this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2025
220 points (95.1% liked)
Linux
58319 readers
1105 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You are aware that, unlike (e.g.) OpenBSD, Linux is (legally) an American product, right?
I assume you mean The Linux Foundation.
While the LF is US based, the real “product” is the distro and you can choose a non-US distro. My distro of choice is based in Spain.
And, if needed, the kernel could be forked to anywhere in the world without disruption.
Many core programs are built primarily by US firms, like Red Hat, but even OpenBSD relies on many of those. Same story with the forking. OpenBSD maintains some of this themselves (like X11).
What kind of product do you think an operating system kernel is, whose development is driven by a US citizen (Linus Torvalds) under the patronage of a US foundation (Linux Foundation) and with significant involvement of several US companies (Red Hat, Microsoft, NSA) and is usually delivered with a whole host of software from US organisations (foremost: GNU), if not a US product?
I do not consider a stand-alone kernel that does not ship to end users to be a product. But we do not have to argue definitions or semantics if you disagree.
Linux distros are certainly products though (paid or otherwise).
Russia can create a Linux distro, and even modify the kernel, regardless of the rules controlling US companies and foundations. They can certainly vet and remove anything they do not like as well. They just cannot distribute their code via linux.org.
The willingness of Linus to reject Russian participation in the kernel may have more to do with his being Finnish than his being American. There are many American sanctions and restrictions against Huawei (China) and yet they remain one of the largest contributors to the Linux kernel. They use their company email. And the US does not seem very anti-Russian to me (as a third-party to both).
Huawei is a Platinum sponsor of the Linux Foundation. Half of the Platinum Sponsors are from outside the US. Those foreign sponsors could easily establish a non-US based Linux Foundation if needed.
Thank your for saying “usually” regarding the the typical Red Hat/GNU platform (same software). I use Chimera Linux (based out of Spain) which skips a lot of that. It also adds some atypical Microsoft tech, a lot of Google tech, and a typical Linux kernel.
I mean Linus did kick out some russians based on US sanctions, but technically nobody owns Linux. You can use a distro from the EU, and if USA did pressure Linus, people could fork the kernel in another country. As well as it being open source where US pull requests could be analyzed for backdoors
How exactly is that better than Windows?
You are aware that there was a critical security hole in X for almost three decades, right?
First one I agreed he bowed to pressure. 2nd one, not sure which one you mean. Every software has vulnerabilities yet to be discovered, researchers work hard to breakstuff. Windows had tons that researchers disclosed to them and they refused to fix, until researchers started issuing the vulners daily (and said they had 100s more they could release all year). Open Source means we can check and fix once discovered, good luck getting a for profit corporation to act. Re: the recent national defense issue with MS not disclosing vulnerabilities because they didtn want to kill their sales.
How many % of your operating system’s source code have you 1) read and 2) understood?
That's a strawman if I ever saw one
It’s not a strawman. You said “but I can read the source code!”. Do you? Because if you don’t, it doesn’t really matter, right?
Now you are changing words or read it too quick. I never said I. We as in anybody. Again another strawman second sentence. How do you think the researcher found the vulner for xz. He noticean tiny slow down and started scrutinizing code. Closed source is a false sense of security by obscurity. Open source means anyone can scrutinize the code.
Also we deal with enough proprietary software at work to get inside TSBs. Much of proprietary code also is built on open source pieces, so if your troll argument is opensource is bad, then proprietary is also bad on top of that.