Linux: What`s yours called

[Rockthesmurf]

More people than not would agree that Linux is an OS. Operating system is quite a high level word, as in people walk into a shop and want to be able to ask 'What OS does this machine run?' and get an answer like "Windows", "Mac OS", or "Linux". It would be no good if the answer involved "Windows", "Linux", "GNU Distribution released under GPL fish cake animal X compiler bla bla bla", it's just not what the user is trying to find out.

I seem to recall that there is discussion as to what GCC standards for, compiler collection? c compiler? the whole thing is just a bit of a joke. I'm sure if all the Linux/GCC/GNU people weren't so bothered about this stuff they could get onto fixing a bunch of the issues that currently mean huge amounts of people stay clear of any OS except Windows/MAC.

Steve

 

[nikkopt]

I thought they said something about getting 10% for free, although the battery's are still rated at 4000mAh?

that's what his site says, http://www.openpandora.ca/ last line

- Runs on the Linux operating system (2.6.x)

There is no such thing as 'the Linux operating system'. Linux is just a kernel. The whole OS is called GNU.

What's the point of this? Geez..

 

[Creature XL]

Oh well. Its good we have so much time while waiting for the P to post in this useless topic


FOR ME (and guys like Tannenbaum and other writers about OSes) an OS is a piece of Software which has to fulfil the purpose of managing the resources of a computer system. This would be CPU, memory (RAM, HDD, ...) and I/O devices.
(before the smart asses reply: HDD is BOTH, memory and I/O. Just different view points.)

So, the kernel is the OS and the Kernel is called Linux or UNIX or MS-DOS, DR-DOS or TOS or whatever system you are regarding.
Then we have software like graphical user interfaces which are just that: user interfaces.

Technically they are NOT part of the OS, HOWEVER, I am fine with the fact that most people think or say they are part of the OS. Like Windows (XP, ...), GEM, ...

Honestly, I am not sure where to put KDE, GNOME and the like. Maybe they are the same. In the end those are only libraries. But I am not sure and I am interested in get some more education on this topic.

 

[urjaman]

ucLibc and newlib are also parts of GNU, because they are free software (released under GPL or compatible license).

Here's a list of GNU software for you (I dont know if it's totally complete, but the best i could find).
GPL is just a license, you can use it on any software - it doesnt need to be GNU software.
And you're saying if the license is GPL compatible then it's GNU software? Is FreeBSD a part of GNU because the BSD license (3 or 2 clause) is GPL compatible? Hell no.

 

[Exophase]

Kernel itself cannot be an operating system. It cant's even load itself without a boot loader (like grub).

There exists hardware/firmware that can load an entire kernel for you, so you wouldn't need a boot loader in the sense you're thinking. That aside, I've written a kernel that had a boot loader off of a floppy disk, and I would really hesitate to call it a separate entity when it was written just to load my kernel. A kernel image doesn't have to be loaded by some third party loader like GRUB, nor does a boot loader have to do more than a tiny fraction of what GRUB can do (a floppy boot loader has to fit on one 512 byte sector). I think your views on this are pretty narrow minded.

Most useful? gcc is the most useful part of the GNU operating system IMHO.

Most useful how?

If you go back to Unix's original role, it was mainly deployed in systems for developers, where the average user's productivity needs would be centered around developing software. Today things are very different. Most computer users, even users of Linux, are not programmers at all. So therefore GCC isn't the most useful part of what they consider their OS. Maybe you're just saying it's the most useful part to you, which is pretty irrelevant.

Yes, GCC is important to developing software, although saying it's the "most useful" is giving an extreme language bias against the many languages GCC doesn't support. But we're talking about what people use in an computer, not what tools are necessary to realize this system - if it's the latter maybe we should consider hardware or the software tools used to create the hardware?

End user and development are strongly connected in GNU. You use a program, you've found an issue. What should you do? You should file a bug. You may need to install a debugger, obtain a stack trace, apply patches provided by devs, recompile you application, etc. That's the way it is for lots of GNU users (not devs).

If you think this is what the unspoken majority of Linux users do then you live in a fantasy land. "A lot" is immaterial if it's still a minority.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of the term 'GNU'. What is GNU in general? What does it consist of? There is a very simple definition. Every program released under GPL (GNU General Public License) or compatible license is a part of GNU. That's all. Linux is also a part of GNU. As well as GNOME (GNU Network Object Model Environment), GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program), Firefox, Thunderbird, etc.
So if your operating system is a free software - it's GNU. If it contains a proprietary software like flash plugin, then it's not pure GNU. That's my opinion.

ucLibc and newlib are also parts of GNU, because they are free software (released under GPL or compatible license).

