Now that Linux is corporate as fuck and Richard Stallman has failed to make a free and open source OS because of the free software community's bad decision to use Linus "I LOVE GOOGLE COCK" Torvalds' kernel instead of just waiting for Hurd, we *BSD now right?
Just admit that a large majority of modern distributions do not follow or care about the FSM ideology or even have GNU mentioned anywhere on their websites, nor do most of the community give two shits it or even know what it is.
Other urls found in this thread:
web.archive.org
twitter.com
Ceren Ercen is /Our Girl/
Hurd isn't dead though.
>corporate
what's wrong about that?, you hippie
why do you even use GNU/Linux if you're not into the FSM/OSS community?
OpenBSD
Gentoo
Parabola OpenRC
Void Linux
Just a few of /ourguys/
The fact that MS can use their donation power within the Linux foundation to make the foundation more easily do what MS wants instead of what's good for the Linux community. If you can't see why that a bad thing you're either stupid, a shill, or baiting
>what MS wants
such as?
>what's good for the Linux community
such as?
The same could have happened to *BSD if it were more popular, therefore I really don't see your point
>>what MS wants
>such as?
things that make them money
>>what's good for the Linux community
>such as?
software that is free to use, modify, and redistribute.
You are literally retarded
Wait Linus contributed to Linux’s kernel? I’m a big fan of his YouTube videos.
But it's not happening to BSD and it is happening to Linux
Microsoft does not give a single fuck about open source or free software beyond the extent that they can use it to make money. Embrace, extend, extinguish. Do you seriously think them getting their disgusting hands into the Linux foundation is a good thing?
Having a guy like Linus Torvalds (who does not give two shits about open source software and only continues to work on his kernel because of corporate sponsorship from Google and MS) be the developer of the hugely important component to your community's OS doesn't help.
Enjoy watching the Linux kerenel slowly turn into proprietary software as the non-free blobs grow and grow.
Source on him not caring only working because sponsorships?
Does she have Downs? I can't tell.
...
>Bland-looking whorewannabe in a body contouring costume
>Thirsty nerds throw currency at it.
>mfw Linus Torvalds figures out a way to get Linux out of the GNU license and sells the kernel to Silicon Valley's highest bidder.
>mfw pajeets getting desperate
Only because it is not happening to BSD now doesn't mean it can't happen when it does get popularity. Microsoft doesn't care about BSD, because it hasn't the popularity and the packages which comes from such success. Besides, they use corporations like Canonical to get things like WSL and Azure with the Linux kernel working. If there was a relevant corporation who offer this for BSD and there are more packages available, they would have invested in BSD, which isn't the case
He does care about open source. If he didn't he would have released Linux with a proprietary license. Besides, I think this approach where corporation have to contribute to it and can't just create their own proprietary spin to it is better than FreeBSD , since no corporation forked it unlike Apple with FreeBSD, who now uses their kernel with a proprietary license.
GNU will probably die, but Linux will live on through Android and it's derivatives and whatever MS wants with the kernel. As the years go on you will see people start referring to Linux's "non-free blobs" as "free blobs".
Yes he added sponsors even in the kernel , and applied dbrad skin
Correction, XNU-Kernel is under the APSL-License which is theoretically an open source license but it isn't GPL compatible. I just checked, but the user-space is still proprietary. Better example would be PlayStation OS
>If he didn't he would have released Linux with a proprietary license.
I would say that he probably regrets it, but given the situation he probably doesn't. If he sold the kernel he would have probably had got a big paycheck, but now Linux is a massive cashcow and lots of corporations depend on it. So he gets big corporate sponsorship to keep developing it that makes any amount of money that could have came from selling it early on seem tiny.
> I would say that he probably regrets it
How would you know? Only because you would have done it doesn't mean he would
I use FreeBSD for my TOTP generator machine.
Would've used OpenBSD but it broke on boot already, probably something with UEFI and framebuffers.
is that what you heard?
Artix faggot reporting in
Corporations are making and publishing a lot of open sauce and some copyleft software, what the fuck are you complaining about?
This is the best way this can work without *governments* ensuring all devices only run open sauce so users can audit and modify and combine and use as they please.
BSD doesn't give two shit about FSM or GNU either.
only commies do
>only commies do
where do you think you are
she is adorable :3
a pirate bastion
...
semen daemon
The userland's open source. OS X is built upon an open source OS, the kernel's XNU and the OS itself is Darwin. Up through 10.4 Apple even released corresponding Darwin ISOs for Intel and PowerPC.
>Having a guy like Linus Torvalds (who does not give two shits about open source software
Fucking stop.
nope
not everyone who uses Linux is a free software autist. in fact, most aren't.
This, I used Linux for years without knowing freetardation was a thing. I actually didn't find out about it until I came here. Sup Forums either has a vocal minority of freetards or an abnormally high population of them.
>in fact, most aren't.
Yep, those can be divided into two groups:
1. Android smartphone users
2. People who don't know their "Linux" OS is actually GNU with a popular open source kernel from the 90s. These are usually just people who were looking for an alternative to Windows and don't care about open source software and the ideology behind it.
> we *BSD now right
BSD is even more corporate than Linux. No.
>Sup Forums either has a vocal minority of freetards or an abnormally high population of them.
techno-communism is attractive and comfy
>2. People who don't know their "Linux" OS is actually GNU with a popular open source kernel from the 90s.
Wrong. Plenty of people who use it know that but still aren't Free Software hardliners. I, for one, generally prefer Free and open source but will compromise where it's a practical necessity.
most windows users believe linux being free is the only advantage it has
Most Linux users don't give a shit about GNU and wouldn't mind if the FSF died. A good portion of them just hate Windows, and Linux was the only viable alternative.
