jyoskykid Now • 100%
Yet Han is still alive in Fast and Furious 9.
jyoskykid Now • 90%
The files it uses are mostly just the tools and shims which can be copied over from a working distribution.
The maintainer is just lazy and he doesn't let people improve it either because he wants it to be coded in a certain way: https://github.com/ventoy/Ventoy/issues/2795#issuecomment-2326831525
It is not a malicious project, yet the xz-utils backdoor should make us be concerned, and we should only use a fork that pulls in the binaries from trusted sources.
jyoskykid Now • 100%
All that effort, when you could've just called it LUNIX.
By the way, does this expression match LUNIX? But if so, won't it also match Binux or Bunix?
jyoskykid Now • 50%
Given the label is meant to classify related operating systems, the label should provide an accurate description of the basis of the system.
Which is one of the reasons why specified GNU/Linux separately from just Linux for Alpine, instead of calling it Musl/Linux.
If a software is written for just Linux, it will work on either system. But if it is written for GLIBC, it work work on Musl LIBC based systems.
Programs linked dynamically with Musl LIBC won't work on GLIBC based systems too, but considering the trend of everyone using GLIBC, those who build for Musl LIBC would state it explicitly, compared to programs released for GLIBC, which ambiguously only say that it is built for Linux.
jyoskykid Now • 50%
software written for “Linux” usually works on any POSIX operating system, and sometimes even Windows. Unless you’re talking about binary compatibility, which is meaningless in the Linux space anyway.
In practice, as a person who uses Musl LIBC and the Runit init system, most "Linux programs" don't even work on it, often even if I try to build it from source because of their dependencies on GLIBC. GLIBC is a very hard dependency that most people overlook when writing software.
And many programs even have a hard dependency on systemd, to a lesser extent. Even that too only works on systems with GLIBC, and cannot be used with any other LIBC.
jyoskykid Now • 33%
Yes, GNU is not a complete OS, but neither is Linux, but we call it as such.
Hell why are we not raising pitchforks at GNU for being a all encompassing project that wants to consume everything like everyone complains systemd is trying to do?
The reason is ultimately the actions of the Linux community from the beginning itself. Had they been fair, we would've referred to the project as GNU/Linux from the beginning itself.
There's no point in going back to change any contemporary label for accuracy, we only have to do so if there is a sense of unfairness in the label. That is the case here.
It is a pointless distinction created by a guy that was pissy that his pet project was not getting the attention he thought it deserved.
If Stallman was like AT&T who filed a copyright on BSD/386 for using their work, he wouldn't have caused this. The entire principle of trademarking exists for this reason. It's only when a person tries to help other people that they get sidelined. It is our responsibility to give the original developers the due respect.
As for systemd, it was always created as an init system for the GNU/Linux OS. I use Void Linux musl edition with Runit init system, and it could not be replaced with systemd because it depends on GLIBC.
jyoskykid Now • 33%
That's where the history matters. If you applied patches to the GNU project to make it work with Linux, how does the resulting OS become Linux in the end? Linux holds a special place in that regard because it makes the kernel layer, but it doesn't completely invalidate GNU.
Even this commented asked the question of how we call OSs not approved by FSF as GNU/Linux distributions, showing how he does not understand what the idea even implies. GNU is not a political movement, FSF is.
jyoskykid Now • 50%
Also, the distros listed there are just FSF approved free GNU/Linux distributions. That is regarding what GNU/Linux distributions you must use, and not a description of what GNU/Linux distributions there are.
jyoskykid Now • 100%
Chrome OS would be a Proprietary Community/Linux OS, and Chromium OS would be a Community/Linux OS. Chromium is a community project that's added to the Gentoo base.
By Community, I'm referring to the free community projects, not just any contributions.
Windows for example is an Proprietary NT OS, but all Windows are NT based, so we can just skip the NT part.
jyoskykid Now • 28%
Just read the post dude. I made it easy to read first, then others asked what the problem was, so I had to add it. I guess I'll put it at the end instead.
Musl, systemd, Freedesktop, etc. were never OS projects. GNU and Linux are OSes.
Also, most "Linux programs" don't run on Musl LIBC based distros like Void Linux musl edition, which I'm using, and I'm considering returning to the GLIBC edition for my sanity.
jyoskykid Now • 25%
I have added the problem to the post for those who are unaware.
jyoskykid Now • 28%
LiGNUx is unpronounceable. It's kind of like xbwhfr.
Linux is pronounceable, but the recognition of one of the founders who chose to market it while the other who fought for freedom gets unrecognised is unfair, and people can notice that.
