Yep. That is what the ‘D’ stands for, which is largely historical at this point, and originally, all code was shared code.
The shared code pool which spawned the BSD hasn’t existed in decades, and the BSDs have been stand alone operating systems since February 1994 when the USL lawsuit was settled with 4.4BSD-lite.
They favor permissive licenses ( BSD or MIT ).
Aside from that, they want to work on something different.
FreeBSD is a full OS separate from GNU and Linux. It’s not a distribution.
Yeah, “In Bruges”.
Yeah, RH Linux was free at one point. I remember getting CDs with a book in the ‘90s and when it was discontinued in favor of RHEL.
Fedora was supposed to be the replacement for RH Linux. It was supposed to be what CentOS is today, a close upstream for RHEL, but the Fedora community had other ideas. 🙂
- non LTS version available (Atomic desktops are easier to manage if keeping un-updated for very long periods)
Fedora is a semi-rolling release distribution, so this isn’t really a problem for a desktop or laptop. It’s really an advantage for desktops and laptops.
- it uses RPM packages which are good, but there might be some software only offering DEBs (containers and extraction tools can help with that)
A lot of software is packaged as a Flatpak image, so less of a problem then it used to be.
Yeah, the Fedora community revolted when RH tried to force Fedora to be what they wanted, and RH left Fedora to the community after that. 😆
Moving CentOS upstream of RHEL? That was a good thing. RHEL didn’t have a true upstream, and now that is CentOS. The RHEL and the clones now have a central place to upstream code, and they now are the EL ecosystem instead of only RHEL. It’s created more diversity and has added more options.
For example, Alma doesn’t have to be bug-for-bug compatible with RHEL. They can carry their own patches and add features which their base wants and only be binary compatible.
Canonical’s engineering is poor. They build weird stuff, and they want to close Linux off through CLA and permissive licenses. They aren’t a trust worthy company.
RH does more. RH is Linux for all intents and purposes.
Fedora is better. At one time, Ubuntu was good, but that was 20 years ago. The Fedora community has done a great job of stepping up to make it a great desktop distribution.
It’s possible to create a custom Linux ISO. That will solve the application installation problem.
Windows was trash, BeOS didn’t take off, and all the good network diagnostic tools were exclusively on *nixes in the early 2000s. Later, the *nixes are better for application development and deployment. They’re just built to serve data.
Windows has kind of caught up in the tooling department largely thanks to a VM, but it’s still trash. LOL
Idealogically, I can own my tools and modify them if needed. I don’t modify them, but hypothetically I could.
Only people who aren’t close to a celltower would use the satellites, which would cut the usage considerably.
Satellite as a primary network link for consumers was a dumb idea to start with, and it should have been a backup link to a land based ISP all along.
A pair of tech celebrities crapped out an under specified markup language and the rest of SV ate it up.
Markdown isn’t good, and there were, and are, many more lightweight markup languages which are better.
There, I rewrote the article.
The distro doesn’t really matter. Buying more efficient hardware and running efficient software matters.
A 65w proc is going to use less electricity then a 240w proc. Native software is more efficient then running lots of web browsers.
If you really want to know how much power the desktop is using, measure. Measure the power coming out of the wall. Measure how much time the system is active, and feed that into a time series database with a something like Grafana for visualizations.
I read this as Mormons. 😶
For some people, they don’t actually care about the politics of FOSS; they want a portfolio for employers.
Affect other distros?
Hopefully, they’ll all get something better then cloud-init.
Canonical pumps out dumb stuff.
It made Microsoft look bad.
They left out “The Microsoft marketing team called us and complained about our last article. We were so compelled by their plight that we decided to correct ourselves.”
Nvidia wants to be the equal to Intel and AMD. They want to be the 3rd major hardware house.
In ~2009, Intel didn’t renew a contract which allowed Nvidia to produce chipsets for Intel processors, and since then Nvidia has wanted a CPU of their own to keep from getting locked out again.
Nvidia tried to buy Arm when SoftBank was trying to sell, but that got scuttled. They had Tegra in the past which was a phone processor and successful in the Nintendo Switch. They can’t buy Intel because of poison pills in the x86 licensing between AMD and Intel which would kick in.
Fair, the patches don’t have to be accepted. 🙂
Would it be bound by the GPL? Companies love writing shims, and the Linux kernel is pro-business. It is specifically GPLv2 to allow companies to use it in closed source applications. TiVo is the poster child for this.
Anything running in user space isn’t considered a derivative work. The kernel ABI specifically allows for this. A closed source application could run on top of the Linux kernel and not have to be released.
Applications linking to a GPL library, glibc excluded, would have to be released since that would constitute a derivative work.
I’m the PS6 scenario, we would probably get very little usable code. The GPL is old, and companies have had lots of time to work around it.
Thanks!