Today GNU/Linux is 32 years old

DeaDSouL@lemmy.ml to Linux@lemmy.ml – 1920 points –

Happy birthday 🎊🎉 GNU/Linux.

Today GNU/Linux is 32 years old.

It was thankfully released to the public on August 25th, 1991 by Linus Torvalds when he was only 21 years old student.

What a lovely journey 🤍

164

won't be big and professional like gnu

that didn't age well

And this:

and it probably never will support anything other than AT-harddisks

Sure it aged well. WAY WAY BIGGER than gnu.

Weight your words my friend! GNU's a behemoth !

GCC alone is almost as big as Linux. Add core/binutils, the Hurd, ... And you easily outclass the kernel itself !

~ $ du -sh linux-6.4.12/ gcc-13.2.0/                    1.5G    linux-6.4.12/                                   1.1G    gcc-13.2.0/

Oh, and Emacs.

Speaking as someone that doesn't understand computers very well: is Hurd usable as a kernel nowadays?

Yes if you cherry pick the hardware :)

What is actually the point of using hurd other than being able to say you use Hurd though?

Maybe it hurds in a good way.

Nah, it's a kernel it does kernel stuff and does not offer anything a normal user notices compared to other kernels.

It might be interesting for people who work on kernels just to see different ways on how to solve common problems.

afaik microkernels have a security advantage since kernel modules do not share the same address space as the main kernel or other modules

Possibly licensing reasons. Linux is GPLv2 only, Hurd seems to be GPLv2 or later, there could be reasons you may want to use something under the GPLv3.

Hurd is not a monolithic kernel, so it's an interesting technical endeavor. It's also a GNU package which means it's guaranteed to stay libre.

Hurd is also a smaller project relative to linux without the many eyes of the Linux board members.

That's debatable, since what people generally call "Linux" is more GNU than Linux anyway. "Linux" as the Linux fandom considers is it big and professional like GNU, because it is GNU (among other things).

But what about Linux distributions compiled without GNU tools? Most popular Linux distribution's kernel currently is compiled with Clang, not GCC, and as far as I am aware does not include anything from GNU. Of course Linux is historically influenced by GNU, but in current day and age they are orthogonal

It doesn't change the larger point that GNU is way bigger than Linux, though. There are a tonne of things that are larger than Linux, and GNU is one of them.

That is an entirely different argument which I did not contest and the comment I have answered to did not make

EDIT: Although, it depends on what we define as "bigger". Binary size is certainly bigger, but user adoption is abysmal comparatively.

but user adoption is abysmal comparatively

I guess this is a matter of perspective. What I was saying in my previous comment is that what people commonly refer to as "Linux" (as in "Linux distributions") is not just Linux (which is just a kernel) but also includes a bunch of other stuff, including GNU (that is what GNU/Linux refers to). If you're talking about the actual thing called Linux, you'd be right, because most GNU systems are GNU/Linux systems, whereas arguably most Linux systems are not GNU systems; Alpine and Android are non-GNU Linux systems.

However, if like many in the Linux fandom you discount Android, then most Linux systems are GNU systems and vice-versa.

Why would I discount the most popular applications of the kernel? That is almost the whole userbase

I wouldn't either, but you see the sentiment especially among the !linuxphones@lemmy.ml crowd. The fact that Android is Linux is significant because it does in fact allow you to run so-called "Linux apps" (either under Termux or under a dedicated chroot set up by something like UserLAnd) and that is something to be lauded. Android has problems but not being "real Linux" is not among them.

I mean the GPL allowed linux to become a commercial entity. And the whole "professional" outlook is because theres a ton of companies who contribute either funds or development to the project.

It is NOT portable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that's all I have :-(.

Famous last words

Well, Linux is 32 years old; GNU goes back to 1984, and Unix all the way back to 1970! The history of this OS is much older than Linus Torvalds's involvement; he "only" created and maintains the most popular kernel.

But yes, happy birthday to Linux. Many thousands have contributed to making this operating system what it is today and they all have my utmost thanks for it.

It is a happy coincidence that the evening before the 1970s began, at 4pm Pacific, they decided to invent UNIX.

How so?

I think it's a joke about how UNIX timestamps work. They count milliseconds from January 1st 1970, 00:00:00 UTC, which is 4pm the day before in PST. So the happy coincidence is that they invented UNIX at the very millisecond when its clock starts.

There, ruined the joke.

Oh right, the UNIX epoch actually starts when UNIX was invented

Somehow, I didn't expect that...

My brain gets numb when I start thinking about all the branches that have come from Unix... and the branches from those branches and so on.

Are you sure unix will be created in the year 3.843063914 E+5636(1970!)

How would anything even survive 3.843063914 E+5636 years after the end of the universe to make unix

They misspoke: Hurd will be usable in year 1970!

No way Linux is 32! I remember when it first came out and it was just...oh.

Don't mind me, I'll just be here yelling at the cloud.

Sigh, my condolences. I’m shouting right beside you. I first learned about linux in 1993 in college. I got it working on a shiny new 486 with super vga graphics. We were allowed access to the college’s aix mainframes and thus the internet via a slip connection - but only through Unix like systems. Linux was amazing, I couldn’t believe we had x going, and loading up cad, matlab, maple, ftp, fsp, irc, nettrek, and everything else possible in the computer centers - but over a telephone line from our apartment.

