Death by SJW-induced code-license revoking.
…and back to, is this thread about the death of only Linux the kernel or GNU/Linux the OS? Other than a handful of posts this thread mostly fails to distinguish the concept that even if the kernel project stopped all the other OS related projects are separate.
Surely all other OS projects would just carry on whilst a forked kernel project found its feet. The biggest risk would then be that there could be multiple forks that each go their own way, but I’d imagine the bigger players would soon align behind a common project.
@thro I’ve quoted you, but my statement is not aimed at you
Linux is the kernel, the rest is GNU. So, the death of linux is by definition the death of the kernel (specifically, that specific official tree)
Nothing going with another OS.
This is basically scenario #3. I still think we would run into forked and diverging kernels. Probably the biggest players would have the fastest developing kernels, so we would see Redhat, Canonical, and SUSE producing their own separate kernels based on linux. This would basically screw over cooperation from hardware vendors. Intel would surely make no effort to submit code to every kernel; and if they chose one kernel to submit code to, every other kernel would have to merge that code in assuming that it’s even compatible. All of your Gnomes and KDEs would continue to work. However, SystemD support may become more of an issue if some kernels refactor in a way that breaks it, so over time Gnome may not work. But anything that currently runs on Linux and BSD, or Illumos would still work; that MATE, XFCE, KDE and their applications.
would they technically be called “linux” at that point though? i.e., “linux” as a kernel would die.
Linux is trademarked, they would have to go by different names. Also, what do you consider death? I consider death to be end of development. You could however consider it to be something like, a significant change in a “not what I signed up for” kind of way; This is basically not that Linux is dead but is instead “dead to me”
I would be pretty torn, I really like the idea of OpenBSD, but it doesn’t have OpenZFS support, so I’d probably look at HardenedBSD (FreeBSD derived) or Illumos. Illumos would be more interesting, to see what the Solaris style of UNIX looks like, but FreeBSD has more active work for POWER9 compatibility, which I care a lot about.
You are correct. Death of the kernel.
If you’re just talking about the kernel, the easiest thing for everyone to do would be to switch to Debian, and start running the GNU/kFreeBSD port.
Linux dies then BSD, BSD dies then walk around smacking rocks together trying to communicate with the sun until something else comes along or I make contact. What ever I have to do to stay sane.
Development on that project is practically nonexistant, but I doubt it would stay that way in a hypothetical end of linux scenario.
Debian/kFreebsd is to me the most retarded project ever.
If you want to run FreeBSD kernel, just run FreeBSD. The user space tools in FreeBSD are fine. I mostly prefer them to GNU.
I get the feeling that it was an experiment more than anything else.
Then Illumos, then XNU/OpenDarwin if absolutely necessary, but whatever happens, I will have my OpenZFS, and I will not have it on Windows!
Linux is dead bois, the code of conduct caught aids.
Looks like Mint took in 10 grand for September
Yes I like Mint
That was an interesting blog. I don’t usually go for mint, but I can respect that they care about their project.
Did something new happen?
It’s a game of 3 Card Monte with no end. Every one of the big 3 (Apple, Google, Microsoft) will indefinitely make garbage products and see just how far they can push the spending habits of their customers. When one of them pushes it too far, that’s the equivalent of a card swap. The odds are always in the favor of the dealer.