Happy birthday 🎊🎉 GNU/Linux.

Today GNU/Linux is 32 years old.

It was thankfully released to the public on August 25th, 1991 by Linus Torvalds when he was only 21 years old student.

What a lovely journey 🤍

  •  f00f/eris   ( @ipacialsection@startrek.website ) English
    98•1 year ago

    Well, Linux is 32 years old; GNU goes back to 1984, and Unix all the way back to 1970! The history of this OS is much older than Linus Torvalds’s involvement; he “only” created and maintains the most popular kernel.

    But yes, happy birthday to Linux. Many thousands have contributed to making this operating system what it is today and they all have my utmost thanks for it.

    •  Kongar   ( @Kongar@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) English
      39•1 year ago

      Sigh, my condolences. I’m shouting right beside you. I first learned about linux in 1993 in college. I got it working on a shiny new 486 with super vga graphics. We were allowed access to the college’s aix mainframes and thus the internet via a slip connection - but only through Unix like systems. Linux was amazing, I couldn’t believe we had x going, and loading up cad, matlab, maple, ftp, fsp, irc, nettrek, and everything else possible in the computer centers - but over a telephone line from our apartment.

      Magical.

      Funny how it really only became my daily driver three ish years ago - despite using it forever. Cuz games - glad that’s changed finally.

  •  LeFantome   ( @LeFantome@programming.dev ) 
    45•1 year ago

    If we are marking the birth of Linux and trying to call it GNU / Linux, we should remember our history.

    Linux was not created with the intention of being part of the GNU project. In this very announcement, it says “not big and professional like GNU”. Taking away the adjectives, the important bit is “not GNU”. Parts of GNU turned out to be “big and professional”. Look at who contributes to GCC and Glibc for example. I would argue that the GNU kernel ( HURD ) is essentially a hobby project though ( not very “professional” ). The rest of GNU never really not that “big” either. My Linux distro offers me something like 80,000 packages and only a few hundred of them are associated with the GNU project.

    What I wanted to point out here though is the license. Today, the Linux kernel is distributed via the GPL. This is the Free Software Foundation’s ( FSF ) General Public License—arguably the most important copyleft software license. Linux did not start out GPL though.

    In fact, the early goals of the FSF and Linus were not totally aligned.

    The FSF started the GNU project to create a POSIX system that provides Richard Stallman’s four freedoms and the GPL was conceived to enforce this. The “free” in FSF stands for freedom. In the early days, GNU was not free as in money as Richard Stallman did not care about that. Richard Stallman made money for the FSF by charging for distribution of GNU on tapes.

    While Linus Torvalds as always been a proponent of Open Source, he has not always been a great advocate of “free software” in the FSF sense. The reason that Linus wrote Linux is because MINIX ( and UNIX of course ) cost money. When he says “free” in this announcement, he means money. When he started shipping Linux, he did not use the GPL. Perhaps the most important provision of the original Linux license was that you could NOT charge money for it. So we can see that Linus and RMS ( Richard Stallman ) had different goals.

    In the early days, a “working” Linux system was certainly Linux + GNU ( see my reply elsewhere ). As there was no other “free” ( legally unencumbered ) UNIX-a-like, Linux became popular quickly. People started handing out Linux CDs at conferences and in universities ( this was pre-WWW remember ). The Linux license meant that you could not charge for these though and, back then, distributing CDs was not cheap. So being an enthusiastic Linux promoter was a financial commitment ( the opposite of “free” ).

    People complained to Linus about this. Imposing financial hardship was the opposite of what he was trying to do. So, to resolve the situation, Linus switched the Linux kernel license to GPL.

    The Linux kernel uses a modified GPL though. It is one that makes it more “open” ( as in Open Source ) but less “free” ( as in RMS / FSF ).

    Switching to the GPL was certainly a great move for Linux. It exploded in popularity. When the web become a thing in the mid-90’s, Linux grew like wild fire and it dragged parts of the GNU project into the limelight wit it.

