1946
Today GNU/Linux is 32 years old
(lemmy.ml)
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
Sure it aged well. WAY WAY BIGGER than gnu.
Weight your words my friend! GNU's a behemoth !
GCC alone is almost as big as Linux. Add core/binutils, the Hurd, ... And you easily outclass the kernel itself !
Oh, and Emacs.
Speaking as someone that doesn't understand computers very well: is Hurd usable as a kernel nowadays?
Yes if you cherry pick the hardware :)
What is actually the point of using hurd other than being able to say you use Hurd though?
Maybe it hurds in a good way.
Nah, it's a kernel it does kernel stuff and does not offer anything a normal user notices compared to other kernels.
It might be interesting for people who work on kernels just to see different ways on how to solve common problems.
afaik microkernels have a security advantage since kernel modules do not share the same address space as the main kernel or other modules
Possibly licensing reasons. Linux is GPLv2 only, Hurd seems to be GPLv2 or later, there could be reasons you may want to use something under the GPLv3.
Hurd is not a monolithic kernel, so it's an interesting technical endeavor. It's also a GNU package which means it's guaranteed to stay libre.
Hurd is also a smaller project relative to linux without the many eyes of the Linux board members.
That's debatable, since what people generally call "Linux" is more GNU than Linux anyway. "Linux" as the Linux fandom considers is it big and professional like GNU, because it is GNU (among other things).
But what about Linux distributions compiled without GNU tools? Most popular Linux distribution's kernel currently is compiled with Clang, not GCC, and as far as I am aware does not include anything from GNU. Of course Linux is historically influenced by GNU, but in current day and age they are orthogonal
It doesn't change the larger point that GNU is way bigger than Linux, though. There are a tonne of things that are larger than Linux, and GNU is one of them.
That is an entirely different argument which I did not contest and the comment I have answered to did not make
EDIT: Although, it depends on what we define as "bigger". Binary size is certainly bigger, but user adoption is abysmal comparatively.
I guess this is a matter of perspective. What I was saying in my previous comment is that what people commonly refer to as "Linux" (as in "Linux distributions") is not just Linux (which is just a kernel) but also includes a bunch of other stuff, including GNU (that is what GNU/Linux refers to). If you're talking about the actual thing called Linux, you'd be right, because most GNU systems are GNU/Linux systems, whereas arguably most Linux systems are not GNU systems; Alpine and Android are non-GNU Linux systems.
However, if like many in the Linux fandom you discount Android, then most Linux systems are GNU systems and vice-versa.
Why would I discount the most popular applications of the kernel? That is almost the whole userbase
Allow me to interject for a moment...
hi rms
I mean the GPL allowed linux to become a commercial entity. And the whole "professional" outlook is because theres a ton of companies who contribute either funds or development to the project.