Linux

48224 readers

719 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

56 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

[–] pglpm@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Absolutely fair point and warning. In the end we all need to earn money somewhere in order to live. I think the real greyscale distinction is not between "corporate" vs "community", but on whether there's some actor that can act whimsically while remaining unchecked. I believe that the two terms are being used in an oversimplified way in that sense.

[–] nan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don’t think looking at the power of “some actor” is a good way either. Many community projects are led by benevolent dictators, they are even in the history of projects like Debian (Ian Murdock) and Gentoo (Daniel Robbins). Many forks of things happen because people disagree with that leader or they go missing.

I think the easiest distinction is to look at who actually builds the product that is released. RHEL development happens in the open in CentOS Stream, but package selection, stabilization, release engineering, etc are done by employees within the corporation. In Fedora this is accomplished by committees and contributors who work the role. Even though Red Hat financially sponsors Fedora these are usually not employees. In something like Arch or Debian this is even more the case.

[–] pglpm@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

True that too. I'm realizing it's really a matter and situation with many diverse important factors and degrees. As always, categorization only goes so far...