• DonutsRMeh@lemmy.world
    4·
    1 day ago

    If this is a meme, then good one. If you’re serious, then this is the wrong community for it. Maybe try a conspiracy theory community or some shit like that.

    • bisby@lemmy.world
      44·
      2 days ago

      I think OP chose a random picture of servers to represent “linux” despite netflix[0] not having anything to do with this. And then cited the first item in the Debian social contract[1]. And then just wildly speculated that because other distros don’t have a social contract, that they might someday start charging money (they won’t they would just as soon stop existing than charge money, but ok).

      So in summary… “Computer pictures” + “Debian good” + “Arch not good” in a wild mishmash of nonsense.

      Also, to the OP: using a picture clearly labeled as Netflix just to start a conversation about the debian social contract is highly confusing and misleading. No one here has any idea wtf you are talking about.

      0: Netflix has published plenty of stuff about how they exclusively use FreeBSD for their CDN https://freebsdfoundation.org/end-user-stories/netflix-case-study/

      1: https://www.debian.org/social_contract

      • solomonschuler@lemmy.zipEnglish
        2·
        1 day ago

        good speculation!

        I could not bring myself to researching what the fuck OP posted. I had a brain fart looking at it.

      • KindaABigDyl@programming.dev
        31·
        2 days ago

        FreeBSD is not Linux, it is Unix.

        See the “BSD?” That stands for “Berkley Software Distribution” which was the Unix that was used at UC Berkley back in the day. It uses a Unix kernel not the Linux kernel.

        There is certainly overlap between the worlds of modern Unix and Linux, since much of the Unix world benefits from the popularity of Linux and FOSS as a whole, but it still is its own thing.

        Namely, the biggest difference is that FreeBSD is a complete OS. All components other than a user’s personally installed apps are made by (or at least integrated and maintained by) the FreeBSD team itself. Linux is technically just a kernel, and a Linux distribution, while similar to a Unix distribution, is made up of many many many moving parts made by lots of different people, each piece with its own goals then steered into working together.

        Now, there are some exceptions. There is a bit of a blur now. These days, the BSDs have more 3rd-party parts and the Linux world has become more governed and polished, but they are ultimately different things with different goals.

        There are plenty of other BSD descendents including OpenBSD and to a lesser extent Darwin (aka the macOS core, which runs an XNU kernel based on the Mach microkernel with a BSD subsystem beside it)

      • Successful_Try543@feddit.org
        6·
        1 day ago

        FreeBSD and Linux are both unixoid OSes. (More precisely, Linux is only a kernel, an OS using Linux is usually known as GNU/Linux or as some like to call it GNU+Linux)

        Unlike Linux, which was backwards engineered to be POSIX (a Unix standard) compatible, FreeBSD derived directly from Unix (although it doesn’t use any original Unix code anymore).

  • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
    19·
    2 days ago

    Free as in freedom? Or free as in for free and at no charge?

    Because the nature of FOSS makes it REALLY difficult to take away either.

    • bobo@lemmy.ml
      4·
      2 days ago

      Because the nature of FOSS makes it REALLY difficult to take away either.

      RHEL, SUSE, Ubuntu pro… FOSS and GPL have nothing to do with the price of the product

      • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
        41·
        1 day ago

        Something with an open source cannot be paywalled. You can charge for it, or use it in things that you charge for, but you can’t make a purchase the only way to get it.