I think that's called a mac

There's is already an operating system like that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)

any distro except the ones listed here https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.en.html technically already "took" that "route"

What if a thing were a different thing from the thing that it is???

Linux is a kernel which is often bundled with proprietary components. Android, for example uses the Linux kernel. The whole desktop operating system you seem to be thinking of is a Linux distribution.

There have been many Linux distributions with proprietary components over the years. SUSE's YaST configuration tool used to be proprietary, for example. There's probably something current along the same lines, but there's not much demand for semi-proprietary desktop Linux.

Its not proprietary but flatpak is "taking the android route" as in providing a "app store" with sandboxed apps and standardized runtimes whose permissions can be limited and expanded at runtime by requesting the user. they already have a system for tipping devs and IIRC also wanna include a way to pay for apps.

The proprietary version of this would be Ubuntus snaps, but since the proper functionality of them is limited to ubuntu as the only distro i doubt they will take off

like what if linux still was open source but had a lot of proprietary dependencies and packages...

At that point, it's not really open source anymore. Once it has proprietary dependencies, it's no longer open.

but it still would let you use any desktop environment and there would be a new proprietary desktop environment which was like gnome but easier

What you're describing is a closed-source version of Pop!_OS with a closed source version of Cosmic, their latest DE still in Alpha.

Businesses and software companies don't make software for operating systems based on their openness or proprietary-ness. They make it based on market share. Your idea would still have to compete with Linux, MacOS, and Windows, and it would have to get a better share of the market than at least Linux before businesses would even bother making software for your closed system.

The reason Linux is as successful as it is, is because it's open, and hobbyists can and do contribute to it for free. When you close that off, you then have to pay for development, and you'll have to overcome the gigantic barrier to entry set up by the likes of Microsoft and Apple.

linux or ubuntu?

wtf?

Um

It seems that you need to read up on Linux and how it is different from closed source systems.

You are getting downvoted by people that were once where you are, but have since forgotten what it is to be a newbie.

Then it wouldn't really be Linux, then, would it?

Unlike what people reply here out of ignorance, your thinking is correct, meaning, that Google has already done the hard work to create a TRULY modern OS, with proper usability, security, and yes, a way better compositor than wayland (in fact, android has the best compositor in the world, compared to ANY OS). A properly modified desktop OS based on it (better than Samsung's DeX for example), that is also able to run normal Linux apps, would be a huge winner.

Linux does have proprietary blobs, Canonical has signed some NDAs, so not that far off from Android (which is linux-based and certainly has proprietary firmware).

macOS, ChromeOS, SteamOS, AWS, Samsung Tizen, literally any embedded device, …

Well, Ubuntu or any company could certainly do something like that. But then this company would simply be competing with Android with an incompatible app platform built on top of Linux. App developers who have a hard enough time developing their apps for both Android and iOS would not want to write their app for yet another incompatible proprietary platform, even if the underlying OS kernel was Linux.

As others have said, the real advantage to Linux, the real reason to use it, with desktop environments like Gnome or KDE, in spite of their minor flaws, is that the software is owned by all of us. Unlike proprietary software which you are basically renting for a monthly fee, on Linux you actually own your software and your data.

I think that would be absolutely pointless. The advantages of having a system that’s free to study, audit, modify, and contribute to goes away once you make it rely on proprietary software to work at all. In fact that’s not FOSS. There are already desktop operating system that works this way, with an open source kernel and core but reliant on proprietary software, with first party levels of support: they’re called macOS and ChromeOS

The interesting thing if I remember correctly is Linus whole thing was for priority software to be apart of the ecosystem. Really the low level stuff would be open and shared and any apps like user level software would be priority. There would be open source and freeware versions like on other operating systems but the foundation software would be supported by the app makers up the stack. It's a good idea but profit at all cost companies with short term thinking always fuck it up.

Openness of linux would be lost

Although device drivers are proprietary, linux does its best to limit such proprietry stuff. But in case of android, Google pretty much has a monopoly because a standard build of android isnt enough for use.

I hate that the spirit of openness is shot on the foot just because of the need of commercialization. I would prefer linux than android.

Wrong neighborhood, buddy.

Now GTFOutahere.