Probably true, but the direction Linux is going these days is concerning

It's important to remember that this is a story about Ubuntu, and not Linux, and they are two very different projects with different motivations.

It does not matter. Both (Ubuntu [0], and the Linux Kernel [1]) use, build with and in some cases promote using LLMs.

[0] https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/the-future-of-ai-in-ubuntu/81...

[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/1041694/

True, and that's a bummer, but it's the decision of the maintainers of those projects to make.

If it goes really sideways, and it may, you can either fork Linux or move away to something like one of the BSDs.

Care to elaborate?

GPL -> MIT

Does this actually matter that much for some tools when the kernel is GPL?

I does. The OP says "Linux" but means "Linux distros", which are made of thousands of "commingled" pieces (i.e. the licence of one piece does not affect the other).

Each piece that becomes MIT means less pressure on corporate users to give back any changes they make, and we'll end back up in the 1980s again where "Amazon Linux" is full of secret-sauce they refuse to publish and makes the base system incompatible with "Google Linux" (or whatever happens to be kicking about), creating deliberate lock-in out of a system that started open. In much the same way that macOS and FreeBSD are divergent today.

In theory there could be a the MIT version relicensed to GPL and this version could be carried as a standard if having MIT software as core utilities was considered enough of a threat - right? You just have to retain original license/attribution.

That would be an awfully awkward move in the realm of Linux-related politics but if having an MIT-licensed coreutils was such an existential thread, at least you can fix it with aggressive license moves and not code.

That doesn't matter. Amazon or whoever can add as much secret sauce as they like; people can freely use the original so there's no issue.

We've balkanized Linux but you're free to use the original (which we are deliberately incompatible with, as is rival #2, rival #3, rival #4, etc. and we're all mutually incompatible with each other)

Amazon and other clouds already patch the hell out of Linux, but they don't distribute physical devices with that Linux on it to anyone, so they don't have to deliver source code either.

I am not totally sure I see the actual concern here, that a company is going to sell devices with a really great `find` implementation but not contribute it upstream?

In the 1980s and 1990s, there were a number of commercial Unices (SunOS, HP-UX, AIX, IRIX, etc.) Every one of them was incompatible with each other, sometimes subtly, sometimes blatantly. They were all competing against each other and all seemed to encourage you to use their proprietary extensions in your software and deliberately fuck over anyone using any other variants.

What it meant was a headache for writing platform-agnostic software. It was not a productive way to create software.

Replacing GPL software with MIT software just encourages this behaviour to come back. We already see it with how macOS userland took FreeBSD and sprinkled incompatibilities everywhere.

1) Corporate forced slop acceptance by e.g. Linus and Debian.

2) Seeing how bad the Linux kernel is with all the AI CVEs. It will get worse.

BSD is the future.

Netcraft may confirm that some day

BSD is the future. Wishful thinking. Nothing bad about it, but chances are low.

Ss for AI slop. There is lots, but I do not think Linus will tolerate a heavy quality degradation and policies will be set up to strike a good balance.

You were down voted, odd. But this I fully agree with, the latest thing for me is Wayland being forced upon us.

X11 and everything around it is unfixable security hazard slop, just slop that was painstakingly created by humans.

Also Wayland is it being forced on us? I have plenty of coworkers that run X daily because they are still afraid of the Wayland boogeyman despite the fact that their supposed clipboard and screen sharing problems in Wayland (the only two supposed problems they can name) have been solved for years.

People don't use Xorg daily because they are afraid of wayland. People use Xorg daily because they have tried wayland and there was something that stopped working.

Xorg allows running sub-instances.

Wayland is now older than Xorg was when "it was really old, we need something new".

“Concerning” is just a right wing thing to say. They get the habit from Musk. They say it and don’t elaborate, so it kinda operates like a dog whistle.

Great "elaboration" (actually it's an "example"), indeed pulling everything into the political dimension is one of the concerning things regarding anything Linux nowadays, imho. Next up: DHH!

[deleted]