And that’s a tragedy because that convenience of pronunciation comes with the cost of losing credit for the group that started the whole thing. Because only “Linux” is used, many people think Linus Torvalds developed/invented the entire operating system.

Hook and loop being called Velcro doesn’t hurt Velcro the same way because they still have all the credit for making it. The only problem they face is losing a trademark.

If I’m not mistaken, you’re talking about distributions. When I write ‘operating system’, I’m referring to a collection of programs that provide a set of utility for a user, such as file manipulation, the ability to compile other programs, etc. Distributions expand on that functionality by configuring everything, providing other programs, and methods to install more. But they mostly build off a common framework, the operating system. Linux is a component of that system that provides the framework. Should it get all the credit for doing so? Personally, I don’t think so.

I understand distributions (Debian, Arch, etc.) are what users will use. But those distributions have a foundation to build off of (that’s what I’m referring to when I say OS), and that foundation most distributions use is GNU and Linux.

GNU came first, and the final piece of the missing puzzle was Linux. Adding in Linux shouldn’t overshadow all the incredible work the GNU project took over 7 years to create.

Android is a different issue, although it certainly puts a hole in the logic of calling the desktop OS Linux. “[Android] contains Linux, but it isn’t Linux.”

It would seem that GNU/Linux or Linux (whatever the user-accessing operating system is called) is the only OS that must mention its kernel. No one calls Windows the NT operating system, nor does anyone call Mac OS the Darwin operating system. So why should Linux be the exception?

When I think of GNU, I think of a project that had a very particular goal in mind: build an operating system that replaces Unix with entirely free software. The project got nearly all the way there, but before they got a usable kernel working, Torvalds licensed his kernel with the GPL. With the Linux kernel combined with GNU, we have an OS the GNU project set out to create. So why should Torvalds get all the credit? Without calling the OS GNU, most people don’t even know how or why it came to be.

I could see a valid argument to just simply call the OS GNU. It was the name the original team gave the project to have a fully functional OS made with entirely free software. True, Torvalds didn’t write Linux for GNU, but neither did the X Window System. A Kernel is essential for operation though, so I can see why the name GNU/Linux was proposed.

When I think of Copyleft licenses, I just think of it as “Use this program as you see fit, but if you share/redistribute it, you may not add any restrictions to it.”

I don’t understand why there are communities that hate GPL so much. It is such a powerful license that practically guarantees that the program will be free for any who wants it, it just won’t allow someone to add restrictions to it.

I’ve heard arguments against the GPL like: “It’s too restrictive!” Only if you want your program to be muddled with any kind of program that doesn’t respect freedom. Saying the GPL is too restrictive to developers is like saying the 13th amendment of the US Constitution is too restrictive to slave owners.

“This place has got everything!”

With the way generative AI is progressing, I wouldn’t say it’s impossible.

Patent trolling.

Apparently, Scots and Irish believe British == English. Or, they can’t stand the thought of being labeled in any similar category as the English.

Maybe things have changed since I’ve last tried it (10 years or so), but I thought Fedora Rawhide was at the most bleeding edge of experimental packages.

Was this the prompt? https://youtu.be/gBiIbV0qhRk?si=AGAZ_5C1PPEDGxQa

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

I’m still waiting for Kingdom Hearts… How long has it been now?

With the new restrictions that mods can’t retroactively become paid mods, nor can they be dependent on others sounds fine on paper.

But consider what having this kind of system in place will do for future games and mods. I believe this will discourage collaboration and ultimately will cause a decline in quality. If paid mods can’t build off of others, then there would be less incentive or option to build integration of mods. Anyone remember mods like cobl, cm partners, and fcom for Oblivion? Those would be impossible with paid mods. And since most modders would (rightfully so) like to maximize their income, I reckon many would exclusively make their portfolio be paid mods, even with restrictions on what they can build.

https://www.blu-ray.com/deals/ is a great place to view deals on movies and shows. Most of them are sold on Amazon though. https://grindhousevideo.com/ is another store I’ve bought from. They seem to have a decent selection of more obscure titles.

I would imagine it would be like Arm pumping.

4*20+12

Four score and twelve