I mentioned *BSD because I'm solving this problem from an ontological level to address systems. If someone categorizes FreeBSD as a BSD OS vs BSD fork, there's still a small debate that can arise from it. Calling it a Community/BSD OS gives attribution to the core team as well as the original BSD team. And all of it remains easily pronounceable as well.
You wouldn't call it GNU slash Linux, but a "community developed GNU and Linux based OS" and just Linux for referring to the Kernel. Most apps for example run only on GLIBC, and therefore calling them Linux apps doesn't make it inclusive of Musl LIBC based systems.
jyoskykid Now • 33%
The recognition of GNU (and Linux) as the OS in a GNU/Linux distribution.
**The problem (for those who are unaware of it)** Moved it to the end, to keep the focus on the solution. **Solution** GNU is a desktop OS that was never completed. Linux is a desktop OS that was never completed. GNU/Linux is a hybrid OS. Musl, etc. are libraries that were never OSes. - So Alpine would be a Community/Linux OS. - Debian would be a Community/GNU/Linux OS. - FreeBSD would be a Community/BSD OS. - Ubuntu would be an Enterprise Community/GNU/Linux OS. I was thinking ontologically to resolve this problem. It is often confusing to explain to ordinary people why Linux has so and so differences and so and so commonalities, and then the community gets toxic once you get to whether it's GNU or Linux. So I think this is a good solution that solves the argument of calling it systemd/Freedesktop/KDE/LightDM/GNU/Linux or the other party that says it's either GNU or Linux alone. **Why can't you include GNU in the Community?** Because GNU was an independent OS, and the project did a lot for software freedom, and it was even pivotal to the success of Linux, yet the community does not honour their wish to mention their names, because of aesthetic problems. GNU has never self-identified as a component collection like Freedesktop. **The problem (for those who are unaware of it)** Not everyone may be aware of this, but from the time GNU and Linux based hybrid operating systems became a thing, there was a debate about what they should be called. An OS has a kernel and the userland. Both GNU and Linux were independent operating systems, both of which were never completed. GNU was a project by FSF under Richard M. Stallman to replace the proprietary UNIX OS. Linux was a hobbyist project by Linux Torvalds to make an OS that would run on the Intel 80386 CPU, while BSD/386 was facing a lawsuit from AT&T for releasing proprietary UNIX source code. GNU was planning to make a microkernel based OS, and it was planning to develop the kernel slowly, while Linus started Linux from the kernel side, with a monolithic architecture. Since Linux was free software and could run directly on the new hardware, it gained the support of the hacker community, who added patches to the GNU userland to make it work with Linux. But when Linux finally became an OS with the help of GNU, the hacker community said they only care about Linux, not the GNU programs, and gave no recognition to GNU. Because of this, Stallman asked the distributions to be called GNU/Linux, and that sparked flame wars because of how it is bad to pronounce, and how a distribution has many components beyond just GNU, and that therefore the kernel that runs on the hardware is what should describe the OS, and further several ad-hominem attacks on the personal life and behaviour of Richard Stallman. Eventually, the name Linux caught on, but sympathizers of GNU are requested to call it GNU/Linux. This continues to be an unresolved, but sidelined dispute that seems unfair to GNU, especially considering most "Linux programs" are actually dependent on GNU GLIBC, and won't run on the other Musl LIBC based systems. Anytime someone mentions it, because there is no easy solution to it, it turns into a flame war.
jyoskykid Now • 100%
They are real and have been manufactured by the CIA: https://www.cia.gov/legacy/museum/artifact/pigeon-camera/
Working principle: https://x.com/vxunderground/status/1801458774558830801
jyoskykid Now • 100%
It's the one that @crc@blendit.bsd.cafe mentioned. I thought it was popular with BSD people.
jyoskykid Now • 100%
Yes that's it!
jyoskykid Now • 100%
No, it's this: http://catb.org/~esr/writings/unix-koans/
jyoskykid Now • 100%
I think it is more likely to be Embedded Android
I have read the [Rootless Root](http://catb.org/~esr/writings/unix-koans/), and I testify that UNIX is the one true operating system, and FreeBSD is the implementation of UNIX. Repeat after me: There is no OS but UNIX. FreeBSD is the implementation of UNIX.
jyoskykid Now • 57%
It is general knowledge that these companies do this. FSF has campaigned a lot against DRM, under the name Defective by Design.
When someone makes a contract with the devil and complains when it affects them, pointing it out is not victim blaming.
jyoskykid Now • 100%
I wrote about this after pondering in my blog: http://hypotheticallyy.blogspot.com/2023/08/why-is-negative-times-negative-positive.html