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.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
The latest version of NTP is 15 years old, and implementations are expected to be compliant. There is no risk of embrace/extend/extinguish from licensing here.
Open standards are better than copy-left licenses, IMO.
And I could remove it and reinstall another one if I wanted...
The security focused Linux distros use Chrony
Okay, and?
I also wondered why this is a big news. Usually those tools are tried and tested over years of development and only run once a day or boot or even less. Don't know if it has that much of an impact.
It's cool and all, kudos to the devs, but idk why it's posted here and an article is written about it.
It's news because despite there already being a number of issues caused by Ubuntu transitioning to poorly done Rust ports common utils, they continue the practise.
Haven’t those issues been found in pre-release software that’s months out from being pushed to the general public?
I hate the fact that 30+ years old tools are switched to tools that are barley tasted and bug prone(as it was shown ).
RReligion over substance.
I also wondered why this is a big news
You think this is "big" news? An Ubuntu focused blog reporting on what Ubuntu is doing is not exactly the big time.
I feel like there's a lot of concern about more and more free software moving over to the MIT license.
I honestly don't know the ins and outs, but it's probably relevant to people concerned about it.
That license allows you to take the source, make changes and keep them to yourself. Which is not in the spirit of open source imho.
Permissive licenses also allow corporations to build off of open source software without giving anything back to public. I don’t see why they’re entitled to profit off the free labor of a community they don’t contribute back to.
This was my understanding, but I really am not in the loop enough to say it with certainty, so appreciate the confirmation. I agree, I think we're seeing from contributions made by people like Valve that there's real value in requiring derivative work to give back to the community it drew from. But again, I'm really not super well informed. I just tend to pick GNU options when available.
We need more GNU projects