Linux on the bottom?

[second exodous]

I've used Linux since windows 2000, it kept getting infected so I switched over 100% to Linux. I'm not even adding up the years now but it is a lot. That entire time I thought it would take off but it never does.

I'm extremely happy with it though, free upgrades and no viruses. If I used a MS or Apple product it would cost more and I'd constantly have to be worrying about security so I'm content. I miss out on games but that's about it. So for me it has been a huge success. I have a few friends that don't want it to become popular because they don't want someone like Google to step in and start charging for features and locking bits of it up, like they do Android, and the more popular it is the more you have to worry about security.

Eh, I pity those that won't take the time to learn enough about Linux, or rather one of the desktops really as you don't have to use the command line anymore if all you're doing is basic computer usage. I try to tell people to have a windows install for their games, a Wintendo, and then use Linux for everything else. Do they listen to me? No, but they get credit cards stolen on line and have to reformat regularly.

 

[b_o_b]

I installed and maintain Ubuntu on 4 other PC's. I only give people technical PC advise / support if they let me install Ubuntu.
People that are not tech savvy are more willing to use Linux as long as I help them. In the beginning I needed to support them quite often, mostly to explain the differences between Linux / Windows.

Now it doesn't cost me time at all. It just works.  

Forget about converting people that have Windows, play games are tech savvy enough to install Windows and setting up their hardware themselves and are fine with it. They will only be disappointed and not motivated when things are slightly different. At least that is my experience.

 

[ekianjo]

Using almost Linux OpenSuse for several years now. I keep w7 as a dual boot option basically for gaming.


Everytime i boot back into w7 i notice how sluggish and bloated it is versus OpenSuse. Firefox is so much faster in my linux config for example, and as exodus mentioned above the ongoing updates are the cherry on the cake.


I tried ubuntu several times too on my laptop but it always breaks something when updating to newer versions that its a huge pain in the ass everytime. I rely on less popular distros nowadays and it works much better for me.


As said, trying to convert avid w7 users is hopeless, but curious and tenacious folks could get and like linux distros as long as they know that many things wont be the same.


This being said there are the occasional issues on all distros that require support. But if you dont give up easily you usually find the answer.

 

[Ziz]

OpenSuse is less popular? Not in germany.

However, I started in 2006, when Ubuntu was new and shiny. In the beginning it was really great, especially for beginners. I loved gnome and bragged with the compiz effects. XD Over the years it became more and more like it is today. Furthermore I was more interested in something small and fast - effect didn't matter anymore. So I tried this and that and ended in Debian SID now. I can use my apt knowledge from ubuntu, have very recent packages and it works like charm even on older hardware.

But in fact the distribution doesn't matter. If you are open minded, you can use any distribution or can switch easily. The software is in fact everywhere the same. I think, I could even use freeBSD, if I would like to! That is one of the most important things to me: I could. I don't have to... But I could!

Oh and developing for other systems (or even handhelds like the pandora) than Windows within Windows is a pain in the ass. :>

 

[KickAss]

By the way while what kickass says is generally not wrong, many statements are inaccurate and deserve some additional comments. I am away right now but will come back on ths later.

me being inaccurate. could you elaborate?

 

[ekianjo]

I will, but im travelling so not in capacity to answer right now.

 

[gunrock]

Linux on my bottom? Some kind of geek tattoo, thread?

 

[EssoAir]

LOL!!!!!

 

[WizardStan]

Some kind of geek tattoo, thread?

/r/geeksgonewild
edit: Wow, that actually exists! I was just joking.

(Un)Fortunately it is completely empty.

 

[CocoCreekFisherman]

I would really like to know where or what the inaccuracies are thus far??

I am understanding that Linux actually is the root of Android and father of the open source concept?

 

[TrashyMG]

I would really like to know where or what the inaccuracies are thus far??

I am understanding that Linux actually is the root of Android and father of the open source concept?

There is no guy named Linux..


There is a guy named Linus Torvalds.. who created the Linux kernel.. which is used in Android and many Open Source GNU/Linux based OSs.

