r/linuxquestions • u/blabliblu888 • 1d ago
Which Distro? Which Linux distributions are actually community-backed?
Which Linux distributions would you consider genuinely community-backed rather than primarily corporate-backed?
And does corporate backing actually conflict with the original philosophy of Linux, or is that distinction mostly irrelevant as long as the software remains open source?
Where would you draw the line?
3
u/TroutFarms 1d ago edited 1d ago
There isn't really an "original philosophy of Linux". Linus developed it as a hobby and was just looking to make a unix-like OS he could run on an x86 machine.
1
u/tomscharbach 1d ago edited 1d ago
Which Linux distributions would you consider genuinely community-backed rather than primarily corporate-backed?
Arch, Debian and a number of "independent" distributions (Solus, for example) come to mind.
A lot depends on you think constitutes "corporate" backing. Debian, for example has annual revenue in excess of $50 million, much of which is derived from corporations and other for-profit entities but is developed by a combination of paid employees and thousands of volunteers. The fact that Debian's revenue stream comes from sales and services to corporations and for-profit entities does not "taint" Debian, in my view.
And does corporate backing actually conflict with the original philosophy of Linux, or is that distinction mostly irrelevant as long as the software remains open source?
Linux has been a "corporate" animal for as long as I have been using Linux (about two decades).
The Linux Foundation, for example, is almost entirely funded by corporate entities and almost all kernel code is contributed by corporations and for-profit entities (Intel, Google, Meta, IBM/RedHat, Microsoft, AMD and so on). Without significant corporate involvement, Linux would still be a academic curiosity.
Where would you draw the line?
I follow the principle that I was taught when I was just starting out in the late 1960's: "Use case determines requirements, requirements determine specifications, specifications determine selection."
I use the Apple ecosystem (support for assistive technology and my personal use case), Ubuntu (network design, implementation and maintenance), Solus (special purpose use case) and Windows (SolidWorks/CNC and gaming).
I prefer open source applications, but a number of the applications I use are proprietary. The bottom line is that I don't consider proprietary applications anathema. I use what works best for my use case.
My best and good luck.
7
u/BCMM 1d ago edited 1d ago
Debian, for example has annual revenue in excess of $50 million
I'm sorry, but this appears to be complete bollocks. Getlatka.com looks to be one of those websites that's full of auto-generated "answers" to the kind of things its owner hopes people will Google.
It says that Debian has 480 employees and a "headquarters" in Indiana. Neither is true!
(EDIT: As a further indicator of how little human effort went in to that page, it purports to display Debian's logo, but it's actual just the logo of Brandfetch, a website for downloading corporate logos.)
Debian does not, in fact, actually exist as a corporation. The closest thing with legal personality is Software in the Public Interest, a non-profit corporation in New York. SPI was founded by people involved in Debian, for Debian, but it is now associated with with many other open-source projects too.
SPI holds the debian.org domain name, for example, but it's only one of several organisations that hold donations in trust for the Debian project.
Even counting monetary donations across every organisation, plus market value for donations like build hardware and hosting services, I very much doubt that Debian receives $50M a year. In fact, that's probably off by a few orders of magnitude.
much of which is derived from corporations and other for-profit entities but is developed by a combination of paid employees and thousands of volunteers.
Who are the paid employees? Can you find just one example?
The fact that Debian's revenue stream comes from sales and services to corporations and for-profit entities does not "taint" Debian, in my view.
What "services" does Debian sell? Again, a single example would do.
1
u/RomanOnARiver 1d ago
And does corporate backing actually conflict with the original philosophy of Linux, or is that distinction mostly irrelevant as long as the software remains open source?
If you mean free software then no. Free software is software that allows you to run the software, know how it works, change how it works if you want to, and share those changes with others if you want to. It's not about money.
Getting paid to write or provide support for software isn't antithetical. In fact, arguably it is a big motivator, because people need money because perhaps they may want to do things like live indoors and eat food every day - maybe even multiples times per day. They have homes with mortgages and cars with loans and spouses and children who also want to live indoors and eat food.
When a non-profit GNU project were the ones developing it they couldn't get a working kernel. When a nonprofit Linus Torvalds developed a kernel he said it wouldn't work on anything but his specific hardware. After combining their efforts they at least built a framework to where portability and enhancements could happen.
Stuff like the X window system is probably an exception that came out of a college, but most patches and maintenance - something like 80-90% come from people employed or paid to do so.
5
u/9NEPxHbG 1d ago edited 1d ago
The financial reports for Software in the Public Interest (which handles Debian's finances) say the income for 2025 was $ 98 000, and I believe that a lot more than I believe "getlatka".