Linux

48216 readers

1097 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

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

Can someone explain to me the difference between "community-driven" and "corporate-driven" distributions and its implications? (lemmy.ca)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by pglpm@lemmy.ca to c/linux@lemmy.ml

55 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A lot of debate today about "community" vs "corporate"-driven distributions. I (think I) understand the basic difference between the two, but what confuses me is when I read, for example:

...distro X is a community-driven distribution based on Ubuntu...

Now, from what I understand, Ubuntu is corporate-driven (Canonical). So in which sense is distro X above "community-driven", if it's based on Ubuntu? And more concretely: what would happen to distribution X if Canonical suddeny made Ubuntu closed-source? (Edit: from the nice explanations below, this example with Ubuntu is not fully realistic – but I hope you get my point.)

Possibly my question doesn't make full sense because I don't understand the whole topic. Apologies in that case – I'm here to learn. Cheers!

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

[–] garam@lemmy.my.id 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yet he exercise something beyond his right, to make CIQ parent company of Rocky for profit.. What is the different with Red Hat, they even won a lot of EL contract because it's cheaper...

Alma is better, they are non profit and driving fedora in some SIG...

Red Hat is sponsor of Fedora not only on paper, but also on reality. Rocky is sponsored by CIQ on paper, but in reality owned by CIQ... Single person..

[–] digdilem@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

Not quite but it's not black and white. Rocky is owned by Rocky Enterprise Software Foundation, but that is owned by Greg Kurtzner because a legal entity needs to be owned by /someone/ in law.

I personally trust him because I know a little of his story and his involvement with Centos before Rocky (ie, he cofounded it), but I appreciate that might not be enough for everyone. I've followed the project closely since its inception and am very happy with its progress and outlook so far, solely from a non-commercial aspect.

And Alma is NOT better. That's like saying Cheese is better than Apples, or Titanium's better than Lead. They're different distros with quite different approaches. It's fantastic both of them entered this market and both of them are doing well, choice is the absolute best thing about Foss.

(More detail about Rocky's legal makeup here, if you're interested) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Linux - I also have no commercial interest in it other than a user)