Achemm....
GNU Linux
this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2025
198 points (90.6% liked)
Linux
50472 readers
953 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 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I remember a podcast I used to listen to a long time ago that argued that MS should just make a fork of the Linux kernel and just make the gui work like Windows. Better security and stability, and huge increase in user base with all the normal Linux users seeing it as viable alternative. I thought it was a brilliant idea. Well except Microsoft would likely have figured a way to kill Linux from the inside.
That is the literal opposite of what the world needs.
Windows isn't a bad OS from a purely technical perspective. If Windows were released as FOSS, I would switch to Windows without hesitation.
If it's not POSIX, it's POS
Oh it's infamous racist Bryan Lunduke. Is there no rule against posting that guy?
I see no racism in the video posted?
Oh? What did he do
He's an anti-woke crusader and bigot. A large chunk (probably most) of his "content" is actually about that.
CW all sorts of bigotry
"Best Alternatives to Woke Software", "Devuan: The Non-Woke Debian Linux Fork", lots of shit like that.
He loves talking about so-called "reverse racism", he thinks white people are oppressed in US tech.
Here's a recent one:
https://lunduke.substack.com/p/meta-ending-del-ending-fact-checking
They [Meta] are allowing criticism of LGTBQ+blublublub issues, including *snicker* the statement that gay people are mentally ill [...] and they're allowing vaccine skepticism on the platform [...] and it is, I'm not gonna lie, mildly hilarious.
I don't have a list of specific instances on hand. But he was kind of a contrarian voice for a while that I listened to over a decade ago, but in 2016 went in the more anti-woke (anti-CRT in terms of the time) and very reactionary culture war turn.
No it's not, it's based on BSD, or more specifically Darwin, which is derived from BSD, so Unix-like, but not Linux.
Although, oddly, macOS is a certified UNIX OS so it can rightfully sit at the table with the SysV distros such as AIX, HP-UX, or Solaris, but it's nothing like those OSes in its nature.
Not just Unix-like but actually ancestrally Unix as well as being certified as Unix
It'd help if Lunduke were to explain the true origin of those things like Ada Lovelace and programming, and Grace Hopper and the moth. And what predated that.
10/10 roast in the comments
isn't Linux Unix-like?
The video claims ada lovelace did not write the first computer program but it would kind of depend how you define what that is. If you check wikipedia it states:
“During 1842–1849, Ada Lovelace translated the memoir of Italian mathematician Luigi Menabrea about Charles Babbage's newest proposed machine: the Analytical Engine; she supplemented the memoir with notes that specified in detail a method for calculating Bernoulli numbers with the engine, recognized by most of historians as the world's first published computer program.”
From : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_programming_languages
This would indicate its not a cut and dry as the youtuber suggests and also I would assume he is not a historian(no clue who he is) so its unclear why his opinion or definition of computer program should usurp that of most historians who would recognise a term may change over time and be less well defined initially when inspiring a new technology?
I wish it was then it may make sense. Every time I use the MacOS terminal. It's like an uncanny valley so similar but the more you look the more horrific it becomes. I can't even say it's Unix is the problem as freebsd makes complete sense.
Thanks for the response. I'm ignorant in this topic. How is MacOS horrific?
load more comments
(2 replies)
macOS may not be FreeBSD, but it definitely is a BSD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Unix#/media/File:Unix_history-simple.svg
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
macOS is UNIX, certified UNIX actually.
But I mean, if someone had the merest impression of macOS and was very familiar with Linux and never bothered to look any further then I'd understand. Maybe they only played around with macOS a little and saw the terminal app had bash and most all the familiar tools as on Linux. It's not hard to see why they might've thought it's Linux based.
I think 10% of people believe nearly anything. It's basically the rounding error for a survey.
Honestly, if you had asked me 10 minutes ago "Is MacOS based on Linux?" I would have gotten it wrong. But if you asked "Is MacOS based on UNIX or Linux?" I would have gotten it right.
load more comments
(8 replies)
Unix, Linux, whats the diff? Its all the same.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
That license does nothing.
Your comments aren’t licensed because you put something in them. It’s stopping nothing. Licensing is an agreement, and requires parties to consent. You don’t just magically force licenses onto people.
If this was real I could license my comments where if you read them, you owe me 10k.
This is the digital equivalent of sovereign citizens.
So, if I go to a library, pick a book and start reading it, I am then free to completely copy it because I didn’t agree to any licensing?
I don’t think it’s equivalent to sovereign citizens. OP is the author of their comment and therefore has the copyrights. As the author one can license their work as all rights reserved or other permissive licenses.
OP chooses to license their work as Creative Commons.
They’re not forcing you to accept the license, it’s your local government that enforces copyright.
The reason why this might work on Lemmy but not on corporate Social media is that corporate social media often have terms of service that require you to give them ownership/rights/etc. Lemmy has no such ToC.
The reason why this might work on Lemmy but not on corporate Social media is that corporate social media often have terms of service that require you to give them ownership/rights/etc. Lemmy has no such ToC.
Actually, Safe Harbor laws would encompass social media sites as well, so it would work there as well.
Either corporations own the content you post and are responsible for it, or they just host your content you post that you own and are immune from harm for the content. The law is currently the latter, and not the former.
Also, law trumps ToS's.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
I don’t think the ToS approach would be invalidated here via your Safe Harbor fork theory.
The ToS could state something like “you give us a worldwide perpetual right to use your content in any way we want including granting this right to whom we designate”
You still own your content but by having an account you agree to the ToS that lets them do what they want.
They just host it and are safe.
load more comments
(15 replies)
load more comments
(19 replies)
view more: next ›