• KellysNokia@lemmy.world
    1·
    3 months ago

    I’d just like to interject for a moment.

    What you’re referring to as ‘penguin’ is in fact Sphenisciformes Spheniscidae, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, the Southern Hemispherical aquatic flightless bird.

  • potentiallynotfelix@lemdro.idEnglish
    1·
    3 months ago

    What you guys are referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linux”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

  • Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
    1·
    3 months ago

    Since it underpins Android, you could argue it’s the most successful OS in general.

    • jaybone@lemmy.world
      1·
      3 months ago

      How is macOS open source? It’s not just Darwin you know. Some might even argue it’s an abuse of the BSD licenses.

      • mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.org
        1·
        3 months ago

        macOS uses the lack of defense that BSD provides (for Darwin). That’s what Open Source licences are.

        There are more examples of Open Source project:

        MINIX 3 -> Derives into one of the worst pieces of malware ever. The Intel Management Engine.

        There is no such Open Source licence infringement. Open Source licences like BSD clause 3 are permissive in every aspect (well maybe not in TM part). They are so open that they allow restricting the freedom of the software.

        Linus Torvalds already stated (LinuxCon 2016):

        Over the years I’ve become convinced that the BSD license is great for code you don’t care about. I’ll use it myself. If there’s a library routine that I just want to say ‘hey, this is useful to anybody and I’m not going to maintain this,’ I’ll put it under the BSD license.

        Referring to Free (libre) Software as Open Source is a disqualification of those projects and their philosophy.

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.worldOP
      1·
      3 months ago

      Android is just boneless Linux, thus it’s being the most successful open source operating system. I guess the number of Android devices outnumber all the Macs.

      • mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.org
        0·
        3 months ago

        You realize that Linux is not Open Source. The open source parts of Android are mostly of the google ones (AOSP).

        FreeBSD is an Open Source OS.

        • greedytacothief@lemmy.world
          1·
          3 months ago

          I feel like you’re getting pushback because your definitions. Do you think you could define, open source, free, libre?

          Why does software licenced under the gpl not fall under open source? What problems do you have with the OSI’s definition open source.