Linux

48008 readers

823 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

393

Most of us hate Microsoft, and yet many of us use VSCode (lemm.ee)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

462 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I get that it's open source provided you use codium not code but I still find that interesting

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

oh that makes a lot of sense, so then the F in FLOSS unambiguously stands for Free as in no-charge, thanks for the explanation!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, this is a common misconception. F has always stood for Free as in freedom. No part of FOSS or FLOSS refers to price.

This confusion is one of the reasons why the term FOSS or FLOSS is problematic.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

oh
I think that's pretty silly bc free as in price seems like a pretty important pillar to me. but thanks anyway for the extra context on the nuances between "free" vs open source and correcting my misunderstanding about free as in price

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

In the context of the software freedom movement, the fundamental pillars are the four freedoms - to use, share, modify, and share modified copies. It's never been about price and we even say that selling free software is okay.

It's a common misconception about the free software movement to say we're against "developers making money" when we're really just about computer users having the four freedoms. We just argue that those four freedoms come before the developer's business model.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

this confuses me more, if it's free to use and share, how can it be not free of charge? is putting up a paywall not expressly limiting all four of those freedoms for people who can't afford to pay? I know the article says you could get it free from a friend, but how is that different from stealing if the original dev is charging money for it? idk it just seems weird to me to focus so much on free not meaning free-of-charge when the same effort could be spent emphasizing alternate ways of monetization besides paywalling software that's intended to be shared

besides that, it is sad to learn that people use a straw-man argument like saying someone is against developers making money just because of the idea that they support free-of-charge software. I feel like companies such as red hat have pretty much proven that free-of-charge software can be made in a system where developers still get paid (ie through selling support, taking donations, etc).

thanks again for the extra context, I appreciate you helping me improve my understanding of this situation