The others covered it pretty good.
Built like a tank and free, yet there are people that would rather pay $299-$999 for an os they cannot modify or use as they wish.
This person or persons said it well:
Linux started out in 1991 as a hobby project for a young Finnish university student called Linus Torvalds. Linus wanted to create a free UNIX like operating system which would run on a 386.
A few years earlier, the Free Software Federation had been set up by Richard Stallman to produce tools for the GNU project. Its ultimate goal was to develop an extremely advanced kernel called the Hurd, but, in the meantime, it created a vast array of the tools necessary for that ultimate aim. Crucially, it produced an range of free and stable compilers and a set of open source versions of all the Unix tools.
Torvalds' Linux proceeded apace, while the Hurd's development stalled. (It's currently in beta). The result was a re-combination of the GNU tools with the Linux kernel which they had been used to create as an operating system which is generally called Linux, but should really be called GNU Linux. Sometimes I try to call it Glinux.....
Glinux is a written from scratch UNIX clone. It combines all of the features of a modern enterprise class UNIX with the ease of use (but not quite the ease of installation -- although your mileage may vary: I find Windows 98 an absolute swine to install) of Windows. It is, by comparison with Microsoft's best efforts, a ridiculously stable, free, multi-user, multi-tasking operating system, and one inherently so secure that America's National Security Agency are actually financing further development work on it. (The idea is to combine finely graduated permissions, a la NT, with the Unix permission method and Open Source and thus to eliminate the possibility of someone putting or leaving a security hole in the code).
By comparison with last generation Unices like HP_UX and AIX, Glinux offers enhanced ease of use and much lower cost. Furthermore, while popular for its Intel support, Linux will run on virtually every platform from an Atari Falcon up to an IBM mainframe. It will debut on the new Cray supercomputer in 2001.
Pundits suggest that soon, the only surviving Unices will be Linux, the FreeBSD family, Solaris, and, just maybe, HP_UX. But, if not quite pyric, this will be an empty victory.
The next real battle will be to remove NT from the small server market and banish it to Hell, from whence it came.....
http://www.penguin-home.telinco.co.uk/a_short_history.html
Mr. Torvalds published this in 1991:
1991 Linux is introduced by Linus Torvalds, a student in Finland. Who post to the comp.os.minix newsgroup with the words:
Hello everybody out there using minix -
I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones.
http://www.computerhope.com/history/unix.htm
A brief History of Linux:
A Brief History of Linux
By Annalee Newitz
Issue Date: Feb 14 2000
The operating system took 30 years to evolve into what it is today. Here are some key events that led to its development. 1971 The first edition of the Unix server operating system emerges from Bell Labs. Although Linux does not include any Unix code, it is a Unix clone, which means it shares a number of technical features with Unix, which might be considered the forerunner of the open-source operating system. During the 1970s, Unix code was distributed to people at various universities and companies, and they created their own Unix varieties, which ultimately evolved into Sun Microsystems' Solaris, Berkeley 's FreeBSD and Silicon Graphics ' IRIX.
1985 Richard Stallman publishes his famous "GNU Manifesto" (www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html), one of the first documents of the open-source revolution. Stallman began working on the GNU operating system in 1983, largely because he wanted to create an open-source version of Unix. (GNU stands for "GNU is Not Unix.") Stallman's Free Software Foundation later created the GNU General Public License (www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html), the widely adopted, fully legal "anticopyright" treatise that today allows Linux and other software to remain completely free.
1987 Professor Andrew S. Tanenbaum invents Minix, an open-source operating system that's a clone of Unix. Young Linus Torvalds, at the time a computer science student in Finland, is introduced to Minix, and bases his plans for Linux on the Minix example.
1991 In August, Torvalds announces his plans to create a free operating system on the Minix users newsgroup. He modestly notes in his posting that his OS is "just a hobby. [It] won't be big and professional like GNU." In October, Linux 0.01 is released on the Internet under a GNU public license. In the Minix newsgroup, Torvalds asks his fellow programmers to lend a hand in making the system more workable. He gets enough help to release version 0.1 by December. Over the next several years, Linux developers swell into the hundreds of thousands and work to make Linux compatible with GNU programs. Vendors like Red Hat, Caldera and Debian create popular distributions of Linux that bundle the operating system with useful programs and a graphical interface.
1997 Torvalds moves to Silicon Valley and goes to work at Transmeta.
1999 In August, Red Hat completes its initial public offering, making it the first Linux-oriented company to successfully go public. In December, Andover.net, a consortium of Web site resources largely devoted to Linux, and VA Linux, a manufacturer of Linux hardware, have wildly successful IPOs. Linuxcare, a leading Linux service provider, announces alliances with such industry giants as IBM , Dell , Motorola and Informix .
http://www.thestandard.com/article/0,1902,9457,00.html
Richard Stallman was mentioned in one of those,
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
And :
http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions
And:
http://www.fsf.org/
If you notice there are no Ad Banners on the last two.
