4 ms·
The distinction that's being characterized as "GNU/Linux" vs. just "Alpine" is confusing. Is Alpine using some new kernel? No, it's a Linux distribution that u
by ohazi 5y ago
The distinction that's being characterized as "GNU/Linux" vs. just "Alpine" is confusing.
Is Alpine using some new kernel? No, it's a Linux distribution that uses the Linux kernel, albeit with some unusual defaults.
Does Alpine not have any of the GNU userspace tools? Also no, there are plenty in the Alpine package repository.
Look, I get that GNU/Linux and ”GnU pLuS LiNuX" is a loaded term and has a lot of baggage, and that everyone would like to just be rid of the whole mess, but the characterization used here had me thinking that there was some other "Alpine kernel" experimental OS project that I had missed that had nothing to do with Alpine Linux.
The word "Linux" never once follows the word "Alpine" in this article, and it discusses overcommit mode as if it's a uniquely "GNU/Linux" thing. WTF does kernel overcommit have to do with GNU?
Please just call it what it is.
- lonjil 5y agoSo in your view, having even a single GNU tool installed, or even available for installation, means you're using "GNU/Linux"? Alpine uses musl and busybox rather than the more common GNU equivalents. Kernel overcommit has nothing to do with GNU, but default stack size has a lot to do with which libc you use. Musl has a different default than glibc. Overcommit is mentioned because it is the justification for glibc having a large stack size by default. Musl has defaults that make fewer assumptions about how the system is configured.
- ohazi 5y agoOkay, that's fair. I was confused and responded in frustration. Maybe glibc vs. musl would have been more clear than "GNU/Linux" vs. "Alpine". I still think only referring to it as "Alpine" and not once calling it "Alpine Linux" is weird.