lot of system resources. Mate (MAH-tay) is similar to Windows XP. The differences are not merely cosmetic as they are when you change the look and feel of a Windows desktop.
IbogaProject
(6,015 posts)I have tried, Endeavor, Mint, was on Manjaro for awhile until my kid knocked the computer off a table. Lately some firmware bug prompted me to try MX Linux and it has carried me through four cheap laptops now over four years. I am about to go to a rolling release with a file system that is good with snapshots so I can have some recovery ability beyond restoring from a backup. I am looking at either CachyOS based on arch and now super popular with gamers or a rolling Debian, either Siduction or VanillaOS.
What I really like about Linux is that I can pull my ssd and just put it into another computer and boot it right up, like how Mac Os X was where the drive could migrate with little aftercare. Windows doesn't support that, even though registration of the OS is optional for home use.
LPBBEAR
(675 posts)It wasn't worth the time. I've used both versions of Pop!OS, the newest one and the older one. I didn't find it suited my needs. I recognized it as an honest attempt by System76 to provide a alternative in house Linux version for their hardware offering. I initially used it as gaming system in the first go-around which it worked pretty well as. After a period of using the system with only Pop!OS I downloaded KDE Plasma and used that desktop environment instead of Pop!OS. I later wiped that system and switched it to Nobara which is a Linux distribution focused on gaming. I later tried the newer recently released version of Pop!OS on a test hard drive.
I guess my "review" of the system(s) wouldn't be negative. It actually worked pretty well and I recognize it as an honest effort by System76 but....its in a early period of its development and not as mature and feature complete as KDE Plasma or newer versions of Gnome. I have no doubt they will get there given the obvious talent being displayed with what they have created so far.
"The other day on another forum when I pointed out that all Linux users are beta testers, nobody disagreed."
Thats a ironic pathetic statement given that Windows, which is apparently your focus, has been around for decades and still crashes and trashes its users. How long will Windows users be "beta testers" do you thing before its perfect. (snark snark) 
LPBBEAR
(675 posts)This was published 25 years ago. The original source for this article is gone removed from the Internet by whoever took over the Byte website. The article addresses the monopolistic actions of Microsoft with regards to an operating system called BeOS. Be, the company behind the operating system was attempting to position its OS as a desktop operating system for the average computer user. I used BeOS on my systems. It was an excellent operating system and was way ahead of Windows at the time, especially in the area of media handling. Its handling of video and sound was much superior to Windows. Anyway, Microsoft found it was better as well and used its monolpistic market power to kill the company and its products. Microsoft later went on to do the same thing to several Linux based companies.
Be later went on to win an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft for its anti-competitive behavior. Unfortunately it was too late by that time to save the company and its products. Consumers were denied a chance to use a surperior product because of Microsoft's anti-competitive and illegal actions.
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/08/business/microsoft-settles-antitrust-suit-with-be-inc.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He Who Controls the Bootloader
End of an Era
Scot Hacker, August 2001
The day before I submitted this column, news hit the net that the other shoe had finally dropped. After months of waiting and wondering what was to become of Be, we learned that Palm, Inc. will be purchasing Be's technology, intellectual property, and assets. While we don't yet know exactly what Palm plans to do with Be, my guess is that the company intends to beef up and extend its product line -- make palm-sized devices more media-friendly, and possibly build appliance-like units for the home. As analyst William Crawford recently said, "Where they have to go, Be already is." Be's lightweight footprint and excellent media handing capabilities make the technology a good fit. Be will receive $11 million in Palm stock, which they intend to liquidate to pay off debts. Considering that Apple allegedly once considered paying $125 million for Be, Palm got Be for a song -- a fire-sale blowout.
Palm initially stated that they don't intend to develop a desktop version of BeOS, which means the version of BeOS you're using now may be the last one you'll ever see. However, users who have corresponded with Palm's top ranks have been met with an open ear, and BeFAQs is currently preparing a full report on the state and potential of the BeOS user base for the big cheeses at Palm. Whether the report will have any effect is anybody's guess, but barring a miracle, it seems that BeOS is now officially dead in terms of its prospects for further evolution. That, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's dead to the users who already have it installed. The BeOS userbase will likely become similar to the Amiga userbase - hanging on to those souped-up boxes out of sheer love for years, maybe decades.
