Last time I checked, Linux is not as successful as Microsoft, and that’s without the fact that apparently Linux development is courting use of closed-source cloud stuff developed with Microsoft money
Sure if you only focus on the desktop market I guess you could make that argument, but IDK why you would ignore servers and phones? There are plenty of examples of Linux kicking Microsoft’s ass. You think Microsoft is happy they don’t sell server licenses for every server on earth? What about android?
Do you actually have a reason Linux will be able to pull off using AI when Microsoft cannot, or is your sole argument that Linux has done other things in the past?
My argument is they are different groups of people with completely different incentive structures, so of course they will be different. You’re acting like Microsoft is failing because they use AI, not because they have management forcing the use of AI.
I’m definitely not an “AI is going to write all the code” kind of person, but LLMs are definitely a useful tool for prototyping and other development processes. A project with a “No AI” rule is not inherently better than a project that uses AI as a tool.
Ok, let’s flip this around. You made the baseless claim that “Linux development can’t succeed where Microsoft fails” that seems pretty baseless and historically incorrect to me. But if you just want to keep trying to “win” this interaction and don’t want to have a conversation I guess there’s nothing left to say
No, I asked why anyone would assume Linux developers would get anywhere with AI, looking for anybody with a legitimate reason and not baseless speculation.
If you take a step back, why would Linux development be able to succeed at all when Microsoft has far more money, more maturity, and more employees?
@ExperiencedWinter@lemmy.world, my question was simple: do you have a reason to make the assumption Linux developers will succeed.
Instead, you’ve jumped to whataboutisms, misdirections (Linux exists, therefore…?), even trying to shift the burden of proof back onto the skeptic.
If you can’t back up your opinion with evidence, say so from the beginning.
Last time I checked, Linux is not as successful as Microsoft, and that’s without the fact that apparently Linux development is courting use of closed-source cloud stuff developed with Microsoft money
Sure if you only focus on the desktop market I guess you could make that argument, but IDK why you would ignore servers and phones? There are plenty of examples of Linux kicking Microsoft’s ass. You think Microsoft is happy they don’t sell server licenses for every server on earth? What about android?
What about Android…?
Sure, what about Google?
Do you actually have a reason Linux will be able to pull off using AI when Microsoft cannot, or is your sole argument that Linux has done other things in the past?
My argument is they are different groups of people with completely different incentive structures, so of course they will be different. You’re acting like Microsoft is failing because they use AI, not because they have management forcing the use of AI.
I’m definitely not an “AI is going to write all the code” kind of person, but LLMs are definitely a useful tool for prototyping and other development processes. A project with a “No AI” rule is not inherently better than a project that uses AI as a tool.
If your claim is baseless, don’t fight to make it.
Ok, let’s flip this around. You made the baseless claim that “Linux development can’t succeed where Microsoft fails” that seems pretty baseless and historically incorrect to me. But if you just want to keep trying to “win” this interaction and don’t want to have a conversation I guess there’s nothing left to say
No, I asked why anyone would assume Linux developers would get anywhere with AI, looking for anybody with a legitimate reason and not baseless speculation.