Closest comparison example I think is Mozilla/Firefox, since they started being banked by Google, and specially as the money tap was dried, they got erratic at best. Would it seem like Linux would follow a same path? Are there safeguards in place? Are there signs these companies force their own visions onto the Foundation?

All of those companies use servers. And all of those servers run Linux. Linux is the backbone of the web.

Like everyone else said, funding=/=ownership. I do suspect, however, that part of why these big tech companies fund Linux is because they rely on something built on Linux in one way or another. Linux tends to be the better options for things like servers, low processing devices, and more, and if they keep funding it, it continues to exist so they can use it. You’d be surprised about how much of the world actually uses Linux in some way.

Those big tech companies benefit from Linux just like you do, so they spend money to fund its development. They also have engineers working on it.

So, no, it’s not sold to US big tech. It is, in part, funded by US big tech.

Linus Torvalds, the creator of the Linux kernel, owns the Linux trademark. He is currently the lead developer, and he approves and merges the code contributions from each of the “areas” (idk the right term for them) into the main branch for release versions.

The Linux kernel is distributed by The Linux Kernel Organization, a “California Public Benefit Corporation”. It’s “recognized by the IRS as a 501©3 private operating foundation”.

They are managed by The Linux Foundation which is “a 501©6 non-profit”.

It’s not “sold” to big corporations, because none of these companies are publicly traded.

But companies do use Linux massively. It has a massive market share in the server space. That’s why the Linux Foundation has a board of directors with many people from big tech corps.

Like other FOSS projects, Linux couldn’t really exist (the way it does) without sponsors and contributors. Companies sponsor its development to help improve and maintain the kernel, and in return they can use it for their needs. That’s how maintainers are compensated for their work. Many contributions are also from companies who add code to help adapt the kernel for their needs.

But because of the project’s licensing and leadership, privacy and transparency are protected. The kernel doesn’t collect or send user data to any company or server. If someone writes code that does that, leadership would probably not merge it anyways, but even if, any person could check (more frequently, “audit”) the code and remove it or choose to not use the project. Anyone is free to “fork” the kernel to make modifications or go a different direction, assuming they follow the license.

Now for desktop Linux distros, like Linux Mint, there’s other software that you should also think about its features and management, and whether that is “safe” too. Out of the box, things like Systemd (init process) or Cinnamon (desktop environment) are maintained and distributed by different groups. IMO for Linux Mint: it’s safe and protects privacy. But that’s subjective, it’s always good to be critical and to form your own opinions! :)

In terms of being “safe,” if you mean in terms of data collection/privacy, just because big companies have an interest in Linux, that does not mean your Linux Mint install is sending telemetry back to those big companies with your personal data.

Big companies have an interest in Linux because Linux is the backbone of server infrastructure all over the world. They contribute to the code, but the code is open source, so the community could see if they were putting some kind of telemetry into open source projects, or the community could simply fork the code if a big company tried to do some other objectionable thing.

Linux foundation is sponsored by this companies already realky long time and they not realky influence on anything in linux desktop they do whatever things possible but not related to linux at all

Define ‘sold’ because everyone has its own understanding of what that term means. What are you worried about?

The Linux foundation barely develops the Linux kernel anymore. Most of their money goes to side projects, some AI there, some crypto here.

Besides, Linux is just the kernel. The operating system is you run is in face, the GNU operating system with the Linux kernel under the hood. GNU tools and licenses are developed and maintained by the FSF, which is not, by any means, funded by big tech.

Because these big tech companies make hardware, their support is needed in maintaining the Linux kernel (which is ultimately, a software package that contains code that can interface with hardware).

Ultimately, you are running GNU. Linux is just a marriage of convenience. If Linux development starts being guided by Big Tech against the interests of the user, then it would be trivially easy to switch over to another kernel, or even a fork of Linux.

Part of the reason is to to get controlled competition.

Same with google being the largest donator to firefox. If they wouldn’t do this it would create a hole that could motivates many others to create new innovation that could become a threat to them.

Also so they can deflect anti monopoly laws and also because they benefit from open source themselves.

The big tech is, indeed, trying to extend their reach to linux and open source in general, but it’s still the best we have, and it still goes against them. The good thing about open source is that it’s resilient and highly adaptable. A few distros have been making experiments with other kernels, and if things go too bad, they might replace linux with anther one and we will persevere. It’s also possible for some group to fork linux and create a parallel community version, like happens with a lot of open source software developed by big tech companies. But you don’t need to worry, because linux remains fine and will probably be for a good while.

I have no deep knowledge of this, but i guess there is a difference between sponsoring and owning. A lot of big FOSS projects have indeed corporate donations, but i think for the most part corporate cannot force them to do things (the only exception i know of being the deal between Mozilla and Google). Of course, they can threaten to cut fundings, but i think it isnt a real problem (for now) for various reasons : linux ecosystem is still niche enough to be uninteresting for big corpos, donations help projects get better quicker but you can always fork them and come back to more humble progression if needed (not 100% sure, im not very tech literate, but that’s a feeling i get), and i guess FOSS ecosystem also provides big corpos with talented people and occasionally interesting pieces of software, so they have a bit of interest in keeping it alive.
If you want to go towards the least corporate options, you can try the most niche linux options. Linux Mint is based on Ubuntu, made by the enterprise Canonical, which has a somewhat bad reputation in the linux corporation, for being a bit too centralized i guess ? I use it as it is perfect for a not skilled user like me, but if you want to be independant of tech companies, maybe that’s not the perfect choice.