 

[EssoAir]

I watched this QandA on youtube with Linus. Great guy "Fuck you, Nvidia"

 

[CocoCreekFisherman]

I would really like to know where or what the inaccuracies are thus far??

I am understanding that Linux actually is the root of Android and father of the open source concept?

There is no guy named Linux..
There is a guy named Linus Torvalds.. who created the Linux kernel.. which is used in Android and many Open Source GNU/Linux based OSs.

 I know there is no man named Linux..I mean't the word grandfather figuratively..like saying Microsoft is the father of windows. So i guess you were thinking I mean Bill Gates.

Man this english language is nutso.

Why was what KickAss said wrong? Or should I ask why does ekianjo think this?

 

[CocoCreekFisherman]

No tattoo of  a penguin on my butt either. I do have many though...not there.

 

[TrashyMG]

^ not sure what Ekianjo means by being wrong.. Unless I missed something blatant I do not see anything wrong with what Kickass is saying.

 

[ekianjo]

I would really like to know where or what the inaccuracies are thus far??


I am understanding that Linux actually is the root of Android and father of the open source concept?

Open source is a very bad way to describe it. Open source movement comes from the Free Software movement amd that was initated by Richard Stallman way before Linus.


If you want to know mre about this read a few chapters of "Free as in Freedom", its a free book.

 

[ekianjo]

The point where I disagree with KickAss a little, while he did say linux !=linux, is that you cannot really call Linux a platform in the first place.

Linux is a kernel. That's it. What you do around it shapes things totally differently. 

Most distributions are not even compatible with each other, and have separate packaging systems, separate environments and windows managers, separate file management systems and so on. There's no clear definition of what a "Linux distro" should be, therefore it does not really make sense to compare it to a fixed/unique OS like MacOS / Android or Windows. 

When you make a Linux distro it's like starting with a box of lego pieces. Depending on what you want to create you end up with very different things. 

So, instead of talking of the "look and feel of xxx Linux distro", one should rather talk about the look and feel of GTK, or LXDE, of XFCE, of Unity and so on, because these are the actual interfaces pieces the end user sees, and this has nothing to do with the Linux kernel itself. And in most distros you can can change the windows manager in a few commands and a reboot, and end up with a totally different experience. 

So Linux, as a kernel is not an OS per se, it's just one piece to make other OSes, and each Linux distro should be considered like a separate OS, technically speaking, especially the ones which are not just simple forks of larger projects. 

One thing KickAss said where I don't really agree :

linux is open, versatile and compatible with the ARM platform

It's not "compatible with the ARM platform". you can't execute a debian package made for x86 on a ARM debian distro. It does not work. The accurate statement should be rather something like that :

"Linux can be compiled for ARM as well, thanks to xxx compiler".

It's because the compiler supports different architectures that Linux can run on so many different target platforms. And we have to thank GCC (GNU tool) for most of that work. 

 

[ekianjo]

but android and ios are actually just mobile subsidiaries of linux.

ios has no ties to Linux.

Android is just using the Linux kernel but has nothing to do with a regular Linux distro. Really not much is common there. That's why I would hesitate to call an Android device "Linux", because that's not at all what we call "Linux" on the desktop. It's very confusing to do so. Android is a much less flexible and less powerful platform, tools-wise, than any large Linux distro out there. 

Let me quote GNU.org's vision of Android, since I think it is very precisely worded on that particular matter:

Android is an operating system primarily for mobile phones, which consists of Linux (Torvalds' kernel), some libraries, a Java platform and some applications. Linux aside, the software of Android versions 1 and 2 was mostly developed by Google; Google released it under the Apache 2.0 license, which is a lax free software license without copyleft.

The version of Linux included in Android is not entirely free software, since it contains nonfree “binary blobs” (just like Torvalds' version of Linux), some of which are really used in some Android devices. Android platforms use other nonfree firmware, too, and nonfree libraries. Aside from those, the source code of Android versions 1 and 2, as released by Google, is free software—but this code is insufficient to run the device. Some of the applications that generally come with Android are nonfree, too.