    As a footnote, when Linus sent this announcement that he was working on Linux, BSD was already a thing. BSD was popular in academia and a version for the 386 ( the hardware Linus had ) had just been created. As BSD was more mature and more advanced, arguably it should have been BSD and not Linux that took over the world. BSD was free both in terms or money and freedom. It used the BSD license of course which is either more or less free than the GPL depending on which freedoms you value. Sadly, AT&T sued Berkeley ( the B in BSD ) to stop the “free”‘ distribution of BSD. Linux emerged as an alternative to BSD right at the moment that BSD was seen as legally risky. Soon, Linux was reaching audiences that had never heard of BSD. By the time the BSD lawsuit was settled, Linux was well on its way and had the momentum. BSD is still with us ( most purely as FreeBSD ) but it never caught up in terms of community size and / or commercial involvement.

    If not for that AT&T lawsuit, there may have never been a Linux as we know it now and GNU would probably be much less popular as well.

    Ironically, at the time that Linus wrote this announcement, BSD required GCC as well. Modern FreeBSD uses Clang / LLVM instead but this did not come around until many, many years later. The GNU project deserves its place in history and not just on Linux.

    •  Baut [she/her] auf.   ( @BautAufWasEuchAufbaut@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) 
      3•1 year ago

      Something is open source or isn’t. There’s a set, binary definition.
      I get the feeling you’re implying a difference/aversion between those two terms which doesn’t exist. This and the combination with a nonsensical statement about amount of GNU packages vs non-GNU packed makes it feel like you’re pushing an agenda here: There’s far more free software than just GNU’s - that’s a success for free software and the GNU project. There’s no connect between the argument you’re obviously implying.
      Also HURD never took off - but why should it? The GNU project’s goal is a fully free operating system, with Linux being persuaded to adopt a proper license there’s no real need for HURD. It doesn’t mean it isn’t a fun project.

    •  Dr. Bob   ( @DrBob@lemmy.ca ) English
      1•11 months ago

      The BSD license allows incorporation of BSD code in non-free projects. That was both an advantage for capitalists while simultaneously moving hobbyists away from it’s development. Kind of an important bit of info.

    •  NormalC   ( @jsnc@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) English
      17•1 year ago

      No, its because Linus Torvalds doesn’t consider libre software to be important. Torvalds sucks when it comes to free software.

      GNU Hurd is an incredibly important project because there can’t be just one “free software kernel.”

      Richard Stallman doesn’t care about popularity. He already changed the world. What he does care about is people forgetting their commitment to freedom.

      He doesn’t give a shit if people say Linux, he does give a shit if people are “marketing” Linux without an emphasis on freedom.

      Something that many have failed in.

    •  Captain Beyond   ( @beyond@linkage.ds8.zone ) 
      14•1 year ago

      Linux doesn’t have any GNU in it. Linux is a kernel that GNU runs on top of. That’s what Stallman means by “GNU/Linux.”

      Maybe he is a little bitter about his life’s work and philosophy being erased by Linux fans, but that is understandable. Maybe he is a little too bitter.

      •  kattfisk   ( @kattfisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) 
        7•1 year ago

        People think it’s about Stallman being bitter. But it’s because GNU is a political project with the goal of total user freedom and control over their computer. The software is a step on the way there. But if people use free software without understanding, valuing or taking advantage of the freedom it gives them, the GNU project has failed.

      •  NormalC   ( @jsnc@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) English
        2•1 year ago

        I hate this language, its so fucking dehumanizing. “Viable competitor” is such bullshit. Torvalds gave away his commitment to freedom with binary blobs. That’s his decision to do. But to label Hurd on that same level is the biggest disservice to history you could ever do.

        Hurd will never be the “viable competitor” because you hold selfish attitudes about how makes software valuable or not.

        Torvalds sold out. Hurd didn’t.