Some in the community met the news with relief. Others simply seem exhausted by the endless process of battling ridiculous odds, and are ready to move on to something else. But many still believe deeply in what Be is and what they've created. Believe that there is a way to best Microsoft at its own game (without having to tread the open source quaqmire). Believe that there is no better desktop user experience, period.
But the reality is that Be's failure has made a point to the world, to whit: "Don't bother trying to create a better commercial desktop OS -- it doesn't matter how hard you try, how many engineers you throw at the problem, how much money you spend, or how many years you put into it. Microsoft owns that space and, worse, the public is totally complicit with that fact. People will not stop using Windows. It is a losing battle."
It is unlikely now that anyone will ever again attempt what Be, Amiga, and IBM attempted. And that's the saddest thing of all -- the insidious ways in which the monopoly has wormed itself into the fabric of our economy and culture. The message that "resistance is futile" has been hammered home. The only OS projects that stand a chance are open source, because they don't play by the rules of the economy. But open source projects seem either unable or unwilling to create a system that approaches the elegance, speed, and ease-of-use of BeOS. If you want an x86 system with a future, you're now bound either to the mess of GNU/Linux or to the Windows donkey cart, with all of the political and technological baggage that entails.
Speaking of the insidious tendrils of The Monopoly and its effect on small companies like Be who dare to set foot in the ogre's front yard, on with this month's intended column.
Peaceful Co-Existence? Right.
It is statistically unlikely that a person purchasing a new computer is ever going to change its operating system -- the OS that comes with the computer you buy at the local computer mega-store is probably going to be the OS you use for years, if not forever. And while it is technically trivial for a hardware vendor to set up hard drives to dual- or triple-boot multiple operating systems, very few people have the interest -- or the huevos -- to repartition their hard drives and install additional OSes after the original point of purchase. Therefore, few things could be more financially critical to an operating system vendor than to have one's product pre-installed on consumer computers.
There is no technical reason why CompUSA customers shouldn't be able to walk out of the shop with a machine that asks "Which OS do you want to use today?" upon boot. And yet, even today, after several years of relentless news about how Linux is ready for the general desktop and business customer, one does not find dual-boot Win/Linux machines from large commercial OEMs at any consumer outlet or web shop I know of. Yes, you can get dual-boot machines at some of the smaller shops, but these are the ones that slip under Microsoft's radar, and there's no guarantee that Microsoft won't decide to take action against these vendors at some point. And yes, you can buy Linux-only machines from vendors such as IBM. But think about it: Why would IBM sell Windows machines and Linux machines, but no dual-boot Win/Linux machines? The absence is conspicuous.
A few years ago, Be's CEO Jean-Louis Gassée used the phrase "peaceful co-existence with Windows" to describe his company's intended relationship with Microsoft on the consumer's hard drive. Later, when it became clear that Microsoft had no intention of co-existing with a rival OS vendor peacefully, Gassée recanted, saying, "I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense -- I deserve it."
With so little profit margin in the computer retail business, and with so little to set one brand of computer apart from another, it would seem that out-of-the-box dual-boot capabilities would be a tremendous differentiating factor for hardware vendors. It would seem that there would be financial incentives for computer vendors to be asking Be for 10,000-license deals. These bundling arrangements would be good for Be, good for OEMs, and good for consumers.
In his own column, Gassée has written several times about Microsoft's Windows OEM License and the ways in which it limits the freedoms of PC OEMs. In July 2001, I spoke with Gassée to find out why no dual-boot computers with BeOS or Linux installed alongside Windows can be purchased today.