Magical.

Funny how it really only became my daily driver three ish years ago - despite using it forever. Cuz games - glad that’s changed finally.

The Linus that was promised.

It’s a shame. Linus was and is far more deserving of respect for his contributions to technology than Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. Probably even Woz. But he’s by far down the line in terms of fame and fortune. Except maybe Woz.

Watch some of the interviews in his home office. Dude is a happy dad with a nice family. Meanwhile a lot of tech billionaires are miserable. I'd say the respect he's earned by not selling out is worth more than mainstream success. Linux and Linus are just the right size.

Fair point. Out of all the tech legends, Linus (and Woz) seem the happiest.

They seem to have their priorities in the right place, living a happy comfortable human life instead of trying to mimic the exploit-profit-control-infiniteGrowth-fullThrottle24/7 priorities of the companies they started/own/work for.

I have a feeling he's more okay with having less fortune though. Just the impression I get about him.

I can't imagine he's struggling for money, he's a smart guy and wrote an OS used in some capacity by so many corporations

He's probably written books that sell quite well

They meant gain wealth like apple founders or any other big tech. Believe he derives a salary from Linux foundation for his work. I don't imagine that being anything comparable to owning large percentage of a tech company.

True but he's also going to make more than enough to live comfortably I'm sure

Don't need to be a billionaire to have a good comfortable life

Didn't mean he wasnt earning well. Just clarified what the original comment meant.

What books has Linus written?

Google search found "Just for fun the story of an accidental revolutionary" by Linus torvalds as the first result

My point was more that there are absolutely ways he can make money off Linux's success

If we are marking the birth of Linux and trying to call it GNU / Linux, we should remember our history.

Linux was not created with the intention of being part of the GNU project. In this very announcement, it says “not big and professional like GNU”. Taking away the adjectives, the important bit is “not GNU”. Parts of GNU turned out to be “big and professional”. Look at who contributes to GCC and Glibc for example. I would argue that the GNU kernel ( HURD ) is essentially a hobby project though ( not very “professional” ). The rest of GNU never really not that “big” either. My Linux distro offers me something like 80,000 packages and only a few hundred of them are associated with the GNU project.

What I wanted to point out here though is the license. Today, the Linux kernel is distributed via the GPL. This is the Free Software Foundation’s ( FSF ) General Public License—arguably the most important copyleft software license. Linux did not start out GPL though.

In fact, the early goals of the FSF and Linus were not totally aligned.

The FSF started the GNU project to create a POSIX system that provides Richard Stallman’s four freedoms and the GPL was conceived to enforce this. The “free” in FSF stands for freedom. In the early days, GNU was not free as in money as Richard Stallman did not care about that. Richard Stallman made money for the FSF by charging for distribution of GNU on tapes.

While Linus Torvalds as always been a proponent of Open Source, he has not always been a great advocate of “free software” in the FSF sense. The reason that Linus wrote Linux is because MINIX ( and UNIX of course ) cost money. When he says “free” in this announcement, he means money. When he started shipping Linux, he did not use the GPL. Perhaps the most important provision of the original Linux license was that you could NOT charge money for it. So we can see that Linus and RMS ( Richard Stallman ) had different goals.

In the early days, a “working” Linux system was certainly Linux + GNU ( see my reply elsewhere ). As there was no other “free” ( legally unencumbered ) UNIX-a-like, Linux became popular quickly. People started handing out Linux CDs at conferences and in universities ( this was pre-WWW remember ). The Linux license meant that you could not charge for these though and, back then, distributing CDs was not cheap. So being an enthusiastic Linux promoter was a financial commitment ( the opposite of “free” ).

People complained to Linus about this. Imposing financial hardship was the opposite of what he was trying to do. So, to resolve the situation, Linus switched the Linux kernel license to GPL.

The Linux kernel uses a modified GPL though. It is one that makes it more “open” ( as in Open Source ) but less “free” ( as in RMS / FSF ).

Switching to the GPL was certainly a great move for Linux. It exploded in popularity. When the web become a thing in the mid-90’s, Linux grew like wild fire and it dragged parts of the GNU project into the limelight wit it.

As a footnote, when Linus sent this announcement that he was working on Linux, BSD was already a thing. BSD was popular in academia and a version for the 386 ( the hardware Linus had ) had just been created. As BSD was more mature and more advanced, arguably it should have been BSD and not Linux that took over the world. BSD was free both in terms or money and freedom. It used the BSD license of course which is either more or less free than the GPL depending on which freedoms you value. Sadly, AT&T sued Berkeley ( the B in BSD ) to stop the “free”‘ distribution of BSD. Linux emerged as an alternative to BSD right at the moment that BSD was seen as legally risky. Soon, Linux was reaching audiences that had never heard of BSD. By the time the BSD lawsuit was settled, Linux was well on its way and had the momentum. BSD is still with us ( most purely as FreeBSD ) but it never caught up in terms of community size and / or commercial involvement.

If not for that AT&T lawsuit, there may have never been a Linux as we know it now and GNU would probably be much less popular as well.

Ironically, at the time that Linus wrote this announcement, BSD required GCC as well. Modern FreeBSD uses Clang / LLVM instead but this did not come around until many, many years later. The GNU project deserves its place in history and not just on Linux.

