(cache)Will Linux still be pro-user by 2050?

Stream · 06-19-2024, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _blackhole_

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.

Why did the BSD community never have something akin to Linux Foundation which could set the general direction for all the BSD distributions? BSD is an extreme case of fragmentation. Same as Linux but on a more massive scale.

_blackhole_ · 06-20-2024, 12:08 AM

Your above statement makes little sense.

Linux is just a kernel and as a project, has had numerous contributors. The LF existed primarily to coordinate funding for the project - a single project.

FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD are three entirely separate projects - so I'm unsure as to why you would think they should organise funding through a single foundation?

All of the BSDs are complete OS, whereas Linux is not. There are thousands of Linux distributions, which utilise one of several package managers, init systems, gnu or musl libc, etc, etc - that's an "extreme case of fragmentation".

Then I have to wonder why this fragmentation is necessarily a bad thing? Those telling you it is, are usually either misinformed or have a corporate agenda.

business_kid · 06-20-2024, 07:48 AM

I think you guys are going down a rabbit hole.

Linux, to my mind, is better thought of as Gnu/Linux. All the basic console usage programs are Gnu, and Linus added the kernel because Gnu stuck with the micro-kernel long after the idea was needed. They're still at it.Memory got plentiful.

What is worthy of discussion in this thread is the idea of open source as a business model. It was fine in the beginning to have a guy or two writing a gnu program after work and uploading the source on dialup. Now it's a full time job - for no income. Businesses have stepped in, but as they are paying the piper(s), they can call the tune. My son makes €<six figures> working for a mobile apps that had the good fortune to be bought, but there had to be a path to profitability for that to happen. That's why this thread was a good idea. Linux has no clear path to profitability.

wpeckham · 06-20-2024, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by business_kid

I think you guys are going down a rabbit hole.

Linux, to my mind, is better thought of as Gnu/Linux. All the basic console usage programs are Gnu, and Linus added the kernel because Gnu stuck with the micro-kernel long after the idea was needed. They're still at it.Memory got plentiful.

What is worthy of discussion in this thread is the idea of open source as a business model. It was fine in the beginning to have a guy or two writing a gnu program after work and uploading the source on dialup. Now it's a full time job - for no income. Businesses have stepped in, but as they are paying the piper(s), they can call the tune. My son makes €<six figures> working for a mobile apps that had the good fortune to be bought, but there had to be a path to profitability for that to happen. That's why this thread was a good idea. Linux has no clear path to profitability.

Wait. Red Hat, Canonical, and Suse went broke you say?

fatmac · 06-21-2024, 05:28 AM

Yeah, 'Corporations' can make plenty of money out of support contracts, that's why they love systemd, because it complicates things!