In the 1998-1999 timeframe, ready to prime the pump with their desktop offering, Be offered BeOS for free to any major computer manufacturer willing to pre-install BeOS on machines alongside Windows. Although few in the Be community ever knew about the discussions, Gassée says that Be was engaged in enthusiastic discussions with Dell, Compaq, Micron, and Hitachi. Taken together, pre-installation arrangements with vendors of this magnitude could have had a major impact on the future of Be and BeOS. But of the four, only Hitachi actually shipped a machine with BeOS pre-installed. The rest apparently backed off after a closer reading of the fine print in their Microsoft Windows License agreements. Hitachi did ship a line of machines (the Flora Prius) with BeOS pre-installed, but made changes to the bootloader -- rendering BeOS invisible to the consumer -- before shipping. Apparently, Hitachi received a little visit from Microsoft just before shipping the Flora Prius, and were reminded of the terms of the license.
Be was forced to post detailed instructions on their web site explaining to customers how to unhide their hidden BeOS partitions. It is likely that most Flora Prius owners never even saw the BeOS installations to which they were entitled.
Bootloader as Trade Secret
So why aren't there any dual-boot computers for sale? The answer lies in the nature of the relationship Microsoft maintains with hardware vendors. More specifically, in the "Windows License" agreed to by hardware vendors who want to include Windows on the computers they sell. This is not the license you pretend to read and click "I Accept" to when installing Windows. This license is not available online. This is a confidential license, seen only by Microsoft and computer vendors. You and I can't read the license because Microsoft classifies it as a "trade secret." The license specifies that any machine which includes a Microsoft operating system must not also offer a non-Microsoft operating system as a boot option. In other words, a computer that offers to boot into Windows upon startup cannot also offer to boot into BeOS or Linux. The hardware vendor does not get to choose which OSes to install on the machines they sell -- Microsoft does.
"Must not?" What, does Microsoft hold a gun to the vendor's head? Not quite, but that wouldn't be a hyperbolic metaphor. Instead, Microsoft threatens to revoke the vendor's license to include Windows on the machine if the bootloader license is violated. Because the world runs on Windows, no hardware vendor can afford to ship machines that don't include Windows alongside whatever alternative they might want to offer.
The essence of the government's antitrust beef with Microsoft is that the company limits competition by leveraging its dominant position in the marketplace (it's important to remember that monopolies are not illegal -- abusing them is). To prove its case, the government focused on the browser wars and the harm done to Netscape by Microsoft's inclusion of a free web browser in the operating system.
In my opinion, the browser issue pales in comparison to the egregiousness of the bootloader situation. The browser is arguably an essential component of modern computing - a commodity product as worthy of inclusion in the OS as a text editor or calculator. Be, too, bundles a web browser with its OS, and I'm glad they do. Questions of how the browser is integrated are much more interesting, since they connect to the point of whether Microsoft's browser bundling intent was anti-competitive or not. In BeOS, for example, it's always been possible to remove the browser from the OS simply by dragging it to the Trash, which is very different from the situation under Windows.
But I digress. The point is that the browser situation is easily debatable, while the bootloader situation is far more cut-and-dried. I would wager that few lawyers could come up with a cogent argument to describe how Microsoft's bootloader policy is not anti-competitive in the strictest sense of the term. After all, Microsoft is first and foremost an operating system vendor. Be and Microsoft were competing on much more similar territory than were Netscape and Microsoft.
But when it came to the DOJ vs. Microsoft antitrust trial, things got even more interesting.
DOJ Misses the Point
On request of the DOJ, Gassée had several pre-trial conversations with prosecuting attorney David Boies* and Assistant Attorney General Joel Klein. Gassée explained the bootloader situation to them. They listened and heard. But they did not ask Gassée to testify on the bootloader issue. Instead, they asked Gassée to testify on the matter of browser integration. Gassée warned them that he would be a "dangerous witness," since his feelings on browser integration were actually sympathetic with Microsoft's. Gassée wanted to testify on the bootloader issue, where he felt the core of the case really rested. Klein and Boies told Gassée he could testify with focus on the "malicious intent" aspect of the browser integration question, but not on the bootloader matter.
Needless to say, Gassée declined to participate in the rest of the case. The bootloader issue was raised during the trial, however. Raised, but not actually addressed, because Microsoft claimed (in a court session closed to the public and the media) that the Windows License was a "trade secret." However, Microsoft never denied that the license exists, and never denied that it works as I've described here.
