Very interesting and understandable explanations of low level architecture and filesystems, namespaces, userspace, kernel functions, drivers etc.

Highly recommend!

  • TMP_NKcYUEoM7kXg4qYe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    What benefit would it provide though? It’s a microkernel so you could just add non-free drivers in the userspace. Things like Playstation would choose BSD instead.

      • TMP_NKcYUEoM7kXg4qYe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Sure but protect from what? Apple, Sony and Microsoft can just use BSD or any other proprietary kernel. Nobody will try to create the “new proprietary Linux” out of it because getting OS market share is hard even for an Open Source standard like Linux, let alone for some proprietary crap.

        A potential issue is someone like Qualcom who makes their own proprietary fork which works on their hardware only. So instead of digging through the tens of thousand lines of code which Qualcom publishes for their out of tree Linux kernels, you can only reverse engineer. But again we are talking about a microkernel so most of these lines of code would be proprietary regardless. At least we save time of these crazy developers who try to bring out of tree stuff into mainline.

        • Adanisi@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          It stops parts of Linux becoming proprietary, and becoming the dominant version users interact with. Comparisons with other kernels are irrelevant

          • TMP_NKcYUEoM7kXg4qYe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Comparisons with other kernels is imo relevant. Protecting software that has many alternatives from becoming proprietary is nice but not really important when the potential software vendor can just choose a different but equivalent project. It would not really matter if people interacted with this proprietary fork of RedoxOS or BSD, they would get screwed either way.

            Note: the original comment was “GPL or bust”. imo GPL is nice but in this case it’s a minor thing

      • TMP_NKcYUEoM7kXg4qYe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        If your point is that it would need some kind of license that would prevent proprietary drivers, then I’m not really sure how would lawyers differentiate between drivers and straight up non-free apps running on it.

        • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          GPL v3 prevents mechanisms that interfere with the ability of the end user to replace the free firmware of a device, like accepting only signed firmwares. It’s an “anti-TiVo” thing. It won’t prevent proprietary drivers, but any device distributed with it must not prevent the user from making their own drivers to replace them.

          There isn’t a real solution that would work for user space drivers. At least not yet. But just like GPL v3 rose from TiVo, if this becomes an issue I’m sure the lawyers of FSF will come up with something, and Linus and a lot of other folk will hate it.