- cross-posted to:
- firefox@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- firefox@lemmy.ml
In light of Mozilla’s recent policy changes, we no longer feel assured that Firefox aligns with our commitment to protect your privacy. This prompted us to revisit the choice of default web browser in Zorin OS 17.3.
Ubuntu asks for money for their “pro” version.
It’s a big reason why I switched to Debian.
Once again like Zorin, it isn’t required to use the base version. Projects take time and effort, support is optional. Debian also has a donation page gonna distrohop now too?
You keep ignoring the “pro” version aspect of this.
Debian doesn’t lock features or updates behind paywalls. It’s not just about asking for donations.
What does zorin lock behind the pro version? Some themes that you could make yourself if you wanted. And they package some apps that you could manualy download. What updates are you refering to?
Why lock anything behind a paywall? They do it to take advantage of users who don’t know any better. Otherwise, they would just ask for donations.
Why are you defending scummy practices? Are you a shill, fanboy, or useful idiot?
Nah people just frame it as if you need to buy it, while that’s not true. No I’m not defending scummy practices, I’m just pro supporting software that you enjoy. That people like you can’t handle others opinions and immediately resort to calling it “fanboy or useful idiot.” The world doesn’t need to be a copy pasta of opinions
I am not a Zorin OS fanboy or anything, but honestly I don’t see anything scummy about requiring payment from the user to get access to certain features of the product. It’s just shareware. It’s their product FOSS or not. I think they make it clear about what you get for free and what you don’t. If you don’t like that you don’t have to use their product and you can use an alternative instead. It’s not like they were a monopoly in the world of Linux distros and you have no other option. I see nothing scummy about this. It would be scummy if they would do some kind of false advertising (adverties features you actually don’t get or adverties features in a misleading way) or if they started moving features from the free to the pro version that used to be free, because some people may have relyed on these features.
Can you elaborate? Because to me this feels like saying that the local grocery shop is scummy because it wants people to pay instead of relying on donations. If the whole OS was paid like RedHat Linux is than it would be OK or you consider that to be also a case of taking advantage of users who don’t know any better.
Congrats.
Businessmen bank on people with low standards like yours so they can make more money off of you than they would with me.
Why don’t you explain your arguments or make counter arguments instead of attacking your opponent personally. How do I matter here?
There is a difference between a donation and a purchase. You can buy Ubuntu Pro like Zorin Pro. Its not free