In November of 1999, Judge Jackson released his Findings of Fact, which legally established that Microsoft had been engaging in anti-competitive practices. The Findings mentioned Be and BeOS in several places. However, the only reference to the bootloader situation was found tucked in the middle of paragraph 49, and merely obfuscated the significance of the issue:
Although the BeOS could run an Intel-compatible PC system without Windows, it is almost always loaded on a system along with Windows. What is more, when these dual-loaded PC systems are turned on, Windows automatically boots; the user must then take affirmative steps to invoke the BeOS. While this scheme allows the BeOS to occupy a niche in the market, it does not place the product on a trajectory to replace Windows on a significant number of PCs.
Despite the convoluted summary, Be's stock price skyrocketed over the next few days as a result of the BeOS mentions in Jackson's findings, eclipsing even RHAT and APPL in trading volume. But that blip on the radar did nothing to mitigate the real issue - the greatest opportunity Be had ever had to inform the government and the public of this stunningly obnoxious example of anticompetitive behavior -- one that, in my opinion, eclipses the browser integration issue -- had come and gone, leaving Be no closer to securing those all-important bundling deals with the world's largest PC hardware vendors.
The burning question, of course, is why Boies and Klein didn't want Gassée to testify on the bootloader issue, especially when it could have substantially helped their case? The answer provided to Gassée was that the case was by then already too well established. Including the bootloader issue would have meant rewriting many of the arguments and calling in a new collection of witnesses. In other words, it wasn't convenient for the U.S. government to get to the meat of the matter. It would have been too much of a hassle to address Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior in its purest form. In addition, no PC OEM was willing to testify on bootloader issues. And why would they? The threat of losing favor with Microsoft easily would have outweighed any potential benefit from being able to pre-load the unproven Be operating system alongside Windows on their machines. Finally, Be didn't have the brand recognition that Netscape did; Netscape made for a much better poster child.
* Boies, by the way, did not even have email as of August 2000 -- the highest technology case in the land was prosecuted by a man who could fairly be described as technologically illiterate.
Controlling the Hardware Landscape
One might wonder, as I did, why Be did not file separate suit on this issue. It would seem that Be's case would be extremely strong, especially with the precedent and backing of the Findings of Fact. In winning such a suit, Be would stand to make a pile of quick cash and to greatly extend their public visibility. Oh, and they might just win the opportunity to ship alongside Windows on consumer computer hardware.
But Be did not sue Microsoft, and as far as I can tell, is not currently in the process of suing Microsoft. Why not? First of all, a lawsuit against Microsoft would be incredibly expensive and time-consuming. Unfortunately, Be cannot currently afford either the time or the money, not to mention the distraction of a major lawsuit. But couldn't Be have filed suit in early 2000, in the window that opened immediately after the Findings of Fact were released? Yes, answers Gassée, but Be was waiting to see what the court's recommended remedy would be. After all, it seemed likely at the time that Microsoft would be forced to change many of its business practices. Why should Be have sued to accomplish what it looked like the government was going to do anyway?
So here we are in 2001, and guess what? It's still not possible to purchase a dual-boot Win/Linux machine. Doesn't that seem kind of odd? With all of the hype Linux has gotten, and with the technical simplicity of shipping dual-boot machines, not a single PC OEM is shipping such a beast. The technology marketplace is glutted with options. Vendors use even the smallest opportunities to trumpet their differentiating factors. Linux is free. And yet there are no commercially available dual-boot machines on the market. Not one. The silence of the marketplace speaks volumes. There is no other way to explain this phenomenon other than as a repercussion of the confidential Windows License under which every hardware vendor must do business.
Last time I checked, x86 computer hardware is supposed to be operating system agnostic. My System Commander operator's manual tells me there are more than 80 known operating systems capable of being booted on x86 hardware (most of them obscure, of course). And yet, Microsoft has managed to massively influence the course of the supposedly OS-neutral hardware marketplace. Compaq, Dell, Hitachi, and all the rest of them work under Microsoft's terms and conditions. Microsoft has shaped and controlled the hardware landscape as much as they have shaped and controlled the software landscape.