Can this be the new GNU/Linux copypasta?

The BSD license allows incorporation of BSD code in non-free projects. That was both an advantage for capitalists while simultaneously moving hobbyists away from it's development. Kind of an important bit of info.

Something is open source or isn't. There's a set, binary definition.
I get the feeling you're implying a difference/aversion between those two terms which doesn't exist. This and the combination with a nonsensical statement about amount of GNU packages vs non-GNU packed makes it feel like you're pushing an agenda here: There's far more free software than just GNU's - that's a success for free software and the GNU project. There's no connect between the argument you're obviously implying.
Also HURD never took off - but why should it? The GNU project's goal is a fully free operating system, with Linux being persuaded to adopt a proper license there's no real need for HURD. It doesn't mean it isn't a fun project.

Which two terms? Everyone has an agenda but I am not sure what I am being accused of here. Do you mean Free Software vs Open Source? The FSF goes to great lengths to distinguish between those two terms:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html

I am pretty sure my usage is consistent with the owners and creators of those terms. Have I made an error?

4 more...

Open source is one thing but "free" is a lot of things.

4 more...
4 more...

Quoting from memory: "Remember the times when men were men and wrote their own device drivers?"

What are AT-harddisks? Google is not helpful.

Aka PATA or IDE hard disks. Basically consumer grade kit.

The statement that the kernel would only ever handle IDE was basically a confession that this would never be a product suitable for enterprise or professional use where SCSI was the typical interface.

To be fair, it's actually not suitable for professional use. That'd be an understatement, it's damn perfect for literally everything!

1 more...

I love GNU/Linux.

Before I used Debian, I'd constantly fight with my operating system. Every time I opened michaelsoft binbows(which would take ages to open), I'd make sure that simplewall is running, so that bill doesn't get any more info, after every 180 days, I'd run MAS to renew my office 365. I'd manually sync time since windows would use that same domain to send telemetry.

Now everytime I turn on my computer, the swirl of Debian greets me in a flash, my i3 being ready even before I sit.

I can spend hours doing work without any mandatory updates . It is an operating system that never makes me feel its presence. For that I'm grateful to people like Ian, Stallman, Linus, among countless others making my life better.

I can spend hours doing work without any mandatory updates .

Weird way to say spend hours fixing something that just randomly borked your PC.

Seriously, though. Windows has a fuck ton of issues, but it seems like every distro I install I am eventually greeted with something just completely breaking for no reason whatsoever and spend the next 6 hours scouring Linux forums for a solution, where everyone is just hostile as fuck screaming at people to "figure it out yourself" and to "use Terminal".

Glad it works for you, though. Wonder how many downvotes this cold take is going to net me lol.

Weird way to say spend hours fixing something that just randomly borked your PC.

by work, I meant actual work, and not fixing something.
Last time I fixed something was a few weeks ago. It was MPV needing an update(which was totally my fault, as I often forget to do updates) as a yt-dlp script wasn't working.

As for something breaking, my experience has been the opposite. Probably because I don't own any newest hardware and don't do much gaming, or any other stuff that might require some proprietary service for optimal functioning.

Also, my experience with the community has been excellent so far. Even my basic questions(e.g.: dual boot) were answered promptly and nicely by the community(I mostly use #linux on IRC, or distro-specific forums like linux mint forum).

I'd suggest you to give GNU/Linux one more try. Probably try out something like Nobara if you're into games. Or maybe Linux mint if you want it to just work.

Maybe you just weren't lucky the first time.

And don't worry about fake internet points. They mean nothing.

I decided to try Linux Mint a few months back at work, and was very pleasantly surprised at how easy to use and just-works it is.

We use some fedora build VMs, but I generally have a monitor dedicated to Mint while having the company’s Microsoft stuff on another.

I use Ubuntu on my desktop and when I had an NVIDIA video card I did have fairly frequent issues when the proprietary drivers would update and then not play nice with something. That card died and I replaced it with an AMD video card and I don't think I've had a "dive into the annals of gnu/Linux architecture" session since.

I also had some bad RAM at one point and spent a couple of hours trying in vain to boot into either Linux or Windows.

I do think it's fair to say that there are some things that Windows handles a little more gracefully, but the situation is not nearly as bad as it used to be / people still tend to think it is.

I also have a Windows laptop, and from time to time I'll have an issue that I'm trying to fix and I'll end up on the Microsoft forum where someone asked my question and the answers are either answers to questions that weren't asked or a set of steps that must have been based on a different build of Windows or something because there's no way to follow them on my installation of Windows 11. So maybe that's not hostile like the old school Linux forums, but it's still unhelpful.

I think both are fine, both have their pros and cons, and those pros and cons aren't as different as people make them out to be.

Is chatGPT any good at fixing Ubuntu problems?

I haven't tried that, but my guess is generally no based on other things I've tried chatGPT for and things I've read. It would probably have some lucky hits and those would seem like magic, but it would mostly produce correct-sounding answers that don't fix the problems.

The only times I've "broken" something it's because I did dumb shit lol. I've heard tell of it happening but usually not on something like Debian LTS, usually arch. Also, if you're looking for a GUI solution that doesn't exist, yes, people will often say "use the terminal" and unless you said "no terminal" they usually say "try this command.." with it. I've only had one dude be an insufferable prick about it in all my time on linux, and it got him (CHEFKOCH) banned from c/linux like 2y ago. I'm not gonna downvote you for being wrong, but you are at least outdated in your info.

