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
1454 points (98.9% liked)
Linux
48376 readers
1848 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
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!"
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 what makes software valuable or not.
Torvalds sold out. Hurd didn't.
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.
βTorvalds sold out.β 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 didnβt 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?"
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.
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.
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.
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.
@jsnc @JuxtaposedJaguar that seems a bit too βzealotβ 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.
Ok you sold me, I'll go back to windows. Fine job building a community.
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.
Someone's mad lol.
Of course I'm mad, you make the Linux community look like a bunch of douchebags
Oh no not your precious "linux" community. I'm so sorry for your loss.