[Log in to get rid of this advertisement]

#1 Linux is not a business.
#2 Slackware is a Linux distribution.
#3 The majority of Linux distributions are not corporate and lack corporate support.

Linux is a kernel Mr. Martinet. Android and GNU/Linux are operating systems. I was writing like I speak to friends, off the cuff and laxly . If I was in a classroom trying to impress with my grasp of technical vocabulary, I would speak differently, and more accurately.
Slackware and Void Linux seem to be the only GNU/Linux distributions not drinking the systemd Kool Aid. (Devuan still seems like Debian forked by systemd haters - not different distro, but that is MHO and I could be wrong ).
Systemd business case is big corporate military, medical, and transportation systems need faster boot times to save lives.
It is an unnecessary complication for a desktop , workstation, or normal server that don't require lightning boot times.
Unnecessary complication equals more malfunctions and more complicated repairs. Ask any experienced engineer, any field. they can chew your ear off with examples of this for hours from their own first hand work experiences.
In the software field I have heard second hand that added complexity can add opportunity for security breach exploits.
Lennart Poettering is a corporate employee. Linus Torvalds having been leaned on by corporate influence has been complained about by others much.

This is just wrong. Huge amount of servers (not millions, but billions of them) are running some kind of linux based system, with and/or without systemd. And they are making business in a corporate environment.
Systemd is not [only] meant to speed up boot (those servers are not rebooted very often), it has other features too.

But anyway the whole thread is completely chaotic and pointless. I mean cucked.

Of course systemd does more, it does too much. That's the problem with it. Listen to the song "Step Right Up", I think Tom Waits was having a premonition and making a prophecy about systemd.

The phrase you're looking for is "sold out".

The claimed faster boot systemd was supposed to provide does not actually appear in real world testing.

There are systemd haters out there, but most of the systemd free distributions exist because of developers and maintainers why favor simplicity and the Unix philosophy: which systemd violates in multiple ways. That this also serves the purpose of those who actually hate systemd is serendipitous.

If you look for them, you will find MANY systemd free OS options, both in the Linux world and elsewhere.

Firstly Linux is not owned by any company. So it is not going anywhere.
Secondly a lot of non-Windows Operating systems like Android, MacOS, etc owe their existing to Linux or Unix. So even then it will continue to exist. Even now the installed based of Unix/Linux or its derivatives outstrips Windows and its variants by a margin.

Maybe your question should be will OS as a concept still exist or be relevant by 2050? The basic concept of OS or Disk Operating System is old. Not much has changed. What is different is how it is implemented. With the integration of AI inside the OS and with technologies like Virtual realities, OS will be slowly and steadily become irrelevant.

I suggest that you've got that wrong. Firstly Devuan is not a fork.

Devuan was started by a group of people who had the best intentions, and were not motivated by "hatred". Using that kind of phrasing only excuses the actions of the Debian project in adopting systemd in the first place and repeats and reinforces the kind of narrative pushed by the systemd project and its supporters (mostly from the corporate world). (i.e. that it's detractors were misinformed, motivated by "hate", etc. The project and the project leader in particular, posted many blogs along these lines and repeated similar speech when interviewed by tech press).

Some parts of the Devuan community, may give the impression that the project is by "haters". The community forum in particular damages the overall image of the project, by hosting some of these kind of people, along with self styled activists and conspiracy nuts and allowing them almost free reign.
Technically, you're quite correct - however:

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/members
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/leadership

You will note that the likes of Intel, Microsoft, Meta, IBM/Red Hat, Oracle, google, etc, are paying for almost everything.

You will also see from the "board of directors", that similar people are running things.

It was revealed quite a few years ago that most commits to the Linux kernel were from corporate contributions - so they're actually doing most of the work, whilst being paid, whilst working for their bosses at "Intel, Microsoft, Meta, IBM/Red Hat, Oracle, google, etc...":

This article from 2021 pretty much confirms that: https://lwn.net/Articles/839772/?ref=news.itsfoss.com

I would summarise that Linux is "owned" by many companies...

Some may argue that's not the case.

However, if "Intel, Microsoft, Meta, IBM/Red Hat, Oracle, google, etc..." decide to pull out tomorrow. Who will pay for and maintain all of that...?

In answer to your subject, nobody has a crystal ball or a clue. We can't even predict tomorrow's weather.

In 1984, I remember looking at a 10MB hard disk and thinking "10MB? How would you ever fill that? At the time it was a reasonable question. Most businesses with computers here were still running on CP/M boxes with their Z80 CPUs & 64K of memory. Wafer fabrication was around the 1µM mark. We could never have foreseen today.

It is a fact that a big corporation can make everyone on a board of directors very rich, and get to own any idea they want. But there may be a backlash against this. Those of us who are still here in 25 years may wish they were not, or may be laughing about the crazies who were zapped. Who knows?

Yeah the opinion that Linux is owned by many companies has certain legs. I would consider that there are many notable companies that are invested in making sure that there is a core of Linux which is going to exist. There are notable absentees though, like Apple. Is it maybe because apple stack is mostly derived from the BSD and will continue to be derived from BSD going forward?

And Linux is essentially a GNU/Open Source. So it is going to live on.

Apple have their own OS, which is based on the "open source" Darwin project, which incorporates some FreeBSD code. This has evolved from NeXTSTEP, which was in turn based on UC Berkeley 4.x BSD, and used the Mach derived XNU kernel (similar to Hurd). Other big players such as HP and IBM have all but abandoned their proprietary UNIX and gone for the cheap option, but there is no sign of Apple doing anything like that. Theoretically they could, and their end users wouldn't see the difference, but there's a lot more to it than that.

(ID software's earliest games (Doom and Quake engines) were developed on NeXTSTEP, so for anyone familiar with those, that may explain the UNIX like feel they have, along with pull down console and CLI commands).

that's very interesting to read this, as you can differentiate it by the opposite :
https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...re-4175730359/

You seem to want to pigeonhole and classify things - it's never that simple.

NeXTSTEP was a 4.3 BSD based OS that used a hybrid variant of the Mach microkernel called XNU. So yes, it was (mostly) a BSD operating system. XNU is a hybrid kernel (not a true microkernel), so my understanding is that the monolithic parts are from code derived from BSD.

NeXTSTEP later incorporated the 4.4 BSD lite 2 code base (FreeBSD and NetBSD projects also "rebased" on this "unencumbered" code) and some NetBSD code (early on during the Apple / OS X era).

To summarise: macOS' base OS, (eventually called Darwin), was the evolution of NeXTSTEP, which in turn was based on / incorporated the Mach microkernel, 4.3 BSD, 4.4 BSD lite 2, NetBSD and FreeBSD code as time went on - which effectively makes macOS (and by extension iOS) a "hybrid" BSD operating system.

In general terms - yes it is a BSD. It may have diverged a lot, but so has DragonFly BSD for example - so have the other BSD derived projects in fact.

https://github.com/apple/darwin-xnu/blob/main/README.md

I already replied to that thread you linked to. There is no need for you to speculate - just read up on the Carnegie Mellon Mach kernel, NeXTSTEP, Darwin and the history of BSD and macOS if you really care about it that much.

I am gonna keep on doing, what I am doing. Won't matter a hundred years from now anyways.

In grand scheme of things not much matters in 100 years from now. But for the present and the immediate future this does matter a lot. My humble opinion.