Yep, this has been my experience too.

People shit on windows, but it was easy to navigate, and generally made an effort to keep you from breaking it and you pretty much never had to enter a command line for anything as an average user.

Linux troubleshooting, especially for new people, is going to become a much bigger problem as time goes on because any searched solution basically boils down to copy and pasting stuff into terminal and hoping its 1)still relevant and 2) doesnt break everything worse. Which is probably why so many immutable distros have popped up, to give that windows level of protection.

As for hostility? Its still there, in pockets. Not so much on lemmy from what i've seen, but it still exists elsewhere.. but it is significantly better overall than it was 10+ years ago, where questions about problems were seemingly treated as insults against the prophet and were responded to with great aggression, and often racist undertones.

Maybe I’m the minority, but I’ve never really broken my Linux. Sure, it’s NixOS, so it’s a little more stable than many other distros, but still, I have a much better time with it than I do with Windows

Amen to that.

A lot of Linux users have forgotten how tech-savvy they are even compared to the average power user. Saying "Linux just works" shows just how tone deaf they are.

As someone who didnt know anything about file systems besides FAT32 and NTFS, and as someone who isn't comfortable using command line, trying to switch to Linux was horrible. On windows something might not work they way you want it to, but it does kinda work. On Linux I felt like I had to fight every step of the way to do simple tasks.

Its like buying a car - I'm not a gearhead, I just want something that gets me around when I put petrol in. I want to drive it off the lot, even if there are a few maddening features like the cup holder being in the wrong place. I don't want to have to choose the right wheels and assemble them, I don't want to have to buy seats and install them, and I don't want to stop every other day to figure out why something isn't working.

Weird esoteric issues happen on Windows too. I had a bug where I couldn’t create a new folder from Windows Explorer, which I never figured out and didn’t resolve itself with reboots or even Windows updates. I probably could have spent a half day tracking it down and fixing it, but someone less tech savvy would probably have had to reinstall Windows. Instead I just popped a terminal and used mkdir whenever I needed a new folder until I upgraded to Windows 11 and that resolved it.

Point is, computers just suck sometimes regardless of what software they run. Or I’m just a magnet for ridiculous arcane bugs, you decide.

This might come across as Linux fanboyism but I currently have Linux, Windows, macOS, iPadOS, Android, and FreeBSD all running on various devices around my house and they all suck in their own unique ways.

every distro I install I am eventually greeted with something just completely breaking for no reason whatsoever

This happens on Windows too and the fixes you have to apply aren't less esoteric.

For example: User complains that Spyder won't start on her brand-new laptop. Installation seems perfectly fine, nothing wrong there, no corruption or obvious missing bits. Dig around in the Windows log files, find some fairly generic error. Do a bit of googling, eventually decide to just search Github for issues mentioning Spyder not loading. Turns out the laptop is just too new and the AMD graphics driver Windows installs on its own has issues with the IGPU. So replacing that with newer the version AMD distributes fixes it.

Or, with Windows 11, if you want the start menu on the left and the Explorer context menu usable: Sure, just open powershell and run these commands to create new, weird registry keys to force it, btw these are not supported by Microsoft, you're on your own.

I'd rather choose the OS that doesn't have the audacity to charge money and then blast me with ads in the start menu.

Same, does it work? If it means booting into a DE and being able to move your mouse and type on your keyboard, sure most distros can do that.

It’s those little gotchas everywhere that gets you. Enabling video acceleration on Nvidia in firefox? Getting LDAC to work on Bluetooth? Etc. etc.

Do most distros work? Yeah, only if you don’t mind software encoding, or compiling from some user-provided repos.

I have a few hobby boxes running all flavours of distros, but whenever I need something to just work with no caveats, I go back to w11.

This happend to me a lot 10-15 years ago but since then has never again happened to me. With the noteable exception of Arch Linux which does tell you to read update notes though.

Did stallman coat-tail Linux on day one, or did he latch onto the "ackshually, it's got some gun in there so we deserve top billing" only a little after?

Linux doesn't have any GNU in it. Linux is a kernel that GNU runs on top of. That's what Stallman means by "GNU/Linux."

Maybe he is a little bitter about his life's work and philosophy being erased by Linux fans, but that is understandable. Maybe he is a little too bitter.

People think it's about Stallman being bitter. But it's because GNU is a political project with the goal of total user freedom and control over their computer. The software is a step on the way there. But if people use free software without understanding, valuing or taking advantage of the freedom it gives them, the GNU project has failed.

No, its because Linus Torvalds doesn't consider libre software to be important. Torvalds sucks when it comes to free software.

GNU Hurd is an incredibly important project because there can't be just one "free software kernel."

Richard Stallman doesn't care about popularity. He already changed the world. What he does care about is people forgetting their commitment to freedom.

He doesn't give a shit if people say Linux, he does give a shit if people are "marketing" Linux without an emphasis on freedom.

Something that many have failed in.

I thought it was funny that at one point he said "It's not like I want to call it Stallmanix!"

What's holding GNU/Hurd back? Can't be hardware anymore since it became blazing fast

Nothing is holding hurd back. Debian and GNU Guix both ship hurd. The world has failed hurd instead.

