65
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 May 2026
65 points (100.0% liked)
Linux
65301 readers
296 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
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
You're right that the GNU toolchain is massive, but the distinction lies in "modularity versus integration". GNU tools are a collection of separate programs that happen to work together, you can swap bash for zsh or ls for busybox without breaking the whole system. systemd, however, is a tightly coupled suite where the init, logging, networking, and DNS are interdependent.
The idea of Linux isn't just about running big software, it's about the ability to compose a system from independent parts.
When a single project dictates the entire stack and makes it nearly impossible to replace just one component without rewriting half the OS, that crosses the line from toolchain to platform lock-in, which is a fundamentally different threat to user freedom than a collection of large but separable GNU utilities.
This is just false. The idea of Linux is having a copyleft operating system, free as in beer and as in freedom. Full stop.
Is that so?
rm -f /bin/bashand reboot. I'll wait... Go ahead. You'll be amazed at how many thing rely on bash. Or indeed sh which is why bash runs in bourne compatible mode when executed as /bin/sh.This has never been true. The Linux kernel team themselves reject this silliness with a monolithic kernel that required a very specific toolchain to even build and run. Linux has always had tight integration.
We've had many competing implementations of some things (desktop environments come to mind) but that is not the same as "build a system out of Lego components" as a design goal. It's what you get when you have no direction. It would be a very stupid design goal.
That is less of a hard-dependency on bash than bash being the default bourne shell for most systems, lots of programs depend on
/bin/sh, which can be configured to be any bourne-compatible shell.Linux being monolithic doesn't warrant other parts of the system to be also be. Linux also has very a relatively stable ABI which allows for decoupling and you already see some projects like Asterinas leverage it to build an alternative kernel that is still compatible with Linux userspace stuff.
Having a direction is not mutually exclusive to having a decoupled system. One of the core aspects for engineering systems is being as decoupled as possible. If you think the only 'decoupling' Linux has is desktop environments and higher-level stuff, I cannot truly believe you have tried to tweak your system very much, and that's perfectly fine, just don't assume that everything has to be tightly-coupled just because you don't see a point yourself.
I say this having already used and daily-driven systemd alternatives for years, namely Artix with runit and dinit, and they are perfectly capable and faster, boot times were way faster. Sometimes I've had to write manually some service files, but it was fine. Choice is good, it's frustrating seeing people actively speak against it when it is possible to have it without sacrificing usability.