          •  NormalC   ( @jsnc@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) English
            3•1 year ago

            Top members are all companies that have made bank abusing their users to no end. Linus Torvalds refuses to upgrade to GPLv3 because he doesn’t see the value for enforced freedom restrictions. He is a “freedom for me, but not for thee” type of person. Hurd on the other hand will never suffer this issue because of it being a GNU package.

            The kernel is filled to the brim with nonfree firmware blobs. These blobs can be updated/modified by the vendor but not by the user, by that definition, they are nonfree. You could say that Linus Torvalds chose the “pragmatic” option. You wouldn’t be wrong to deduce that none of the companies on that board member list would EVER contribute to the kernel if they had to also respect the user’s freedom.

            But that’s the thing, Torvalds still sold out. Scandals like the proprietary Nvidia driver (which will now get its home in nonfree firmware) gets to happen (and will continue to happen) because the precedent was set. Torvalds historically didn’t even want to liberate his kernel until he was convinced by the work of the GNU project to do so.

            Torvalds is the poster boy because he does not threaten any sort of status quo. No one is immune to propaganda, and the Torvalds “Open Source” media narrative is still the dominant one. The GNU/Linux vs. Linux controversy is propelled by this Faustian pact.

            •  Aatube   ( @Aatube@kbin.social ) 
              14•1 year ago

              Have these members made any notable changes that hampered Linux’s freedom? How is not adding more restrictions for freedom to allow more freedom “not for thee”? How did “Torvalds historically didn’t even want to liberate his kernel”? It was open-source from the start, and also had his self-drafted free license which he later switched to GPL which also removed his no commercial distribution clause. By your arguments that sounds like he sold out to GNU. The FSF is way too idealistic to be able to move the world under the current status quo.

              •  NormalC   ( @jsnc@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) English
                1•1 year ago

                Intel and AMD both have tons of blobs that they ship to the kernel. Google has Android which relies on more nonfree firmware and proprietary user space. ChromeOS is also another example.

                Strict copyleft has always shielded contributions from being used nonfree programs, ensuring their freedom. Weakened copyleft or pushover licenses should only be used in certain circumstances.

                “Open source” was not a concrete concept back then. It was certainly not as we know the concept today. The noncommercial clause in torvald’s initial license would not comply with the 4 freedoms, thus it was proprietary.

                Torvalds didn’t “sell out” to GNU. He liberated his own project for use in the GNU Operating System which is and always will be a project to create a fully free operating system.

                Libre != noncommercial, neither are virtually all definitions of the modern open source movement. If torvalds were to sell out he would have kept his kernel as it was.

                The FSF is not “too idealistic.” It is simply an organization dedicated to a set of standards for software freedom. They solve problems related to living without nonfree software and share those solutions.

                The real “idealistic” world is the status quo, where all humans are meant to grovel at the IT tyrants as computer science becomes more and more stripped away from public conciousness. It is idealistic to think that human citizens would not revolt against this system and expose it for the parasitic shell that it is.

                The FSF is a response to freedom being stripped away from us day by day. The reason you didn’t think of it that way is because no one is immune to propaganda blasted to you 24/7.

                Every good natured family member who tells you to use facebook, every peer who tells you to go on a discord “server.” Every weak redditor. The huge amounts of e-waste produced by OEMs with little to no regulation. And all the kids who are being raised under the jailphones of iOS and Android. This is all propaganda designed to manufacture consent for you swindling away your freedom to privacy and computer science. If the ghouls could convince you that computers were magic, they would.

                Why would this not spawn the most fierce resistance campaign that spans the entire globe? One that is unyielding and hostile to threats?

                And why wouldn’t one want you to think that they’re too “idealistic?”

                •  Aatube   ( @Aatube@kbin.social ) 
                  1•1 year ago

                  macOS is based off FreeBSD, which is completely free. Not sure what you mean here. I don’t really see much documentation that shows GNU made Linus use GPL or not. You can’t assert that.

                  Being dedicated to software freedom doesn’t exclude you from being idealistic. They propose solutions that would require good sacrifices that many greedy people simply won’t follow. If you really think the status quo is “idealistic” then you don’t know what that word means. Computer science is already very much in the public consciousness and corporations have already been exposed, but they still operate. It’s idealistic to think they would sacrifice their greed. Despite how much software the FSF have funded, they’re still unable to attack.

                  Linux is a practical response to non-freedom. “sell out”, “liberated”, “changed his license” is all just word choice. There is still a long gap between open-source and proprietary. Nobody should co-opt words, including that “open-source” shouldn’t be redefined to libre software. You can argue that any promotional stuff, including FSF, is propaganda being blasted to you 24/7. Yes, these are very awful, but we need workable alternatives that can do many of the same stuff to switch to before we can rejoin freedom.

            •  Gork   ( @Gork@lemm.ee ) 
              2•1 year ago

              Scandals like the proprietary Nvidia driver (which will now get its home in nonfree firmware) gets to happen (and will continue to happen) because the precedent was set.

              Doesn’t this depend a lot on the vendors having a lock-in on the GPU market? Semiconductor manufacturing is super expensive and there is little incentive for Nvidia to release a Free as in Libre device driver. There aren’t any FOSS GPUs in development so FOSS drivers can’t be made.

              So we either have the choice of accepting proprietary drivers or just not using the functionality of GPUs.

              •  NormalC   ( @jsnc@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) English
                1•1 year ago

                Linus Torvalds has a large political influence, even he couldn’t hold back and flipped off Nvidia. But Torvalds and the rest of the foundation don’t go further than that. They’re willing to criticize but not to condemn.

                You’re right in that the larger hardware industry is an even bigger shithole artifice than IT is. Thats a failure of state actors who have an open secret of corruption (esp in the US) and laziness. Projects like RISC-V and coreboot are promising in that regard.

                So we either have the choice of accepting proprietary drivers or just not using the functionality of GPUs.

                Thats just life. This is still a transitionary period. But soon in the future, all software will be libre and all proprietary elements will be purged, never to come back ever again.

                •  JuxtaposedJaguar   ( @JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml ) 
                  2•1 year ago

                  So we either have the choice of accepting proprietary drivers or just not using the functionality of GPUs.

                  Thats just life.

                  If you’re willing to accept that, then why are you so critical of Linus? The fact that you can build a fully free version of Linux seems like the best of both worlds. From your perspective: get market share now by allowing non-free components, and then eventually transition them out while maintaining compatibility with the majority of the ecosystem.

        •  Aatube   ( @Aatube@kbin.social ) 
          11•1 year ago

          How the heck does “viable competitor” mean “we’re totally free”. Why are you dehumanizing Torvalds just for supporting more drivers.

          Linux is in development heaven. HURD is not so much.

          •  NormalC   ( @jsnc@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) English
            1•1 year ago

            It is a “zealot” opinion because I don’t topple over at the slightest breeze.

            Both Linux and Hurd are libre software. However, the freedom of linux is compromised as torvalds set the standard for how OEMs can circumvent the GPLv2.

            “viable competitor” is not the correct term to use. It miscontrues decades of history and circumstance.

            Hurd is far better than Linux in terms of ensuring your freedom. But linux is better for getting more folks onto the freedom ladder. Linux however, isn’t the end goal: GNU is. If you don’t know what that means, congrats, you’re part of the problem.

            GNU has their own kernel, called linux-libre, which follows the same set of principles as Hurd. It won’t function 100% on modern OEM hardware but its important as message towards freedom.

            I use a blobbed kernel one if my machines, but I also have a librebooted debian thinkpad. I am intensely interested in a fully free OS, this is why i seem stubborn to those who don’t even keep what Im saying in mind.

            My x220 uses intel microcode, that is nonfree software. However, I was convinced by the founder of libreboot’s (Leah Rowe) extensive writing to make it so. Im not completely stubborn, but Im also not careless.