Hurd will never accept firmware blobs or proprietary drivers. Thus, it will not work on OEMs who use those tactics for their machines. You are still able to install hurd in a VM as those have libre standards.

This is true for all GNU packages, not just hurd.

Oh that's sad. The nature of commerce and competition means that proprietary stuff will never go away because making closed stuff is the way MBAs are taught to create "competitive advantage"

The strategy of the GNU project is to create and support as much free software as possible to make proprietary software obsolete.

Firmware is one of the biggest hurdles as the freeworld has the userland locked down for the most part (albeit some editing software like CAD or becoming feature competitive with photoshop).

There will always be people seeking to control others through dirty licenses and EULAs. The solution is not to target them (yet!) but to reject them and empower ourselves.

If that means not being able to use a wifi card: use an adapter! Or use ethernet. If that means we can't get microcode, we'll find cpus unencumbered by patents or reveree engineer them. Want to use an apple m1? There are people trying to liberate that machine as much as possible.

Probably after he gave up on his own kernel (Hurd) being a viable competitor.

I hate this language, its so fucking dehumanizing. "Viable competitor" is such bullshit. Torvalds gave away his commitment to freedom with binary blobs. That's his decision to do. But to label Hurd on that same level is the biggest disservice to history you could ever do.

Hurd will never be the "viable competitor" because you hold selfish attitudes about how makes software valuable or not.

Torvalds sold out. Hurd didn't.

“Torvalds sold out.” Would you mind elaborating what you mean by selling out in this context?

Top members are all companies that have made bank abusing their users to no end. Linus Torvalds refuses to upgrade to GPLv3 because he doesn't see the value for enforced freedom restrictions. He is a "freedom for me, but not for thee" type of person. Hurd on the other hand will never suffer this issue because of it being a GNU package.

The kernel is filled to the brim with nonfree firmware blobs. These blobs can be updated/modified by the vendor but not by the user, by that definition, they are nonfree. You could say that Linus Torvalds chose the "pragmatic" option. You wouldn't be wrong to deduce that none of the companies on that board member list would EVER contribute to the kernel if they had to also respect the user's freedom.

But that's the thing, Torvalds still sold out. Scandals like the proprietary Nvidia driver (which will now get its home in nonfree firmware) gets to happen (and will continue to happen) because the precedent was set. Torvalds historically didn't even want to liberate his kernel until he was convinced by the work of the GNU project to do so.

Torvalds is the poster boy because he does not threaten any sort of status quo. No one is immune to propaganda, and the Torvalds "Open Source" media narrative is still the dominant one. The GNU/Linux vs. Linux controversy is propelled by this Faustian pact.

Have these members made any notable changes that hampered Linux's freedom? How is not adding more restrictions for freedom to allow more freedom "not for thee"? How did "Torvalds historically didn’t even want to liberate his kernel"? It was open-source from the start, and also had his self-drafted free license which he later switched to GPL which also removed his no commercial distribution clause. By your arguments that sounds like he sold out to GNU. The FSF is way too idealistic to be able to move the world under the current status quo.

Intel and AMD both have tons of blobs that they ship to the kernel. Google has Android which relies on more nonfree firmware and proprietary user space. ChromeOS is also another example.

Strict copyleft has always shielded contributions from being used nonfree programs, ensuring their freedom. Weakened copyleft or pushover licenses should only be used in certain circumstances.

"Open source" was not a concrete concept back then. It was certainly not as we know the concept today. The noncommercial clause in torvald's initial license would not comply with the 4 freedoms, thus it was proprietary.

Torvalds didn't "sell out" to GNU. He liberated his own project for use in the GNU Operating System which is and always will be a project to create a fully free operating system.

Libre != noncommercial, neither are virtually all definitions of the modern open source movement. If torvalds were to sell out he would have kept his kernel as it was.

The FSF is not "too idealistic." It is simply an organization dedicated to a set of standards for software freedom. They solve problems related to living without nonfree software and share those solutions.

The real "idealistic" world is the status quo, where all humans are meant to grovel at the IT tyrants as computer science becomes more and more stripped away from public conciousness. It is idealistic to think that human citizens would not revolt against this system and expose it for the parasitic shell that it is.

The FSF is a response to freedom being stripped away from us day by day. The reason you didn't think of it that way is because no one is immune to propaganda blasted to you 24/7.

Every good natured family member who tells you to use facebook, every peer who tells you to go on a discord "server." Every weak redditor. The huge amounts of e-waste produced by OEMs with little to no regulation. And all the kids who are being raised under the jailphones of iOS and Android. This is all propaganda designed to manufacture consent for you swindling away your freedom to privacy and computer science. If the ghouls could convince you that computers were magic, they would.

Why would this not spawn the most fierce resistance campaign that spans the entire globe? One that is unyielding and hostile to threats?

And why wouldn't one want you to think that they're too "idealistic?"

macOS is based off FreeBSD, which is completely free. Not sure what you mean here. I don't really see much documentation that shows GNU made Linus use GPL or not. You can't assert that.

Being dedicated to software freedom doesn't exclude you from being idealistic. They propose solutions that would require good sacrifices that many greedy people simply won't follow. If you really think the status quo is "idealistic" then you don't know what that word means. Computer science is already very much in the public consciousness and corporations have already been exposed, but they still operate. It's idealistic to think they would sacrifice their greed. Despite how much software the FSF have funded, they're still unable to attack.

