5 ms·

Easy answer. The GPLv2 Linus Torvalds —- GPLv3 would have flopped. BSD results in variants and splinters. as a dictator Linus made a ton of good calls - and

Easy answer. The GPLv2 Linus Torvalds —- GPLv3 would have flopped. BSD results in variants and splinters. as a dictator Linus made a ton of good calls - and a dictator making good calls is pretty efficient. The part that makes me laugh is fsf ignoring the views of their number one success as they fragmented copyleft with GPLv3. Linus has built THE most successful community collaboration. Instead the FSF brought in the lawyers

sneak 4y ago
The other issue is that the FSF is much more focused on ideology than code. When attempting to be relevant to people who can enrich your product (i.e. hackers), working code is way more important than whether you write letters and a slash before the "linux" part of the name. Linus is a hacker first and foremost, and ideology takes a backseat. FSF has the cart before the horse.
- cowtools 4y ago
  I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Horse, is in fact, Cart/Horse, or as I've recently taken to calling it, Cart plus Horse.
- zasdffaa 4y ago
  You think principles unimportant? :)
  - xboxnolifes 4y ago
    Different principles is not a lack of principles.
rhabarba 4y ago
> BSD results in variants and splinters. Please count the Linux-based systems.
- cowtools 4y ago
  It's irrelevant because they are all GPLv2 and intercompatable. Distros are just that: different distributions of the (largely same, interchangeable) software. There is no splintering where it matters: legally and technically. In the BSD world you will have companies like Sony take BSD into their closed source world. The linux equivalent would be some semi-free environment like Android.
  - whizzter 4y ago
    So you can reliably install rpm's in debian and vice versa with .deb's? glibc versions? X11 vs Wayland? System-d vs init.d ? Android?
    - cowtools 4y ago
      >So you can reliably install rpm's in debian and vice versa with .deb's? Yeah, just use a chroot. It's the same kernel. You could also just distribute static binaries or have your dynamic libs bundled in a single .AppImage file. >glibc versions? Linux guarantees source compatability, but doesn't guarantee binary compatability (unlike most proprietary software like ms-windows). >X11 vs Wayland? X11 and wayland are different protocols, but Wayland is reverse-compatible with X11. >System-d vs init.d ? I don't know much about init systems, but I don't use systemd, I use OpenRC and it works fine with "systemd-dependent" software like GNOME or KDE by using elogind[0][1] for example. >Android? For android apps, you can containerize an android userspace with tools like Waydroid[2]. [0] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Elogind https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Elogind [1] https://github.com/elogind/elogind https://github.com/elogind/elogind [2] https://waydro.id/ https://waydro.id/
      - dredmorbius 4y ago
        On chroot installs. Debian's installation manual has a section on how to perform chroot installs. That is, there's a documented process for how to install Debian within another Linux distribution should you choose / need to do that. It came about because the original author was hoping to try out Debian on a Red Hat system. It's all userland over the kernal. These days, even at the process level (or using tools such as jails), it's possible to define largely independent contexts for each individual process. CPU, memory, and kernel are common and/or shared, but other resources can be strongly segregated.
jmclnx 4y ago
> The GPLv2 Though this helped a lot, I believe the commandment "Do not change user space" was a much larger factor. In some upgrades of any of the BSDs, some user program will crash depending upon what changed in base. Linux, hardly ever happens, I have never had an issue with User Space on Linux Upgrades.
- throw0101a 4y ago
  > In some upgrades of any of the BSDs, some user program will crash depending upon what changed in base. For FreeBSD at least, only in major version releases (12.x->13.x); with minor updates (13.1->13.2) there is API/ABI stability. (Free)BSD also has good kernel compatibility, so you don't have to worry about kernel drivers breaking 'randomly' with each update. However, if you install the compatibility libraries then even recompiles may not be necessary: * https://www.freshports.org/misc/compat12x/ https://www.freshports.org/misc/compat12x/ * https://www.freshports.org/misc/compat11x/ https://www.freshports.org/misc/compat11x/ * https://www.freshports.org/misc/compat10x/ https://www.freshports.org/misc/compat10x/ * https://www.freshports.org/misc/compat[4…9]x/ https://www.freshports.org/misc/compat[4…9]x/
- onphonenow 4y ago
  A good point. MS has done well with their compatibility efforts too. Wasn’t it don’t break vs don’t change?
  - kaba0 4y ago
    Isn’t linux kinda shitty in binary backwards compatibility? Sure, the kernel interface doesn’t break, but it doesn’t mean much in practice. Good luck running a binary that was compiled one Ubuntu LTS version before the current, let alone multiple years. Windows does actually have superb backwards compatibility.
  - jmclnx 4y ago
    yes, you are correct, it is "Do not break user space", thanks.

