-27
what do you think of mit?? (lemmy.today)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by adrrdgz@lemmy.today to c/linux@lemmy.ml
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

massachusetts institue of technology. richard stallman is from there. most linux utilities were developed there and a lot of open source projects were and are made there!!! is it the best university for linux and open source??

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Meltrax@lemmy.world 48 points 1 month ago

I live right near it, and have a lot of friends that went there. Not a strong opinion. Fortunately for you, you'll find these two things at almost any university in the United States:

  • A Computer Science department that actually teaches the exact same curriculum as MIT.
  • An English department that will teach you how to use capitalization and punctuation in sentences.
[-] 30p87@feddit.de 2 points 1 month ago

but.punctuationwouldntbefun!!!

[-] velox_vulnus@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 month ago

I hate them, because university rankings have kind if become a neo-caste system. Ivy League universities are elitist brain-rot. Sure, they house great minds, but the sham that is meritocracy will crumble if everyone in this world had the privilege to start from the same line one the race track.

Just think of it - is advancement of human civilization a dick-measuring contest, or do we prepared folks to be better professionals to excel in the respective field they've chosen?

Well, I am not really sure if you should be celebrating MIT, just because Richard Stallman has graduated from there. That's like saying - we should bomb the fuck out of Harvard for producing graduated that have bought terror in this world through human rights violation of varying degrees?

[-] CsXGF8uzUAOh6fqV@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Are universities automatically "elitist brain-rot" when they participate in rankings? When it comes to privilege, yes, rich kids that don't deserve it are accepted into ivy league universities because of the connections they have. This is not a good thing obviously. Most researchers receive the privilege of working there because of their good research done at other universities. That is why they stay on top: a lot of excellent researchers want to join those universities. Obviously MIT has a very good standing when it comes to CS. The dick-measuring contest is but a small part of the university ecosystem. Also, neo-caste system is a quite strong. Most ivy league researchers are probably not rich or powerful. For that you have to look at our "friends" in the C-suite. I understand the sentiment, but I find "hate", "elitist brain-rot" and "neo-caste system" way too strong.

[-] someacnt_@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Yeah, in the more technical/scientific departments, people usually have incredible skills to prove their worth.

[-] kbal@fedia.io 14 points 1 month ago

N: Unable to locate package mit E: No packages found

Whatever it is, it doesn't seem to be too popular. Not even in debian.

[-] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 5 points 1 month ago

I like the MIT-License. And don't care who visited it or not.

[-] velox_vulnus@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

MIT is a harmful license in some scenario. I mean, it has it's use cases for certain apps, but quite a few softwares out there would really benefit from GPL and AGPL-type licenses.

[-] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 8 points 1 month ago

Any license can be harmful in some scenarios. I like MIT, because its simple and allows basically anything. There are some situations in which GPL is harmful too (such not being able to mix with any type of license) and would benefit from MIT. One can also go from MIT to GPL, but not other way, if everything is licenses in GPL.

For complex programs that are important and where the source code must stay open, GPL is perfect. Like always, every license has its harmful scenarios and its use cases.

[-] gerdesj@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago

such not being able to mix with any type of license

GPL licenced software merely has to comply with the GPL - make your changes available to all etc. The whole point of the GPL is to ensure that you can take but enforces that you give back too. It's the Stone Soup thing.

MIT is loved by say Apple because they can take your work, do their thing and not have to contribute back. To be fair, Appley stuff is now quite a long way away from BSD!

As I'm feeling charitable, I should also point out that CUPS is/was largely Apple driven, as is Avahi/Bonjour. I can deploy a Linux box and expect it to find and setup available printers without having to do anything.

[-] magic_lobster_party@kbin.run 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

GPL can prevent the linking of external and non-free third party libraries. It can add an increased legal complexity to the code base. It’s difficult for MIT licenses to have that “clashing” between licenses.

There are variations to GPL that allow the linking of non-free third party libraries. Either way, consult your lawyer before using GPL code.

[-] LeFantome@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago

Well, that is like, your opinion man.

Ok. Obviously different licenses are useful in different circumstances. So, what you are saying is clearly true.

That said, even though the MIT license is the most used license I believe, I wish MIT was used more and GPL less.

I do not want to create or get drawn into a debate ( because we likely have the same facts and just disagree ) but what I dislike about the GPL is that does not respect freedom—specifically developer freedom. It constrains freedom and hopes that what it calls “the 4 freedoms” are a side effect. In my view, the GPL restricts freedom to bestow rights ( a net negative for freedom ).

My opinion is no more valuable than yours. We do not have to convince each other. I am just explaining my view.

Don’t get me wrong, the ability of the original author to choose the GPL is something I totally support. It is a totally valid constraint to place on people that want to use your code. A developer should get to choose the terms under which people can use their code. It is exactly this freedom that the GPL restricts. Again, I think this is totally ok ( as would be demanding money ) but it is certainly a restriction which, by definition, is not freedom.

this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2024
-27 points (24.5% liked)

Linux

46643 readers
782 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

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
nooter692@lemmy.ml
MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz