Well yeah only 3% go to the kernel. Most of the rest seems to be going to everything else required for a functional OS. The kernel alone is fairly useless.
this post was submitted on 08 May 2026
104 points (75.2% liked)
Linux
65386 readers
526 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
So what you're saying is it's not Linux, it's somethingElse/Linux ?
You see, that's just inaccurate. GNU/Linux is not equivalent to GNU+Linux. That would be addition; this is division. The bigger Linux gets, the smaller GNU/Linux becomes.
That's why they've developed GNU/Hurd. Hurd is unlikely to ever amount to much, meaning that GNU/Hurd will never evaluate to a small value. And that is cold, hard mathematical fact.
Hurd rescently became an option with Gentoo Linux (experimentally). Debian offers it too.
As does Arch AFAIK. It's still very niche, though.
Not exactly true:
Because the GNU kernel—Hurd—is not production-ready , GNU is usually used with the Linux kernel. There was an Arch-based distribution called Arch Hurd, which is inactive. Hurd package last update was in 2019.
Arch Linux is such a GNU/Linux distribution, using GNU software such as the Bash shell, the GNU core utilities —coreutils, the GNU toolchain and numerous other utilities and libraries.
GNU/Hurd will rise as soon as the abusers of that penguin abomination will realise they have been tricked by big tech. The free future is Gnu/Hurd and 9Front.
Its software packages required to build functional GNU/Linux operating systems. Yes.
Normal people just call all of this "linux" for simplicity, but annoying people keep feeling a need to point out the distinction.
Right. And that somethingElse is probably not Unix
Or as I like to call it, somethingElse+Linux
GNU stands for "GNU's not Unix", which itself means 'GNU's not Unix not Unix'. If two nots logically undo each other then you might say GNU is Unix but in programming you would likly apply one assignment at a time: expressed as GNU = ! Unix = Unix or simply GNU's not Unix.
the kernel alone is fairly useless
Any essential part is usually fairly useless without the other parts
Seems to be going to Corporate Operations, Event Services, Project Support. But little goes to Linux kernel, and project infrastructure.
What do you think Project Support is?
Well they could do a far better job of getting across what the expenses are. They may as well say 100% went to things relevant to the linux foundation.
Paying a bunch of marketing people to fly around the world attending conferences that only they go to, to talk about more conferences they'll be hosting for the same purpose.
Yeah, the money's "going to" two of the least funded categories in the chart. 🙄
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yeah I was wanting more. This looks like things that support development. Being open-source, a lot of developers have day jobs elsewhere so kinda makes sense the line items for paying them might be small.
Was this coming from within the kernel community?
It's nice of this poster to ignore the $181m spent on "other projects" and conclude this is some kind of scam. If we include the Linux Kernel with the other projects part, that's about 67%, or two thirds, of their expenses are paying for various and assorted open source projects. Among them the kernel. So if you're a "cash and cash alone" person, then 2/3rds of your money is still going as cash to software projects.
And if we include things like community tooling and project services, which may help a project in ways beyond just cash that becomes about 78% in total, or over three quarters.
That's pretty good, I think, but to each their own.
Mhm, I think this is more complicated than it looks. The LF today isn't a direct Linux kernel funding body and more an umbrella for open-source governance (infrastructure, events, certification, security work, to name a few). So the other 97% are not necessarily wasted. Also, many kernel developers are paid outside of the LF by companies like Red Hat, Google, AMD, SUSE, Microsoft. So in reality there is alot more cash flowing towards Linux kernel development. A better/sharper criticism would be that the LF has become an industry consortium for "enterprise open source" or so, rather than a Linux-centered foundation. The counterpoint on the other Hand is that this founded infrastructure is exactly what allows large-scale open-source projects to function in the first place.
yeah, some of the budget goes to what looks like maintaining infrastructure that other projects use (i assume). but the 12% AI and 4% blockchain are pretty indefensible...
load more comments
(2 replies)
There could well be a kernel of valid criticism in it but this article is so exaggerated and strident, that I can't take it seriously. It's like people who scream GOVERNMENT WASTE about every budget line item that is not obviously important to someone who has only the most simple and ignorant understanding of it.
Corpos doing what corpos do better.
12% to AI
Yikes
that was the most worrying part of it to me; nothing is safe from ai apparently.
Linus and Greg aren't willing to save anything either.
They rolled over on the American government's demand to expell Russian contributors like puppies begging for a treat.
Linux has become as captured as any Western institution.
American
You mean Yankee
to-MAE-to
to-MAH-to
No.
America is a continent. There are more non yankees (or genocide supporters) than yankees in America.
America is the colloquial name for United States Of America. The denizens of that country are called Americans officially.
There is no continent of America. There's North America and South America but that's not "America"
Also as a Canadian most people are still genocide supporters. Also also, America the country is larger population wise than the rest of the countries on North America combined. So even with your broad brush of "all Americans are genocide supporters" you're still wrong.
i was thinking how i have to code switch the name "american" based on the audience and it made me wonder if this was one of the defining characteristics of all westerners.
the anglosphere is probably the primary driver of the definition of "america" as you described it in your comment and your culture's sociopolitical alignment depends on how much in common your idea of "america" matches the anglosphere's definition of "america".
in other words, the less your definition of "america" has we the anglosphere's definition of "america"; the more eastern you are.
That's an interesting way to look at it. I've also easterners call it America but normally those are people from Japan or Korea which already have pretty heavy American influence.
the definition of "easterner" also seems to have a hegemony of its own. a majority of latin americans likewise have an undeniably strong american influence; but they share this eastern definition of the word "american".
however a majority of the world who share the non-anglocentric definition of the word "american" are literally in the east; so it defaults to an eastern-centric definition despite a sizeable minority share of its subscribers in latin-america being more closely aligned w the west.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
Sincerely, what did you expect? I mean, obviously it's hyped right now, but let's be real - AI is not going to go away anymore.
Okay, but … while in some circles, “Linux” does indeed mean just the Linux kernel, it’s often used more casually to refer to the entire operating system and open source ecosystem that make Linux usable on servers, home PCs, and a bunch of other devices.
Sure, strictly speaking, only the kernel is technically “Linux” … but if you have a machine with only the kernel on it and absolutely nothing else, you’re going to have a bad time and that machine won’t be useful for very much.
While only a small portion of their funding goes to the kernel, it seems from looking at their charts that a majority of their funding is going to things that will (at least in theory) help make life better for most people who are running and using the Linux kernel. My only real complaint from looking at those charts is that they’re spending 12% on “AI, ML, Data & Analytics”. Fuck that shit.
'Corporate Operations' gets double the budget of the Kernel itself.
Some people are living very well doing absolutely nothing.
Most actual Linux code changes come from large companies implementing or improving drivers for their own hardware.
The Linux foundation mostly manages the Linux "brand". That is, all the logistics and infrastructure required to run a huge project with many stakeholders.
Why is it so important for Linus Torvalds' salary to be in the top 10? He might think it is fair, based on his current contributions to the project.
view more: next ›