Another very good portion of them actually use Linux because they are developers, or learned it in some IT course and liked it, or are computer scientists, perhaps engineers. But those hardly care about freetard autism, they mostly just use Linux because they like the Unix-like environment and Linux has great hardware support and is relatively popular and supported. You can bet most just use Ubuntu too.
>A good portion of them just hate Windows, and Linux was the only viable alternative.
Where "viable" means "free" as in beer.
For some, probably. Personally I'd sooner pay for Linux than use Windows for free.
>developers
talk to any real developer getting paid and not just some nobody working in some shit start up and they will tell you we use windows. with the exception of some people using macosx
linux is not stable. not stable to be able to be used in commercial software development.
the real use for linux was always sever use and the ability to be be able to modify the kernel.
but if you notice only a hand full of people ever really do that. most just download Ubuntu because they want to be UBER l33t hax0rs and type in a terminal.
Linux is not stable. if it was; we'd see a massive drop rate in commercial use of Microsoft software but we dont.
Again, Linux is not stable. Rolling is pretty much always going to be rolling and LTS means shit when the dev team smokes hash and breaks half the release your on.
and yes all of this is coming from a linux user himself.
but what if I hurt some twink's feelings and they remove all my code? Linus would just tell me to stop being fucking retarded.
qt
This is her now.
Who's this semen daemon?
See
>Linux is not stable. if it was; we'd see a massive drop rate in commercial use of Microsoft software but we dont.
If quality ever mattered we'd have moved from CP/M, to Amiga, to Haiku.
I never understood the idea of software communism
What do you expect when there's no software free market?
Obviously. But when you're a developer there are some benefits in using Linux sometimes. Most professional developers are obviously using either OSX or Windows. OSX will mostly give you all the benefits you get from using Linux, plus real commercial support.
When you're developing things that will run on embedded devices, it's of utmost importance that you know how to work with Linux well, since Linux is what will probably be running in your things. But you don't necessarily need to use it as your computer's OS.
>/Our Girl/
Wasn't it Jeri Ellsworth?
Microsoft does care about BSD. They actually even get some of their things from FreeBSD like the TCP/IP stack.
FreeBSD is also a tier 1 platform in Hyper-V support, and Azure.
If for whatever reason people actually start wanting to use Unix-like OS, FreeBSD is most likely what MS will use as the core of their Unix-like Windows, and just keep their current economical model working just fine.
No.
oh god... google lied to me.
>bifurcate THIS
>THIS THIS DIE
Don't you mean /Our Cow/? Guess it fits, coming from GNU. Switch from one type of cattle to another.
We should all jump ship to GNU Hurd.
it will get forked
Thanks user I was about to go freebsd
She's pretty awesome
OP is an autistic kiddie fiddler
...
yeah i retract my statement. i had only seen the good, hot pictures of her when she was younger for the past decade and a half. i looked her up online and now she's a disgusting fat danger-hair ~queer~ whatever the fuck idiot now. jailbait daemonette ceren was better in every way.
oh and all she does is go "FUCK DRUMPFFF XDDD" all over her twitter and tumblr and shit. here, as pennance for calling her /our girl/, here's a few pictures of her that survived of when she did bdsm stuff
...
Yes.
>BSD
>when it does get popularity
it never will tho, that ship has sailed
the license is the reason linux got big
>If he sold the kernel
>selling it early on
who the fuck would have bought a toy kernel?
>linux is not stable
of course it is
>to be used in commercial software development
of course it does
>sever use
there's commercial server software too
>we'd see a massive drop rate in commercial use of Microsoft software but we dont
probably blind
>Rolling is pretty much always going to be rolling
m-muh creators update ;^)
Wow, what a cogent point.
How does stallman make money? through speaking engagements? I have no clue. Can someone fill me in?
I believe so
So he wants everyone to create free software and is unable to give any real world example of how one might make a living that way. All software should be free and programmers shouldn't be allowed to profit from their work...
Am I missing something here????
You can re licence your own shit as proprietary for money and keep it as GPL. It worked well for a tranny codec writer.
Yes, the GNU ideology is that proprietary software is stupid and even potentially dangerous, and that software that is licensed in a way that users are free to use, modify, and redistribute is superior.
it's from homestuck
Can you please, for once in your life, cite where exactly stallman says you can't charge for your FOSS software?
How many sales would you have if you also make the source completely free of charge? Its bullshit.
Can you elaborate in simple English? Do you mean like, free for personal use but not for corporations?
Where. Is. The. Source. That. FOSS. Must. Cost. Nothing.
Can you give an example of how you envision it's supposed to work? Like, you get the license only if you pay the money? Or just set up a shop and "sell" the license, whereby you give the customer the same thing that a non-customer gets, plus an invoice?
>what is Red Hat
Redhat corporation is quite successful with their selling of open source software. Can you please stop deflecting onto me what I, personally, would do to sell open source software and instead show me a source where stallman says
>All software should be free and programmers shouldn't be allowed to profit from their work...
Because all I see is you not comprehending gratis vs libre.
I'm a different person than the one you were talking to before, you fucking sperg.
And you still haven't answered my questions, so fuck off, I'm going to bed.
Emby works like that. It's FOSS, but some features are locked behind a license. Of course since it's FOSS there's a fork that's automatically activated. Don't know how it's working out for them, but at least they are still in "business", so to speak.
I did answer your question. Redhat is a corporation that does quite well selling open source software
If they're GPL-licensed blobs (free to change the asm code and restribute them), then they're indeed free.
Just because you're a brainlet who can't into asm doesn't mean others are.
Windows will be open source in no more than 10-15 years,mark these words.
windows will be abandoned in 10 years
you mean fuchsia will take over linux and windows?
Looks more like a witch, desu.