sneak 4y ago

The other issue is that the FSF is much more focused on ideology than code. When attempting to be relevant to people who can enrich your product (i.e. hackers), working code is way more important than whether you write letters and a slash before the "linux" part of the name. Linus is a hacker first and foremost, and ideology takes a backseat. FSF has the cart before the horse.

cowtools 4y ago
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Horse, is in fact, Cart/Horse, or as I've recently taken to calling it, Cart plus Horse.
zasdffaa 4y ago
You think principles unimportant? :)
- xboxnolifes 4y ago
  Different principles is not a lack of principles.

rhabarba 4y ago

> BSD results in variants and splinters. Please count the Linux-based systems.

cowtools 4y ago
It's irrelevant because they are all GPLv2 and intercompatable. Distros are just that: different distributions of the (largely same, interchangeable) software. There is no splintering where it matters: legally and technically. In the BSD world you will have companies like Sony take BSD into their closed source world. The linux equivalent would be some semi-free environment like Android.
- whizzter 4y ago
  So you can reliably install rpm's in debian and vice versa with .deb's? glibc versions? X11 vs Wayland? System-d vs init.d ? Android?
  - cowtools 4y ago
    >So you can reliably install rpm's in debian and vice versa with .deb's? Yeah, just use a chroot. It's the same kernel. You could also just distribute static binaries or have your dynamic libs bundled in a single .AppImage file. >glibc versions? Linux guarantees source compatability, but doesn't guarantee binary compatability (unlike most proprietary software like ms-windows). >X11 vs Wayland? X11 and wayland are different protocols, but Wayland is reverse-compatible with X11. >System-d vs init.d ? I don't know much about init systems, but I don't use systemd, I use OpenRC and it works fine with "systemd-dependent" software like GNOME or KDE by using elogind[0][1] for example. >Android? For android apps, you can containerize an android userspace with tools like Waydroid[2]. [0] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Elogind https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Elogind [1] https://github.com/elogind/elogind https://github.com/elogind/elogind [2] https://waydro.id/ https://waydro.id/
    - dredmorbius 4y ago
      On chroot installs. Debian's installation manual has a section on how to perform chroot installs. That is, there's a documented process for how to install Debian within another Linux distribution should you choose / need to do that. It came about because the original author was hoping to try out Debian on a Red Hat system. It's all userland over the kernal. These days, even at the process level (or using tools such as jails), it's possible to define largely independent contexts for each individual process. CPU, memory, and kernel are common and/or shared, but other resources can be strongly segregated.

jmclnx 4y ago

> The GPLv2 Though this helped a lot, I believe the commandment "Do not change user space" was a much larger factor. In some upgrades of any of the BSDs, some user program will crash depending upon what changed in base. Linux, hardly ever happens, I have never had an issue with User Space on Linux Upgrades.

throw0101a 4y ago
> In some upgrades of any of the BSDs, some user program will crash depending upon what changed in base. For FreeBSD at least, only in major version releases (12.x->13.x); with minor updates (13.1->13.2) there is API/ABI stability. (Free)BSD also has good kernel compatibility, so you don't have to worry about kernel drivers breaking 'randomly' with each update. However, if you install the compatibility libraries then even recompiles may not be necessary: * https://www.freshports.org/misc/compat12x/ https://www.freshports.org/misc/compat12x/ * https://www.freshports.org/misc/compat11x/ https://www.freshports.org/misc/compat11x/ * https://www.freshports.org/misc/compat10x/ https://www.freshports.org/misc/compat10x/ * https://www.freshports.org/misc/compat[4…9]x/ https://www.freshports.org/misc/compat[4…9]x/
onphonenow 4y ago
A good point. MS has done well with their compatibility efforts too. Wasn’t it don’t break vs don’t change?
- kaba0 4y ago
  Isn’t linux kinda shitty in binary backwards compatibility? Sure, the kernel interface doesn’t break, but it doesn’t mean much in practice. Good luck running a binary that was compiled one Ubuntu LTS version before the current, let alone multiple years. Windows does actually have superb backwards compatibility.
- jmclnx 4y ago
  yes, you are correct, it is "Do not break user space", thanks.