Linux

67281 readers

760 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 7 years ago

MODERATORS

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

Whats the deal with Omarchy linux? Hype or it is actually that good? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 day ago by mazzilius_marsti@lemmy.world to c/linux@lemmy.ml

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

So preface, I am extremely OOTL with the distros. I have my Fedora box for work and its been running just fine for 5 years now. Before that i am an Arch btw user with i3 config riced to the max. I wanted to get actual work done so i stuck with Fedora and have not attempted any other distros.

Anyway, this Omarchy seems like a big deal? Idk everywhere i search, people are saying stuff like it is the best thing for Linux. Recently, there was news that Omarchy actually got funded for like $8 million?? The money comes from some big names too: Dell, DHH, Stripe, Jack Dorsey...etc. The dev who is working on Hyprland also indirectly benefits from this funding.

Is this going to become a serious corporate backed distro? We have Redhat for that right? Or is this just hype

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

[–] doleo@lemmy.one 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'm not sure I follow your point. Why is popularity necessary? Arent windows and macos already popular? If the price to pay for offering a viable alternative to those two is dealing with the likes of Dell and stripe, let alone DHH, is it really such a great option?

In other words, my personal reasons for using linux are significantly weakened by the involvement of american corporations.

[–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

if nobody uses an operating systems nobody wi make software for it.

[–] doleo@lemmy.one 1 points 2 hours ago

I just think there’s a sizeable gap between “nobody” using something and the mass market appeal encouraged by corporate interests

[–] mcv@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 hours ago

If, but people have used Linux for 30 years, and there's tons of software for it.

I appreciate Valve's contributions to Linux a million times more than these donations to racism.

[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Popularity is increasingly necessary to be able to actually use the OS. Hardware is constantly evolving, you need to keep up with everything from the new CPU architectures to the boot environment to drivers. Software is constantly evolving (worsening) too, if you want to interact with the web you need to be able to run a modern browser. Without popularity, there will be neither volunteers nor coprorate donors to do all this monumental work.

If corporate involvement is a bigger issue for you than usability, GNU Guix/Hurd is always there for you. I have it set up on an old laptop, it is kinda fun in a way but not really usable for anything.