Android is very different from the GNU/Linux operating system because it contains very little of GNU. Indeed, just about the only component in common between Android and GNU/Linux is Linux, the kernel. People who erroneously think “Linux” refers to the entire GNU/Linux combination get tied in knots by these facts, and make paradoxical statements such as “Android contains Linux, but it isn't Linux.” If we avoid starting from the confusion, the situation is simple: Android contains Linux, but not GNU; thus, Android and GNU/Linux are mostly different.

And let's not forget that Android is not really, truly open source:

Google has complied with the requirements of the GNU General Public License for Linux, but the Apache license on the rest of Android does not require source release. Google said it would never publish the source code of Android 3.0 (aside from Linux). Android 3.1 source code was also withheld, making Android 3, apart from Linux, nonfree software pure and simple.

Btw, I am not a GNU aficionados, but again you cannot talk about Android and Linux and put them in the same bag. They contain very different licenses and you cannot do the same thing at all with it. 

 

[KickAss]

now that's nit-picking right there

The point where I disagree with KickAss a little, while he did say linux !=linux, is that you cannot really call Linux a platform in the first place. Linux is a kernel. That's it. What you do around it shapes things totally differently.

that's my point, exactly.

"linux" being a generally used term these days and ppl tend to misunderstand. it could address whole distros bloated with all kinds of more or less linux related stuff or just the kernel. the kernel, by the way, is the the foundation, providing (more and more complex) I/O functionality in terms of an operating system (considering all the hardware communication) and thus very well should be considered a platform. all the more so because its kinda standard (as in a "generic linux kernel" of a certain iteration, you could work on in any way you see fit).

as you repeated it youself, linux systems might be only partially compatible to each other. all coming from the same cradle (more or less) they've been developed into different directions (providing different functionality for each environment), so all could be considered "linux" to some extent, but as systems grow more and more complex with added (specific) functionality they differ so much that they feel like separate systems.

the equation


linux != linux

still stands, imho.

for example:


angström != arch != mint

all of those could be considered being "linux", but they are very different. they can be compared to each other, of course, but it doesnt make a whole lot of sense (as i wrote in my first post).

ekianjo seems to agree on that:

There's no clear definition of what a "Linux distro" should be, therefore it does not really make sense to compare it to a fixed/unique OS like MacOS / Android or Windows.

i used the initial equation only to convey my point, that system with a "linux" label still can be very (if not totally) different systems. i thought it would allow me to explain a set of facts in a more general and thus more easy to understand fashion. Coco here doesn't seem to be a cs or tech person (no offence, pal) and at a certain point giving more detail would just cause more confusion.

the inheritance of ios and android was covered before.

your bit about guis and window managers is right, of course.

using the term "userexperience" i was refering to how one would get along with configuring the system (not necessarily using guis). i was actually never talking about GTK, or LXDE, or XFCE and the like. arch, for example, strictly follows the KISS principle, and every now and then vital parts of the system (like configuration files or major package dependencies) are changed overnight. you'd start your daily routine and find your system to be not as functional as it used to be.

traditionally linux systems are being configured and maintained working on text files. where these files are found in the outline of a system depends on the system and the kernel, of course.

your bit about compilation is correct as well.

but if some portion of linux works on the ARM platform (or any other), i guess it's fair to say it's compatible. it's exactly what the word "compatible" means.

Android is just using the Linux kernel but has nothing to do with a regular Linux distro.

i never said it did.

That's why I would hesitate to call an Android device "Linux", because that's not at all what we call "Linux" on the desktop.

again, android shares the linux foundation. the android system was developed to be touch device user friendly. it's different from your regular desktop linux system (as in a dektop distro).

well, linux != linux, you see

Android is a much less flexible and less powerful platform, tools-wise, than any large Linux distro out there.

that's exactly what i said earlier.

 

[CocoCreekFisherman]

I just have one question then I will read this book as suggested. I like the 'lego blocks' examples..it reminds me of molecular structure. So if other operating systems are created by these' lego blocks' is it safe to say all the blocks are the same but it is the way they are arranged that differentiates the result ?

Linux = Lego blocks in random assortment?