1831
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] reinar@distress.digital 274 points 1 year ago

why not? it's not like there is any competition.
Microsoft is making more money off Linux with Azure than several red hats combined.

[-] stepanzak@iusearchlinux.fyi 179 points 1 year ago

Yes, but people find this interesting because historically, Microsoft was actively trying to destroy Linux (look up Halloween documents) and even said that Linux is cancer.

[-] dojan@lemmy.world 119 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

A lot changed after Satya Nadella took the helm. The modern .NET platform is really quite nice, and MS does a lot of ~~FOSS~~ open source work.

Obviously it’s good to be sceptical, they’re a large corporation and all they want is money, they’re not our friends. They’re just not as draconian as they were in the 90s and the 00s.

[-] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago

Usually FOSS is specifically copyleft licences like the GPL, which Microsoft don't use. Their open-source stuff tends to be MIT.

[-] boonhet@lemm.ee 38 points 1 year ago

While you're correct, that's funny because as a developer using a framework like dotNET, MIT gives YOU more freedom.

[-] 6xpipe_@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

MIT gives YOU more freedom

After years of debate about licenses for my own software (that only I use...), my philosophy has been boiled down to this: MIT for libraries. GPL for programs.

This way, other developers can freely use your library, and your program remains free.

[-] boonhet@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

That's competely sensible if you ask me. Though there's also nothing wrong with MITing your programs if you want to. By making the source available, you've already done plenty for the users.

[-] PixxlMan@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I find the distinction that dynamically linking GPL is fine but statically linking it is not to be so ridiculous. That's obviously just an implementation detail. The only conceivable difference other than the pointless "technuchalley your program contains GPL code now as part of the file" is that you have to do dynamic linking, which is slightly slower. How does the fact that your work is dynamically linked vs statically linked make any difference to the people writing GPL libraries??

[-] float@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago

I think that's for LGPL. For GLP any form of linking requires the code to be licensed under GPL, too. The dynamic linking except isn't that bad of you think about it. It gives you the freedom to update or replace the library at any time. For security critical libs (TLS, GPG, ..) that's a big plus.

[-] bufalo1973@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Dynamic linking let's you use an already packaged library that its source you don't touch.

Static linking means you have to show the source just in case you did some change.

[-] lea@feddit.de 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

At least for anything statically linked where the GPL code would end up as part of your binary and force you to GPL your own code I believe.

Anything more lax is fine, so you could also release your code under MIT license if you use GPL modules. Yes, it does force you to release your code but after all it's a protection for the user. Furthermore, GPL does not mean your software has to be free of charge, you can still sell it as long as you attach the source code for the end user.

[-] Damage@feddit.it 5 points 1 year ago

The GPL protects the freedom of the user primarily, not the developer.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Exactly. Debating which of copyleft or permissive licensing is "more free" is always the wrong question. The correct question is "freedom for whom?

[-] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

The way I like to think of it is that non-copyleft licences are like giving everyone freedom by saying there are no laws - suddenly, you can do anything, and the government can't stop you! However, other people can also do anything and the government can't stop them, either, and that includes using a big net to catch other people and make them their slaves. The people caught in the nets aren't going to feel very free anymore, and it's not unreasonable to think that a lot of people will end up caught in nets.

Copyleft licences are like saying there are no laws except you're not allowed to do anything that would restrict someone else's freedom. In theory, that's only going to inconvenience you if you were going to do something bad, and leaves most people much freer.

The idea is basically that you shouldn't be able to restrict anyone else's freedom to modify the software they use, and if you're going to, you don't get to base your software on things made by people who didn't.

[-] nous@programming.dev 29 points 1 year ago

Huh? FSF counts the MIT license as free, though they call it the Expat license they list it as both Free and GPL compatible: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Expat It is also listed as an opensource licence by the OSI.

Thus by definition MIT is a FOSS licence.

[-] dojan@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

That is a good point. Thank you for the correction!

[-] Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago

I thought MIT is the "do whatever you want with my code but don't blame me if it breaks something"-license. Am I misinformed?

[-] CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

I was skeptical when Microsoft bought GitHub but since then, they have fully reversed course and even made a formal apology on their historical stance on Linux.

They've even made several additions to the kernel, mostly to support WSL but still.

The rumor is that Microsoft is working on their own distribution.

[-] stepanzak@iusearchlinux.fyi 15 points 1 year ago

I mostly agree that what they are doing now is good for FOSS, but I don't believe that they switched to the good side. Microsoft may support FOSS because they now profit from it, but you shouldn't forget that they are still spying on their customers and doing other unethical stuff. As any big company, what they want is money and you shouldn't believe that they are your friends or they want your good. (I'm not saying you think that, but many people idealize companies and forget that all they want is money)

[-] Damage@feddit.it 10 points 1 year ago

Microsoft is a large, public corporation. They simply can't be good. Profit as the single motive of their existence ensures that.

[-] stepanzak@iusearchlinux.fyi 2 points 1 year ago

Exactly what I mean!

[-] deus@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago
[-] CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Maybe?

My understanding is that it's supposed to replace Windows, while providing native backwards compatibility for legacy apps.

I don't know enough about mariner to say for sure.

[-] jaybone@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Do they plan to just enhance wine for that?

[-] ShittyRedditWasBetter@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

It's been 10 damn years. How long you people going to be surprised?

[-] stepanzak@iusearchlinux.fyi 26 points 1 year ago

Some things just can't be forgotten.

[-] sparkl_motion@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago

WSL has been integrated into Windows for a while now. The days you’re referring to are in the past.

this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
1831 points (98.2% liked)

Linux

48653 readers
1136 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

Related Communities

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

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS