Anyone here uses linux?

[domoaligato]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU

Richard Stallman has stated many times that gnu is not linux. linux is a just a kernel.

GNU Hurd (the actual gnu kernel)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd

GNU Packages - what most people think of as being GNU as part of the free software foundation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GNU_packages

you can use these same packages on hurd, BSD, linux, windows, solaris and many more.

So basically we are changing the original topic again from linux to gnu.

[domoaligato]

Ubuntu is has the most $$$ backing it at the moment and seems to have the most active development so I will discuss it for a moment.
Ubuntu is based on debian linux and tends to be what most people try first when leaving windows.
Ubuntu is great but you will probably get frustrated with the window manager UNITY and want to try gnome or KDE or another window manager.
do not remove unity from ubuntu. just add the other window manager you want because if you remove unity you will break other applications/packages that depend on it.

[davkol]

Ubuntu is has the most $$$ backing it at the moment and seems to have the most active development so I will discuss it for a moment.

What? O_o

[CommunistWitchDr]

BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) was fully licensed from ATT. The other versions are open/free branches based on BSD. Just like Linux is based on UNIX. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unix_history-simple.svg

GNU/Linux is in no way based on Unix, it is just Unix like. Just like if I went out and made an operating system that resembled Windows from scratch it wouldn't be Windows based, just Windows like.

Fun fact- GNU actually stands for "GNU's not Unix".

I don't agree,  the best way I've heard it described is "BSD is what you get when a bunch of UNIX hackers try to make a UNIX clone.  Linux is what you get when a bunch of PC hackers try to make a UNIX clone."  They are very similar, they just have different goals.

Unix clone ≠ based on unix.
For it to be unix based they would have had to have taken and modified the actual unix source code and modified it. They didn't.

[dndlmx]

GNU Hurd (the actual gnu kernel)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd

AKA longest running joke of the free software world.

[hashbaz]

Unix clone ≠ based on unix.
For it to be unix based they would have had to have taken and modified the actual unix source code and modified it. They didn't.

I don't think "based" has as strict a meaning as you think it does.  You're not wrong that the Linux source code was developed independently, but it's fair to say that it was based (conceptually) on UNIX.

[alaricljs]

black box reverse engineered or identical input produces identical output are both "based on"

[bigx333]

GNU Hurd (the actual gnu kernel)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd

AKA longest running joke of the free software world.

And yet one of the best kernel designs ever made, so sad it will most likely never be really usable.

[domoaligato]

Ubuntu is has the most $$$ backing it at the moment and seems to have the most active development so I will discuss it for a moment.

What? O_o

i do not understand your confusion.
canonical has tons of service/maintenance contracts  that they use to pay for some to there projects.

i am discussing this from a workstation point of view.

from a server view centos is killing redhat enterprise. i qm on tapatalk and can't type a lot as i have a meeting to run off to.

[smknjoe]

BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) was fully licensed from ATT. The other versions are open/free branches based on BSD. Just like Linux is based on UNIX. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unix_history-simple.svg

GNU/Linux is in no way based on Unix, it is just Unix like. Just like if I went out and made an operating system that resembled Windows from scratch it wouldn't be Windows based, just Windows like.

Fun fact- GNU actually stands for "GNU's not Unix".

GNU doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Linux. That's just Stallman's way of "wording" it because he still can't get over the face some college kid beat him to it 20 years ago.  And yes Linux was modelled after UNIX (if you like that term better.) That's why the 'nux is there. Linus himself has mentioned this in several interviews over the years when asked about the name of Linux.

...now if I had said clone...that may have been inappropriate, but I didn't.

[davkol]

Ubuntu is has the most $$$ backing it at the moment and seems to have the most active development so I will discuss it for a moment.

What? O_o

i do not understand your confusion.
canonical has tons of service/maintenance contracts  that they use to pay for some to there projects.

i am discussing this from a workstation point of view.

from a server view centos is killing redhat enterprise. i qm on tapatalk and can't type a lot as i have a meeting to run off to.

wat

Canonical is a joke compared to Red Hat. They still aren't profitable and their cooperation with upstream is a failure.

[CommunistWitchDr]

Modeled after or inspired by would be correct and make more sense than based on. Or even saying the concept is based on unix works. But saying the system as a whole is based on unix is misleading, even if you do argue it's correct in some sense of the word.

[davkol]

BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) was fully licensed from ATT. The other versions are open/free branches based on BSD. Just like Linux is based on UNIX. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unix_history-simple.svg

GNU/Linux is in no way based on Unix, it is just Unix like. Just like if I went out and made an operating system that resembled Windows from scratch it wouldn't be Windows based, just Windows like.

Fun fact- GNU actually stands for "GNU's not Unix".

GNU doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Linux. That's just Stallman's way of "wording" it. because he still can't get over the face some college kid beat him to it.  And yes Linux was modelled after UNIX (if you like that term better.)

UNIX-like yes, but no way it's UNIX-based. That's why SCO didn't win.

[bigx333]

BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) was fully licensed from ATT. The other versions are open/free branches based on BSD. Just like Linux is based on UNIX. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unix_history-simple.svg

GNU/Linux is in no way based on Unix, it is just Unix like. Just like if I went out and made an operating system that resembled Windows from scratch it wouldn't be Windows based, just Windows like.

Fun fact- GNU actually stands for "GNU's not Unix".

GNU doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Linux. That's just Stallman's way of "wording" it because he still can't get over the face some college kid beat him to it 20 years ago.  And yes Linux was modelled after UNIX (if you like that term better.) That's why the 'nux is there. Linus himself has mentioned this in several interviews over the years when asked about the name of Linux.

...now if I had said clone...that may have been inappropriate, but I didn't.

LOLWUT?

Without GNU software the Linux kernel can't even be compiled, the Linux eco system IS GNU and Linux can't exist in a usable state without it.

[smknjoe]

You guys keep going more and more off topic. You sound like Stallman. Linux is the kernel -  the OS. It was developed completely independently of GNU on a Minix box. With that kernel you can use whatever tools you want on top of that whether they are GNU or custom programs. Both types of Linux exist. Some use GNU and some don't.

[bigx333]

You guys keep going more and more off topic. You sound like Stallman. Linux is the kernel - the main part of the OS. It was developed completely independently of GNU on a Minix box. With that kernel you can use whatever tools you want on top of that whether they are GNU or custom programs. Both types of Linux exist. Some use GNU and some don't.

On a Minix box using GCC 1.40, the compiler that is a child of the GNU project and which is REQUIRED to this day to compile Linux since it doesn't compile with LLVM or ICC.

Unlike system's like FreeBSD where the world is GNU free, Linux cannot exist without GNU.

[smknjoe]

...anyway...

There are several Linux distributions out there that are ready to use right out of the box even for noobs or Stallman lovers

[jdcarpe]

From my own personal experience, I have installed Ubuntu/Xubuntu on my wife's machines, and she was able to do everything she uses her PC for without difficulty. And she is a typical (non-geek) user. Of course, she has live-in tech support if she needs it, but from a usability standpoint, the *buntu's are there now. She doesn't really notice much of a difference from her experience running Windows.

I don't get caught up in semantics, like the RMS followers do. What most people call "Linux" is indeed a distro, not just the kernel. It seems some of the more successful distros have distanced themselves from being called "Linux." See Ubuntu, Fedora, CentOS, Android. So the "operating system" is a set of programs (incl. GNU, etc.) which run on top of the (Linux) kernel. It's a distro, and if people want to call their OS "Linux," what is the harm? Of course, Mac OS X (and by extension iOS), is UNIX-like at its core, using the Darwin kernel, which itself is based off BSD/Mach.

I really wish GNU/Hurd was stable, but I really doubt that will ever happen.

[davkol]

What about different kernels in Debian?

[domoaligato]

What about different kernels in Debian?

it seems like you already know the answer to this.

[id0827502]

Linux threads always turn into perdantic nit-picking. Makes me sad. I sort of think that's why it's not perhaps doing as well as it could, because the community and the developers can't get over themselves.

[smknjoe]

Linux threads always turn into perdantic nit-picking. Makes me sad. I sort of think that's why it's not perhaps doing as well as it could, because the community and the developers can't get over themselves.

I agree. Users more than developers though.

[davkol]

Linux threads always turn into perdantic nit-picking. Makes me sad. I sort of think that's why it's not perhaps doing as well as it could, because the community and the developers can't get over themselves.

Using that kind of "logic", there shouldn't be any GeForce/Radeon owners because of flamewars on the internets...

[id0827502]

Linux threads always turn into perdantic nit-picking. Makes me sad. I sort of think that's why it's not perhaps doing as well as it could, because the community and the developers can't get over themselves.

Using that kind of "logic", there shouldn't be any GeForce/Radeon owners because of flamewars on the internets...

Not really.

Difference being a commercial entity and one that is propelled by community and open sharing. Money will help sell itself, whereas with something that is open and free, it instinctively comes to as something that has no value or has less value than the paid alternative.

When you're trying to convince people to move over to an open and free alternative, and yet you're punishing them for not understanding something as irrelevant as how to refer to what the thing even is, the potential users are gonna become confused, irritated, and move away.

It's like one of those moody kids in high school that snap at you for asking how they are. You get a "**** off!" for being curious and you're not likely to ask again whereas the pretty chick with the nice-smelling perfume always responds with "Great thanks! How are you?" and you're more inclined to ask again, even elaborate if you gather the balls to.

Money sucks, but it does what it's supposed to do and does it well.

[domoaligato]

Narcix  has not replied since he opened this discussion

[smknjoe]

We scared him off with all the OT BS and inaccurate pedantry.

[rowdy]

Narcix  has not replied since he opened this discussion

Probably overwhelmed by the discussion

[id0827502]

We scared him off with all the OT BS and inaccurate pedantry.

This.

[davkol]

To be honest, "how it is compared to windows?" sounds more like a flamebait. Flamebait that never fails.

Linux threads always turn into perdantic nit-picking. Makes me sad. I sort of think that's why it's not perhaps doing as well as it could, because the community and the developers can't get over themselves.

Using that kind of "logic", there shouldn't be any GeForce/Radeon owners because of flamewars on the internets...

Not really.

Difference being a commercial entity and one that is propelled by community and open sharing. Money will help sell itself, whereas with something that is open and free, it instinctively comes to as something that has no value or has less value than the paid alternative.

When you're trying to convince people to move over to an open and free alternative, and yet you're punishing them for not understanding something as irrelevant as how to refer to what the thing even is, the potential users are gonna become confused, irritated, and move away.

Money sucks, but it does what it's supposed to do and does it well.

Nah, there are plenty of companies that offer free software for monies.

As someone said, Unix is user-friendly, it just chooses its friends carefully. I consider this to be some kind of a filter. If somebody is discouraged from using something only because of flamewars on the internets, I'm glad that person won't bother anyone with stupid questions—it's usually that kind of users that expects "windoze for free" and fails in reading comprehention (or worse, doesn't read at all).

I'm not trying to convert anyone anymore... they just convert by themselves if they want me to provide them tech support.

It's like one of those moody kids in high school that snap at you for asking how they are. You get a "**** off!" for being curious and you're not likely to ask again whereas the pretty chick with the nice-smelling perfume always responds with "Great thanks! How are you?" and you're more inclined to ask again, even elaborate if you gather the balls to.

I don't think so. There's a huge cultural gap, take a look at all the flames about some Linus' quotes.

[Burz]

As someone said, Unix is user-friendly, it just chooses its friends carefully. I consider this to be some kind of a filter.

I heartily agree. Most of the Linux desktop advocates switched to Mac OS X (certified Unix) almost a decade ago.

Interesting confluence of user-friendly and choosiness there.

[sth]

As someone said, Unix is user-friendly, it just chooses its friends carefully. I consider this to be some kind of a filter.

I heartily agree. Most of the Linux desktop advocates switched to Mac OS X (certified Unix) almost a decade ago.

Interesting confluence of user-friendly and choosiness there.

[smknjoe]

To be honest, "how it is compared to windows?" sounds more like a flamebait. Flamebait that never fails.

This dude might be trolling. Here is another thread he started: http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=46473.msg981773#msg981773

[jdcarpe]

I don't believe it's trolling; I think it was a plea for help.

[smknjoe]

Well, if his inquiry was genuine I hope he gets the help he needs and I rescind my previous statement.