Yet Han is still alive in Fast and Furious 9.

The files it uses are mostly just the tools and shims which can be copied over from a working distribution.

The maintainer is just lazy and he doesn’t let people improve it either because he wants it to be coded in a certain way: https://github.com/ventoy/Ventoy/issues/2795#issuecomment-2326831525

It is not a malicious project, yet the xz-utils backdoor should make us be concerned, and we should only use a fork that pulls in the binaries from trusted sources.

All that effort, when you could’ve just called it LUNIX.

By the way, does this expression match LUNIX? But if so, won’t it also match Binux or Bunix?

Given the label is meant to classify related operating systems, the label should provide an accurate description of the basis of the system.

Which is one of the reasons why specified GNU/Linux separately from just Linux for Alpine, instead of calling it Musl/Linux.

If a software is written for just Linux, it will work on either system. But if it is written for GLIBC, it work work on Musl LIBC based systems.

Programs linked dynamically with Musl LIBC won’t work on GLIBC based systems too, but considering the trend of everyone using GLIBC, those who build for Musl LIBC would state it explicitly, compared to programs released for GLIBC, which ambiguously only say that it is built for Linux.

software written for “Linux” usually works on any POSIX operating system, and sometimes even Windows. Unless you’re talking about binary compatibility, which is meaningless in the Linux space anyway.

In practice, as a person who uses Musl LIBC and the Runit init system, most “Linux programs” don’t even work on it, often even if I try to build it from source because of their dependencies on GLIBC. GLIBC is a very hard dependency that most people overlook when writing software.

And many programs even have a hard dependency on systemd, to a lesser extent. Even that too only works on systems with GLIBC, and cannot be used with any other LIBC.

Yes, GNU is not a complete OS, but neither is Linux, but we call it as such.

Hell why are we not raising pitchforks at GNU for being a all encompassing project that wants to consume everything like everyone complains systemd is trying to do?

The reason is ultimately the actions of the Linux community from the beginning itself. Had they been fair, we would’ve referred to the project as GNU/Linux from the beginning itself.

There’s no point in going back to change any contemporary label for accuracy, we only have to do so if there is a sense of unfairness in the label. That is the case here.

It is a pointless distinction created by a guy that was pissy that his pet project was not getting the attention he thought it deserved.

If Stallman was like AT&T who filed a copyright on BSD/386 for using their work, he wouldn’t have caused this. The entire principle of trademarking exists for this reason. It’s only when a person tries to help other people that they get sidelined. It is our responsibility to give the original developers the due respect.

As for systemd, it was always created as an init system for the GNU/Linux OS. I use Void Linux musl edition with Runit init system, and it could not be replaced with systemd because it depends on GLIBC.

That’s where the history matters. If you applied patches to the GNU project to make it work with Linux, how does the resulting OS become Linux in the end? Linux holds a special place in that regard because it makes the kernel layer, but it doesn’t completely invalidate GNU.

Even this commented asked the question of how we call OSs not approved by FSF as GNU/Linux distributions, showing how he does not understand what the idea even implies. GNU is not a political movement, FSF is.

Also, the distros listed there are just FSF approved free GNU/Linux distributions. That is regarding what GNU/Linux distributions you must use, and not a description of what GNU/Linux distributions there are.

Chrome OS would be a Proprietary Community/Linux OS, and Chromium OS would be a Community/Linux OS. Chromium is a community project that’s added to the Gentoo base.

By Community, I’m referring to the free community projects, not just any contributions.

Windows for example is an Proprietary NT OS, but all Windows are NT based, so we can just skip the NT part.

Just read the post dude. I made it easy to read first, then others asked what the problem was, so I had to add it. I guess I’ll put it at the end instead.

Musl, systemd, Freedesktop, etc. were never OS projects. GNU and Linux are OSes.

Also, most “Linux programs” don’t run on Musl LIBC based distros like Void Linux musl edition, which I’m using, and I’m considering returning to the GLIBC edition for my sanity.

I have added the problem to the post for those who are unaware.

LiGNUx is unpronounceable. It’s kind of like xbwhfr.

Linux is pronounceable, but the recognition of one of the founders who chose to market it while the other who fought for freedom gets unrecognised is unfair, and people can notice that.

I mentioned *BSD because I’m solving this problem from an ontological level to address systems. If someone categorizes FreeBSD as a BSD OS vs BSD fork, there’s still a small debate that can arise from it. Calling it a Community/BSD OS gives attribution to the core team as well as the original BSD team. And all of it remains easily pronounceable as well.

You wouldn’t call it GNU slash Linux, but a “community developed GNU and Linux based OS” and just Linux for referring to the Kernel. Most apps for example run only on GLIBC, and therefore calling them Linux apps doesn’t make it inclusive of Musl LIBC based systems.

The recognition of GNU (and Linux) as the OS in a GNU/Linux distribution.

They are real and have been manufactured by the CIA: https://www.cia.gov/legacy/museum/artifact/pigeon-camera/

Working principle: https://x.com/vxunderground/status/1801458774558830801

I think it is more likely to be Embedded Android

I wrote about this after pondering in my blog: http://hypotheticallyy.blogspot.com/2023/08/why-is-negative-times-negative-positive.html

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Israel’s existence is based on the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Palestine does not care about killing Zionists as much as taking back their land. There’s nothing preventing the Zionists to own the land in Palestine legally, other than that they’ll have to give up the privilege of what they stole. Many residents in the country even have dual citizenship so they can go back to their homelands if they can’t afford to pay fairly.

deleted by creator