Happy birthday ππ 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 π€
this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
1867 points (99.2% liked)
Linux
48331 readers
584 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 AlpΓ‘r-Etele MΓ©der, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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?
The error is in saying something is made "more open source". The definition:
https://opensource.org/osd/
Does your license uphold these rules? It's open source. Does it not? It isn't.
FSF and OSI have slightly different definitions for software. FSF believes in free and open source software (copyleft i.e. GPL) whereas OSI believes in permissive, open source licenses (i.e. MIT/BSD).
In the 1990s, they had disagreements against each other because FSF and Stallman believe in FLOSS/FOSS and free software advocacy politics. OSI was more concerned with open source workflows and not with free software advocacy politics, which was initially more popular with businesses.
That is not correct. Who is this "they" you are talking about? The OSI?
Open source is a term with a definition - which has been written by software freedom advocates by the way.
With free software you have politics and a philosophy, in which somebody can have more freedom or less with a piece of software. I really wouldn't confuse that with the practicability of the OSI definition.
Copyleft or push-over is a whole separate topic. Copyleft might be favoured by software freedom enthusiasts, but I disagree with your idea of separation through that. Even if you don't care about software freedom, you could like the practical effects of the AGPL.
I feel like you're spreading at least misguiding information here.
Richard Stallman, the man behind GNU and FSF. He makes a distinction between free software and open source software.
Stallman is not a pragmatist. He quit his job as a professor at MIT because he felt they were forcing him to use proprietary software, which contradicted his ideals.
Linus still keeps Linux on GPLv2 because he disagrees with GPLv3+ and its anti-tivotization clauses. Companies that contribute code back to Linux is good enough for him. Linus has a more pragmatic view.
Open source is one thing but "free" is a lot of things.