Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
What kind of product do you think an operating system kernel is, whose development is driven by a US citizen (Linus Torvalds) under the patronage of a US foundation (Linux Foundation) and with significant involvement of several US companies (Red Hat, Microsoft, NSA) and is usually delivered with a whole host of software from US organisations (foremost: GNU), if not a US product?
I do not consider a stand-alone kernel that does not ship to end users to be a product. But we do not have to argue definitions or semantics if you disagree.
Linux distros are certainly products though (paid or otherwise).
Russia can create a Linux distro, and even modify the kernel, regardless of the rules controlling US companies and foundations. They can certainly vet and remove anything they do not like as well. They just cannot distribute their code via linux.org.
The willingness of Linus to reject Russian participation in the kernel may have more to do with his being Finnish than his being American. There are many American sanctions and restrictions against Huawei (China) and yet they remain one of the largest contributors to the Linux kernel. They use their company email. And the US does not seem very anti-Russian to me (as a third-party to both).
Huawei is a Platinum sponsor of the Linux Foundation. Half of the Platinum Sponsors are from outside the US. Those foreign sponsors could easily establish a non-US based Linux Foundation if needed.
Thank your for saying “usually” regarding the the typical Red Hat/GNU platform (same software). I use Chimera Linux (based out of Spain) which skips a lot of that. It also adds some atypical Microsoft tech, a lot of Google tech, and a typical Linux kernel.
What kind of product do you think an operating system kernel is, whose development is driven by a US citizen (Linus Torvalds) under the patronage of a US foundation (Linux Foundation) and with significant involvement of several US companies (Red Hat, Microsoft, NSA) and is usually delivered with a whole host of software from US organisations (foremost: GNU), if not a US product?
I do not consider a stand-alone kernel that does not ship to end users to be a product. But we do not have to argue definitions or semantics if you disagree.
Linux distros are certainly products though (paid or otherwise).
Russia can create a Linux distro, and even modify the kernel, regardless of the rules controlling US companies and foundations. They can certainly vet and remove anything they do not like as well. They just cannot distribute their code via linux.org.
The willingness of Linus to reject Russian participation in the kernel may have more to do with his being Finnish than his being American. There are many American sanctions and restrictions against Huawei (China) and yet they remain one of the largest contributors to the Linux kernel. They use their company email. And the US does not seem very anti-Russian to me (as a third-party to both).
Huawei is a Platinum sponsor of the Linux Foundation. Half of the Platinum Sponsors are from outside the US. Those foreign sponsors could easily establish a non-US based Linux Foundation if needed.
Thank your for saying “usually” regarding the the typical Red Hat/GNU platform (same software). I use Chimera Linux (based out of Spain) which skips a lot of that. It also adds some atypical Microsoft tech, a lot of Google tech, and a typical Linux kernel.