That is the idea of being Free. Free is an opinion,,as stated here:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html
The Free Software Definition
We maintain this free software definition to show clearly what must be true about a particular software program for it to be considered free software.
Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer.
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.
You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.
The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run a program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her.
The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified versions. (Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary for conveniently installable free operating systems.) It is ok if there is no way to produce a binary or executable form for a certain program (since some languages don't support that feature), but you must have the freedom to redistribute such forms should you find or develop a way to make them.
In order for the freedoms to make changes, and to publish improved versions, to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free software.
One important way to modify a program is by merging in available free subroutines and modules. If the program's license says that you cannot merge in an existing module, such as if it requires you to be the copyright holder of any code you add, then the license is too restrictive to qualify as free.
In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause, the software is not free.
However, certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free software are acceptable, when they don't conflict with the central freedoms. For example, copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that when redistributing the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms. This rule does not conflict with the central freedoms; rather it protects them.
You may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.
Free software does not mean non-commercial. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.
Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't substantively block your freedom to release modified versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately. Rules that if you make your version available in this way, you must make it available in that way also can be acceptable too, on the same condition. (Note that such a rule still leaves you the choice of whether to publish your version at all.) Rules that require release of source code to the users for versions that you put into public use are also acceptable. It is also acceptable for the license to require that, if you have distributed a modified version and a previous developer asks for a copy of it, you must send one, or that you identify yourself on your modifications.
In the GNU project, we use copyleft to protect these freedoms legally for everyone. But non-copylefted free software also exists. We believe there are important reasons why it is better to use copyleft, but if your program is non-copylefted free software, we can still use it.
See Categories of Free Software for a description of how free software, copylefted software and other categories of software relate to each other.
Sometimes government export control regulations and trade sanctions can constrain your freedom to distribute copies of programs internationally. Software developers do not have the power to eliminate or override these restrictions, but what they can and must do is refuse to impose them as conditions of use of the program. In this way, the restrictions will not affect activities and people outside the jurisdictions of these governments.
Most free software licenses are based on copyright, and there are limits on what kinds of requirements can be imposed through copyright. If a copyright-based license respects freedom in the ways described above, it is unlikely to have some other sort of problem that we never anticipated (though this does happen occasionally). However, some free software licenses are based on contracts, and contracts can impose a much larger range of possible restrictions. That means there are many possible ways such a license could be unacceptably restrictive and non-free.
We can't possibly list all the ways that might happen. If a contract-based license restricts the user in an unusual way that copyright-based licenses cannot, and which isn't mentioned here as legitimate, we will have to think about it, and we will probably conclude it is non-free.
When talking about free software, it is best to avoid using terms like give away or for free, because those terms imply that the issue is about price, not freedom. Some common terms such as piracy embody opinions we hope you won't endorse. See Confusing Words and Phrases that are Worth Avoiding for a discussion of these terms. We also have a list of translations of free software into various languages.
Finally, note that criteria such as those stated in this free software definition require careful thought for their interpretation. To decide whether a specific software license qualifies as a free software license, we judge it based on these criteria to determine whether it fits their spirit as well as the precise words. If a license includes unconscionable restrictions, we reject it, even if we did not anticipate the issue in these criteria. Sometimes a license requirement raises an issue that calls for extensive thought, including discussions with a lawyer, before we can decide if the requirement is acceptable. When we reach a conclusion about a new issue, we often update these criteria to make it easier to see why certain licenses do or don't qualify.
If you are interested in whether a specific license qualifies as a free software license, see our list of licenses. If the license you are concerned with is not listed there, you can ask us about it by sending us email at
.
If you are contemplating writing a new license, please contact the FSF by writing to that address. The proliferation of different free software licenses means increased work for users in understanding the licenses; we may be able to help you find an existing Free Software license that meets your needs.
If that isn't possible, if you really need a new license, with our help you can ensure that the license really is a Free Software license and avoid various practical problems.
Beyond Software
Software manuals must be free, for the same reasons that software must be free, and because the manuals are in effect part of the software.
The same arguments also make sense for other kinds of works of practical use — that is to say, works that embody useful knowledge, such as educational works and reference works. Wikipedia is the best known example.
Any kind of work can be free, and the definition of free software has been extended to a definition of free cultural works applicable to any kind of works.
Open Source?
Another group has started using the term open source to mean something close (but not identical) to free software. We prefer the term free software because, once you have heard that it refers to freedom rather than price, it calls to mind freedom. The word open never refers to freedom.
Open Source is NOT free software, well, not always. It is a play on words. Linux is the Open Source or Free Unix Clone.
Windows and Macintosh are the proprietary systems that 98% of humans pay for.
Linux is and was the idea of one that was shared with many. Still is shared freely and openly.
Linux is kinda geeky, or was. Today there are many flavors or kernals that one can use or pay to use.