Linux is a practical response to non-freedom. "sell out", "liberated", "changed his license" is all just word choice. There is still a long gap between open-source and proprietary. Nobody should co-opt words, including that "open-source" shouldn't be redefined to libre software. You can argue that any promotional stuff, including FSF, is propaganda being blasted to you 24/7. Yes, these are very awful, but we need workable alternatives that can do many of the same stuff to switch to before we can rejoin freedom.

macOS is based off FreeBSD, which is completely free. Not sure what you mean here.

I don't know which part of the comment you are referring to, but stating that MacOS is based off of FreeBSD is the same fallacy as saying Android is based off Linux. The two proprietary systems (very few people run Android with a fully libre userland) have become so drastically different that it becomes just a historical fun fact. Not to mention your statement doesn't paint the full story.

I don’t really see much documentation that shows GNU made Linus use GPL or not. You can’t assert that.

Torvalds states in this interview that: "So in the meantime people have pointed me to the GPLv2, and I decided that rather than just change my license by editing it again, I should just use an existing one."

Sure, the GNU Project did not directly advise Torvalds to use the GPLv2. But Torvalds found utility in the GPL as a way to close the financial gap of distributing and support the kernel's development.

They propose solutions that would require good sacrifices that many greedy people simply won’t follow.

No social movement has ever succeeded by appealing to the whims of the most selfish people. Most folks don't use proprietary software out of any sort of greed, but because of envy and ignorance. Envy meaning that proprietary software and its propaganda is so prevalent in society that people feel like they will be harmed if they don't use it. Ignorance is self-explanatory. At least in the US, scientific illiteracy is far too common and a well documented phenomena.

If you really think the status quo is “idealistic” then you don’t know what that word means.

I do think it's idealistic for many in society to believe that the current proprietary model is sustainable. It's an artifice that many governments and communities have opted in to. To stay on a sinking ship in hopes of it getting better is pretty idealistic, no? The status quo was a purposeful decision made by the parasitic hoarders of society to perpetuate, it is a constant ongoing theft of knowledge and wealth.

Despite how much software the FSF have funded, they’re still unable to attack.

True, they aren't a multi-billionaire who strong-arms and bribes the US Congress to spread his OS and ideology throughout schools (cough Bill Gates). But I think a rag-tag group of volunteers have done immeasurable damage relative to their resources.

You can argue that any promotional stuff, including FSF, is propaganda being blasted to you 24/7.

This is in bad faith, you cannot equate the FSF with large multinational media firms. I wish the FSF's message was blasted 24/7, but the reality is it's not and it's very disingenuous to say otherwise.

Linux is a practical response to non-freedom... but we need workable alternatives that can do many of the same stuff to switch to before we can rejoin freedom.

I don't think you've actually read about the GNU project. You're just repeating the GNU Project's mission but falsely attributing it to Linux. "Workable alternatives" is also a misnomer. Free software is not an "alternative" to proprietary software. Free software is meant to invalidate and destroy the legitimacy of proprietary implementations. By saying alternative you're subtly implying that nonfree software has a place in Computer Science and setting up Free software to always be beholden to its proprietary implementation. A nonfree firmware blob is not an "alternative" it's a concession and a fatal flaw.

I was referring to your first paragraph which along with other things lists Android.

(I'll assume we agree on this one)

(This is also partly a response to the last part). You do get harmed if you don't use proprietary software simply due to the status quo. For example, many ignorant software use Discord or GitHub, both proprietary software, as their sole means of support. If you don't use them, you can't fix many problems. If you don't have that firmware blob, your computer simply can't run Linux. That is the forced place of proprietary, which makes some concessions necessary. Linux also isn't "flawed" simply because they include these.

Sure if you mean idealistic to the greedy. That wasn't very clear, hence my misunderstanding.

Yes, which is why many are still forced to use proprietary software in their careers. Despite their best efforts the GNU project still hasn't been able to cover every job needed, though they have succeeded with the parts they've already finished.

What I'm saying is "you got propaganda" is not the argument. Falsify the propaganda, not the propagandees.

I have no idea why you think I attributed GNU to Linux. I'm just saying that Linux is currently far more practical than the FSF's excessive purity (which Linux can also achieve).

Scandals like the proprietary Nvidia driver (which will now get its home in nonfree firmware) gets to happen (and will continue to happen) because the precedent was set.

Doesn't this depend a lot on the vendors having a lock-in on the GPU market? Semiconductor manufacturing is super expensive and there is little incentive for Nvidia to release a Free as in Libre device driver. There aren't any FOSS GPUs in development so FOSS drivers can't be made.

So we either have the choice of accepting proprietary drivers or just not using the functionality of GPUs.

Linus Torvalds has a large political influence, even he couldn't hold back and flipped off Nvidia. But Torvalds and the rest of the foundation don't go further than that. They're willing to criticize but not to condemn.

You're right in that the larger hardware industry is an even bigger shithole artifice than IT is. Thats a failure of state actors who have an open secret of corruption (esp in the US) and laziness. Projects like RISC-V and coreboot are promising in that regard.

So we either have the choice of accepting proprietary drivers or just not using the functionality of GPUs.

