Interesting. I have never heard kernel modules being regarded as non-linux, not in 30 years of LKM. Further compiling a monolithic Kernel is rather straight forward, in this day it is even possible to find wifi devices that do not require a an on device firmware blob uploaded from the kernel.
Same, this whole thread is like the twilight zone for me... I can't tell if I'm losing my mind or all the people with this way of thinking are just being completely unreasonable but I've never seen several people at once agree with such a ridiculous (to me) comment.
Reminds me of the time on libera IRC when someone told me "cloud storage does not exist" because they were hung up on some ultra-purist word definition that nobody else shared.
I don't know TBH. It's just that if you're going to have a 'pure' designation for a tech, it's going to be pretty strict (as per bash and adding modules). I've never heard of 'pure' linux, but 'pure' bash has a recognised meaning. If someone said 'pure Linux' and it meant the core without loaded modules I wouldn't be shocked. Not sure how useful it would be, though.
I see some similarity to how I felt when library management/wrangling became a huge part of software development.
In the last century I enjoyed crafting my own 'libraries' of functions that I could then use on the projects I worked on. As time went on, there was less and less of a point doing that as the odds rose near to 100% that there was 'a library for that' thing I was working on, so I was encouraged/forced to download it and use it.
It solved problems and was quicker than writing bespoke code (and libraries were hardly a new idea), so the logic was hard to deny, but I enjoyed my job less over time. Now I've risen up the ranks and now code mostly for fun (yes, I use AI to write functions for me) I look at what it must be like to enter the industry and think it all looks very different to how it did when I started.
You could argue that AI has done this much faster than it did in my early career, so people have less of the 'boiling frog' experience I had, and more of a 'sudden shock' to the system.
It's sad, but I've been doing this to other industries all my career, so I can hardly complain.
People used to knock out children as a social security/insurance policy for old age, or to work the farm as they aged. The rise of the welfare state(s) in urban societies removed that need.
I don't believe people keep their kids 'safer' because they think the world has become more dangerous.
It's slightly taboo, but I think people protect their kids more now because they are more precious to the parents. The average number of children per mother has plunged in the last 200 years, and investment required in them per child to get them to child-bearing capability is much higher also. Child mortality has dropped like a stone, so any harm coming to children is much less tolerable.
Parents have so much invested in their children - and so few of them to "spare" - that they get far more protection than before.
There's probably some truth to this but it's hard to reconcile with the large number of parents who allow their kids to engage in behaviours known to be actively damaging and harmful at home.
Evidence for that? I remember there was a guy who worked for google that quit because he thought an LLM was conscious and we needed to talk about its rights, but that's the only example I am aware of.
reply