Captain Beyond

xkcd 743 moment

NFT Bros 🤝 Twitter Artists

Seething about their jpegs being stolen

Not a copypasta, although given the average community member’s understanding of this issue comes from memes and copypastas, maybe it should become one.

That’s at the core of the myth (and thus the myths surrounding the myth) - that the discussion is about “what to call Linux” when in fact it’s always been about separating Linux from the userland that is often paired with it. Linux is Linux, no matter what compiler you use to build it - but the stuff that runs on top of Linux is not Linux.

I guess I’m being called out here, so wall of text incoming.

Linux and GNU are completely separate projects that have no relationship organizationally or technologically. As basic as this is, this is important to understand as the backdrop for “the GNU/Linux issue.”

Linux was started in 1991 as a project to build an operating system, one that is “not as big or professional as GNU.” In practical terms, Linux is just a kernel. It has no terminal, no command line tools, no desktop, no package manager, no web browser. Yet, people speak of it as if it’s a fully featured operating system that contains all of those things, an alternative to Windows or macOS.

GNU was started in 1983 as a project to build an operating system, but as GNU’s own kernel (the Hurd) is in development hell, the userland components (libraries and tools) are generally used with Linux to form a complete operating system, which is referred to as GNU/Linux. The “slash” is meant to signify that it’s a combination of these two projects. Note that, as the GNU project has adopted the Linux-libre variant of Linux, the Hurd is no longer really a priority project.

Of course, you can have Linux without GNU (Android and Alpine are the best examples of this) and you can also run GNU on non-Linux platforms (Debian has a port that runs on the FreeBSD kernel, and the tools themselves run on any Unixy operating system and even Windows). So I don’t really think you can conclude any of these are the “most important part” of the operating system, and it more or less comes down to whatever brand name you feel the most comfortable with.

And, of course, most GNU/Linux operating systems contain much more than GNU and Linux these days. Therefore, I prefer to understand Linux as a family of operating systems (as Wikipedia defines it) and GNU/Linux as a subfamily. The ironic thing is that, from a UX perspective, Linux, the kernel, is probably the least prominent component of the operating system, as it is furthest away from the user interface - but it is most prominent brand name and so gets applied to the whole “ecosystem.”

A lot of Linux fans think an operating system has to have more than Linux to be a “real Linux” operating system, or that it has to be community run or “anti-corporate” or meet some ideological criteria. But, Linus himself has no such ideology, and Linux is a very corporate project. Android is the most widely used Linux operating system. It is as much “real Linux” as Debian is.

The myth of the fictional operating system called Linux naturally leads to other myths, such as the myth of fragmentation. In that sense I feel it’s harmful, but the damage has been done and even the conversation around the myth has its own myths (such as the idea that Stallman wants to “rename Linux” or is jealous of Linux’s popularity, that “Linux should be called GNU/Linux” because “it contains GNU” or because it was built with GNU tools or licensed under the GPL). It’s hard to argue for “calling it GNU/Linux” when people don’t even understand what “it” is, or even what the admittedly convoluted name is supposed to signify. So, for that reason, I don’t think the “battle” is worth fighting anymore.

For the record, though, I refer to my preferred operating system by its own name, GNU Guix System, and make an effort not to center any particular project or brand name when talking about the free software community and ecosystem in general. I don’t characterize myself as a fan or user of Linux, just a free software enthusiast - the fact that all of my preferred operating systems contain Linux is a consequence of the fact that Linux is the most widely used free software kernel, not because of any brand loyalty on my part. Non-Linux operating systems such as the BSD’s should be considered as part of the free operating system family.

I think you’ll find it is no longer “My Computer” but now “This PC”

It feels like last week we were defending proprietary software, ads, and tracking against those mean old FOSS zealots who actually care about privacy and freedom. Are you saying we care about those things now?

As an end-user I believe I am entitled to the freedom to use, modify, and share the software I use. If your business model is incompatible with my values I won’t support you, simple as. I don’t have any problem monetarily supporting developers but not if they disagree with my principles.

I’m pretty sure I’ve seen this exact argument made against ad-blockers, too.

I prefer my version of stage 3: I still care about software freedom and advocate for it (as well as related issues like interoperability, privacy, and right to repair) but without being an obnoxious fanboy for “Linux” or talking down to people who still use non-free technology for whatever reason.

Simply caring about an issue doesn’t make one a cultist or zealot, and not caring about anything does not make one enlightened.

I say this as someone who is probably one of the biggest supporters of software-freedom around here, but bullying or shaming people for preferring non-free apps does nothing but incite resentment towards the movement. I value the four freedoms because I think I deserve control of my computing, not because I think it’s my place to dictate what others should value.

I think people are complaining about ads because ads imply tracking. I don’t know, I use Jerboa because I value the four freedoms, I’m not out here protesting non-free apps because the free apps work well enough for me.

Free refers to freedom, not price. No part of “FOSS” has anything to do with money or price.

They can, but their very existence increases the Chromium engine’s market share and therefore Google’s control of the web, allowing them to do stuff like this. Once this is implemented in Chrome then these browsers will just become “Chrome but it can’t play netflix/access bank websites/etc” or whatever.

Translation: “no”

Vivaldi is non-free so it’s a non-starter for me. “Privacy friendly” isn’t enough for me, I need the four freedoms.

Free software has only promised its users the Four Freedoms, which are the freedoms to use, share, modify, and share modified copies of the software. That is not an inherent guarantee that it is more secure.

Even if you yourself don’t know how to work with code, you can always enlist the community or a trusted friend to exercise freedoms on your behalf. This is like saying right to repair is meaningless because you don’t know how to repair your own stuff.

I use jerboa but I’d try out any libre client. I’m not interested in proprietary apps.

Funny enough I never saw the need for dedicated website apps for e.g. reddit, but the fediverse is somewhat clumsy to use in a browser (I’m aware that browser extensions can help) so an app actually improves the experience a bit.

you gotta give

Makes me sad that the third-party client(!), Ripcord, is more or less abandonware

If this were free software, someone would probably have already picked it up and continued development of it.

Android is Linux.