Thats just life. This is still a transitionary period. But soon in the future, all software will be libre and all proprietary elements will be purged, never to come back ever again.

So we either have the choice of accepting proprietary drivers or just not using the functionality of GPUs.

Thats just life.

If you're willing to accept that, then why are you so critical of Linus? The fact that you can build a fully free version of Linux seems like the best of both worlds. From your perspective: get market share now by allowing non-free components, and then eventually transition them out while maintaining compatibility with the majority of the ecosystem.

"ecosystem" is a misleading term here. There is no "ecosystem" in CS, market giants explicitly make decisions about what their product policy is and rarely budge on them out of goodwill. Ecosystem implies that we implicitly lack a large degree of control and are only observers. That may be true for cutting edge research (only sometimes from a certain perspective), but hardly the case for when a company wants to create jails in their software for their clients. Or refuse to release firmware for a wifi card that they don't even sell anymore. Those are gardens meant to trap users in. The garden of the GNU project is all unapologetically libre software meant to prevent users from endangering themselves with nonfree software.

The GNU project never "allowed" non-free components, but they will always exist. The goal is to obtain a fully free operating system on all levels. It's okay to use proprietary software for the purposes of study and reverse engineering (a la using UNIX to develop userland/kernel). What's not okay is to stop agitating for more freedom.

The current GNU/Busybox + Linux desktop is virtually a complete operating system, but is held back by blobs and users advocating for proprietary software (users complaining that proprietary "X" doesn't run on "Linux").

We get market share by being more free, not by making ruinous compromises.

We do in fact not have much control over non-free software especially when they have a monopoly and exclusive features.

There is a(n) (unofficial) version of Linux that strips away all the non-free blobs. So we do have a completely free OS. Not to mention BSD.

We get market share by being more free, not by making ruinous compromises.

Tell that to Windows.

The control we should have was taken away from us. Though efforts like RISC-V and Asahi Linux are both examples of purposefully regaining control.

Linux-libre or Linux-gnu is the official de-blobbed linux kernel of the GNU project. However, Linux-libre is an ongoing project that needs to overcome microcode and blobs as does Hurd. The linux kernel itself is free software, but is often built or packaged with nonfree blobs.

Windows has continually added anti-features, jails, and other injustices. They are a subgroup of the microsoft corporation, which spends millions upon millions in legally gray practices to spread their nonfree software.

Windows gets users by capturing them.

I agree with the first part. By unofficial I meant not from the Linux maintainers.

Yes, but in the end, Windows still has all that market share.

How the heck does "viable competitor" mean "we're totally free". Why are you dehumanizing Torvalds just for supporting more drivers.

Linux is in development heaven. HURD is not so much.

@jsnc @JuxtaposedJaguar that seems a bit too “zealot” to me. And viable competitor is exactly the right phrase to use, or am I mistaken in thinking I use Linux instead of HURD?

It is a "zealot" opinion because I don't topple over at the slightest breeze.

Both Linux and Hurd are libre software. However, the freedom of linux is compromised as torvalds set the standard for how OEMs can circumvent the GPLv2.

"viable competitor" is not the correct term to use. It miscontrues decades of history and circumstance.

Hurd is far better than Linux in terms of ensuring your freedom. But linux is better for getting more folks onto the freedom ladder. Linux however, isn't the end goal: GNU is. If you don't know what that means, congrats, you're part of the problem.

GNU has their own kernel, called linux-libre, which follows the same set of principles as Hurd. It won't function 100% on modern OEM hardware but its important as message towards freedom.

I use a blobbed kernel one if my machines, but I also have a librebooted debian thinkpad. I am intensely interested in a fully free OS, this is why i seem stubborn to those who don't even keep what Im saying in mind.

My x220 uses intel microcode, that is nonfree software. However, I was convinced by the founder of libreboot's (Leah Rowe) extensive writing to make it so. Im not completely stubborn, but Im also not careless.

If you don't know what that means, congrats, you're part of the problem

Ok you sold me, I'll go back to windows. Fine job building a community.

Ok you sold me, I’ll go back to windows. Fine job building a community.

So, you're going to punish yourself because of what somebody said to you?

I don't feel punished by stepping away from people like him. If my choices are that guy and his ilk or the occasional ad for bing, I'll take bing. At least that goes away when you click a button.

No one is here to coddle your feelings. Enjoy being a loser bootlicker, you never cared in the first place and want to project that onto others.

I don't want to admit using Linux because I'm worried people might confise me with annoying self righteous ideologue twats like you. Same reason I don't identify as atheist anymore.

Idk what you think you're doing, but you're not helping your cause. That much is for sure.

Im sorry you're insecure. I scream GNU because I'm not embarassed about having an opinion.

My "cause" doesn't include kissing your ass when you feel uncomfortable.

Your "cause" is getting on your high horse and spewing rhetoric for countless paragraphs. Linux is nothing more than a vehicle for you to do that. If it didn't exist, you'd find something else to fartsniff about. Fuck off.

1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...

I first recall him trying to shoulder surf Linux’s popularity not long after the XFree86 project switched to a new license that included an acknowledgement clause, so around 2004/2005. I still chuckle when I see that he wants me to call it GNU/Linux, but he has a shit hemorrhage because XFree86 added a license clause requiring similar labeling. He’s made more than his share of contributions, but he takes pedantry to a whole new level.

