• FQQD@lemmy.ohaa.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    The difference is, that you’re using something for free, and you can disable this very easily.

    • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      I get that. I was just saying why it might tick some people off. My idea of a good OS is one that you don’t even notice while using it. It just sits in the background doing its thing and you don’t have to think about whether you’re using KDE, Gnome, or whatever, because it never makes itself known and you just happily use your programs.

      • uint@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        In my opinion no OS manages such a feat of making itself unknown, there are always some problems, and I think you agree with that in practice (it’s more a matter of thresholds). So there is continuous improvement. The question is then whether or not the possible financial boost from the donations will improve the OS in such a way that the net benefit is positive with respect to the negative value of the donation notification (a utilitarian viewpoint, I guess). I would say it will be a net benefit, not least because the negative value of the notification is so small.