They're getting away with it. They slipped through the DOJ trial without the bootloader issue becoming the thorn it should have. As far as I know, the terms of the Windows OEM License have not changed. The recommended legal remedies against Microsoft have largely been stricken, and Microsoft is currently deflecting attention from the real issues by agreeing to remove some icons from the XP desktop (as if that mattered in contrast to the larger issues at stake). Klein and Boies helped to prevent the bootloader issue from becoming a central component of the DOJ's case. And we were never the wiser.
As a result of all this, Be's business may have suffered in ways that will never be possible to measure. I'd go as far as to suggest that successful bundling arrangements with large PC vendors could easily have made the difference between the obscure BeOS of today and what could have been a popular, user-friendly and profitable alternative to Windows for the masses. On the other hand, Be may have failed to gain mass acceptance even with major vendor bundling deals. But we would have had the opportunity to "experience what a truly competitive situation might be like." In any case, the miscarriage of justice was absolute.
What we know for sure is that Microsoft treated the PC hardware platform as if it owned it, and thus hurt consumers, software developers, PC OEMs, OS competitors, and the industry in general. That's a layman's definition of abusing a monopoly.
- Jean Louis Gassée, July 2000
Postscript: My copy of the San Francisco Chronicle for August 17 contains an article on the Palm purchase and includes the following extremely interesting paragraph:
Although it will cease operations, Be said that it will retain certain rights and assets, including its cash and cash equivalents -- $4.9 million as of June 30 -- and "rights to . . . bring certain causes of action, including under antitrust laws."
In other words, Be may yet opt to sue Microsoft, which could be a very interesting case to watch. Let's just hope the media figures out where the real antitrust issues are this time.
Final Column
I am sorry to announce that this, my 30th column on BeOS for Byte.com, will be my last. It's been a fantastic ride, and I'd like to thank CMP, Byte, and my editor Daniel Dern for having the werewithal to sponsor monthly coverage on a niche OS not because they thought it was going to take over the world, but because they believed it was worthy technology. This kind of dedication is a too-rare commodity in the tech press, and I think I speak for the entire BeOS community in thanking them for their persistence and courage. Thanks also to the loyal base of readers who have helped this column to continue for as long as it has.
My love for BeOS is deep, but not blindly unswerving. It is time for me to move on and pursue other interests. Until we cross paths again, keep the faith. There is life beyond Windows.
Sector 001
(358 posts)I’m a big believer in “technology over politics”. I don’t care who it comes from, as long as there are solid reasons for the code, and as long as we don’t have to worry about licensing etc issues. I may make jokes about Microsoft at times, but at the same time, I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease. I believe in open development, and that very much involves not just making the source open, but also not shutting other people and companies out. There are ‘extremists’ in the free software world, but that’s one major reason why I don’t call what I do ‘free software’ any more. I don’t want to be associated with the people for whom it’s about exclusion and hatred.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/07/linus-torvalds-microsoft-hatred-is-a-disease/
LPBBEAR
(675 posts)to come up with better material than that old nugget. That one has been overused for years by Mickeysoft supporters. You're taking the quote out of context and ignoring the actual meaning. Torvalds was talking about Microsoft coming to terms with the need to use Open Source and work within the Open Source community to write drivers for one of its own products. Torvalds was acknowledging that in that case Microsoft was finding benefit for itself working with the Open Source community rather than against it. He also recognized that Microsoft had been an antagonist but taking a pragmatic approach to Microsoft's contribution in this case was beneficial to the overall Open Source/Linux movement and rather than excluding Microsoft's contribution out of hatred for their past deeds the community should be accepting of their contribution. That doesn't excuse the damage the company has caused. Its more a we'll see how it goes from here approach.On the other hand Linus Torvalds is well known for his blunt and honest responses to bullshit. I have no doubt he would be very blunt should he feel Microsoft is being underhanded in any way should they decide to mess with the Linux code base by submitting intentionally crap code or contributions designed to cause problems with the Linux kernel.
Give it a break on your hate Linux campaign. We're here to stay.
Sector 001
(358 posts)