2 more...

That makes Linux a Leo. Someone who cares about that tell me what that means

Means it has positive polarity, fixed modality, and fire triplicity. Don't you know nothing?

Read as Law Enforcement Officer. And I was, huh? Then it hit me. Ah, the zodiac...

Isn’t the end date for Leo the 23rd? So shouldn’t it be Virgo instead?

Horoscopes for August 25, 1991

Leo

Today, and forevermore, you will be the subject of many arguments on the internet.

Seems like only yesterday I was co-admining my first public server in 1996.

Fun times.

Good on you. I was still watching cartoons in 1996. To be fair I matured very late (if ever).

Actually it's just called 'Linux'

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU+Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU+Linux. All the so-called Linux distributions are really distributions of GNU+Linux!

I’d just like to interject for a moment. I agree that it is most accurately just called Linux.

The GNU project was an attempt to create a free POSIX compatible operating system. At least, that was the vision. Instead of starting with the kernel, as most OS projects do now, GNU started by writing the utilities and other important tools that such a system would use ( most notably the C library and C compiler ). In practice, GNU became an alternative userland that ran on the proprietary UNIX systems of the day. Even MINIX, while being a teaching OS, was proprietary and cost money. The only “free” UNIX was BSD and its existence was being threatened as it was being sued by AT&T ( inventors of UNIX ). Linus set out to create a “free” ( as in money ) POSIX system because none existed. His job was made significantly easier because of the existence of GNU and especially GCC and Bash which Linus selected because they were free ( yes, as in freedom but more important to him at the time — in terms of money ).

Ironically, nobody used the term GNU / Linux in the early days of Linux. That is despite the fact that GNU + Linux would certainly have been the best description of what Linux was in the 90’s.

These days though, the term GNU / Linux, while being politically important, is descriptively wrong.

First, a relatively small fraction of the software installed on a typical Linux desktop is provided by the GNJ Project. The parts that define the experience for the end user ( eg. desktop environment ) are not GNU. Huge systems like X, Wayland, and Mesa are not even GPL ( they are MIT licensed ). Almost none of the GUI applications people use are GNU.

True, most Linux distros ship the GNU userland. Not all though. Most importantly, what make a Linux distro a Linux distro is Linux, not GNU. GNU is not the important part.

Linux dominates in the cloud. These days, the most important aspect of that is Linux specific containerization ( eg. Kubernetes ). Perhaps the most widely deployed Linux in the cloud is Alpine which uses MUSL instead of Glibc and Busybox instead of the GNU core utils. It is not GNU / Linux but it is certainly Linux.

How is modern Linux gaming possible? Well, the emergence of things like Valve’s proton ( not GNU ) are certainly important. But GPU drivers like those from AMD and NVIDIA are even more important and those use infrastructure which is entirely Linux specific.

Look at the Debian project. When we say Debian, we think of Linux and certainly it is one of the distros most likely to be called GNU / Linux. Debian Linux is certainly a Linux and provides the full Linux experience. Debian also offers Debian HURD ( a true GNU system ). Are Debian Linux and Debian HURD the same? They are both “Debian”. The answer though is that they are not at all the same. Debian HURD cannot even host all Debian packages. The truth is that Debian HURD is unsuitable for a huge percentage of the people that daily drive Debian Linux today. You are certainly not gaming on Debian HURD ( it lacks the Direct Rendering Infrastructure for example ). You are not live steaming or video editing either.

How about software developers? I would argue that this is the audience that GNU was originally created for. Well, Debian HURD is unsuitable for them as well because Linux matters more than GNU. For most developers today, tools like Docker or Podman are vital and they depend on the Linux kernel completely to function. These days, these kinds of tools are more essential even than the compiler. You can switch from GCC ( GNU ) to Clang ( BSD - not GNU ) easily. But how are you using containers ( Docker / Podman ) or virtual machines on Debian HURD?

As an extreme example of a Linux workstation, Chimera Linux installs with basically zero GNU software by default ( MUSL again and the FreeBSD userland including Clang / LLVM instead of GCC ). From the perspective of an end-user, it is exactly like any other Linux. Chimera uses GNOME as the DE which is not GNU either.

I can make a Linux system that contains no GNU software and it is still Linux. I can do any of the things that I expect a Linux system to do ( as a desktop, as a server, or in the cloud ). GNU is historically important but, at this point in history, it is completely overshadowed and entirely non-essential. If I take away the Linux though, GNU offers me almost nothing that I expect from a modern Linux.

GNU is still trying to create a free implementation of the kinds of UNIX systems that Richard Stallman encountered in the 80’s. An improvement of such systems you could argue but then again, it still has not got there. For the GNU project to be taking credit for what modern Linux has become is totally ludicrous.

What you are referring to is Linux and, more specifically, certainly not GNU / Linux. “Linux” is not just the Linux kernel anymore—it is the massive ecosystem of software that was designed specially to run on Linux and to work together to create a Linux system. Often people use GNU on Linux but that does not give GNU the right to equal billing. Not anymore.

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.

I read in "The Cathedral and The Bazaar" that Linux was not that revolutionary (it reused code and ideas from Mimix) but the collaboration of the entire talent pool from the Internet to develop the kernel is. Massively respect for Linus.

1 more...