Android contains a lot of GNU software. However, it's not a pure GNU distro.

When the things you're saying don't even agree with Stallman himself then I think it's time to give it a rest.

This mentality is what annoys me the most about FSF idealists - it's incredibly viral. Basically, anyone who seems to support us in some way is conglomerated into the free software Borg.

Releasing a program under the GPL does not mean you agree with the FSF or GNU manifesto (see Linus Torvalds himself). In the case of Stallman-esque views, not being a strong activist towards the cause already means you don't agree with it. Not sharing his extremist viewpoints regarding what he considers freedom and ethics means you are opposed. Many people who have released or contributed to a program under the GPL are "opposed" in this fashion, and have done so because it works for their program but not because they automatically conceive it as "the one true way."

 

[moxie]

Not really - remember, this is only one minor part of RMS's battle against unclear and misleading terminology. He has a whole host of other such examples, some of which are more likely to stick than others, but all part of a considered and rational (or at the very least, internally consistent ideological) campaign.

Well, the thing is that "unclear and misleading terminology", above, really means "People who refuse to call things the way I want, dammit! *stomps foot*", or at least something very close. RMS is not out to make people conform to the common use of terms, he is out to dictate what terms can and cannot be used, and the authority on what is what is, of course, RMS.

He rejects the term "digital rights management" in favor of the more specific and more accurate (but so far unpopular) "digital restrictions management" or the less unwieldy "handcuffware." He rejects the term "intellectual property" because he feels that it draws an invalid comparison between ownership of a physical object and an idea. He believes the term "free software" should be used instead of e. g. "open source software" (since he feels the latter term shifts the focus away from the idea of freedom that was his reason for creating the GNU project in the first place).

Exactly. He tells people what they are allowed to say and not say based on his reasons and his ideas. Whilst I can quite understand the reasoning behind "handcuffware" or "...restrictions...", it is also quite obvious that it is not the common terms, the consensus terms or in any way neutral terms - It is politically loaded terminology that he wants people to adopt because they fit his political ideas. And even though I am in agreement with a lot of those ideas (at least when they are expressed by less fanatical people), I strongly take issue with the idea that one should enforce that kind of politically loaded language. Language is thought (which of course RMS knows), and I disagree with that kind of thought policing.

In general, I'm with Prometheus: It is irritating to have to be lumped together with the sect of RMS, just because I use free software.

 

[Tom`]

Well, the thing is that "unclear and misleading terminology", above, really means "People who refuse to call things the way I want, dammit! *stomps foot*", or at least something very close. RMS is not out to make people conform to the common use of terms, he is out to dictate what terms can and cannot be used, and the authority on what is what is, of course, RMS.

Exactly. He tells people what they are allowed to say and not say based on his reasons and his ideas. Whilst I can quite understand the reasoning behind "handcuffware" or "...restrictions...", it is also quite obvious that it is not the common terms, the consensus terms or in any way neutral terms - It is politically loaded terminology that he wants people to adopt because they fit his political ideas. And even though I am in agreement with a lot of those ideas (at least when they are expressed by less fanatical people), I strongly take issue with the idea that one should enforce that kind of politically loaded language. Language is thought (which of course RMS knows), and I disagree with that kind of thought policing.

You're ignoring the fact that the current terminology is politically loaded as well. There is no "neutral" term in this situation - if anything, RMS's terms are frequently more "neutral" insofar as they describe the subjects from the point of view of the actual consumer. It's not "thought policing" at all, nor is it an attempt to reinforce the personal authority of RMS. It's certainly true that in most cases they aren't the common terms (although RMS's definition of "free software" is gaining in popularity), but that's because terms were invented in the first place by individuals and groups who had just as much of a political agenda as RMS.

 

[VRAndy]

Not really - remember, this is only one minor part of RMS's battle against unclear and misleading terminology. He has a whole host of other such examples, some of which are more likely to stick than others, but all part of a considered and rational (or at the very least, internally consistent ideological) campaign.

Well, the thing is that "unclear and misleading terminology", above, really means "People who refuse to call things the way I want, dammit! *stomps foot*", or at least something very close. RMS is not out to make people conform to the common use of terms, he is out to dictate what terms can and cannot be used, and the authority on what is what is, of course, RMS.

Yea, if there's already a widely accepted and well understood term for something, and you want to communicate clearly you use the existing, well-understood term! Obviously.

RMS is actively making communication less clear by introducing newer, politically motivated terms.

 

[Prometheus]

In general, I'm with Prometheus: It is irritating to have to be lumped together with the sect of RMS, just because I use free software.

Thanks, though I think I should make it clear that I was only referring to the crowd whose general vibe seems to come off sounding like "Ho, ho, ho, I use Linux so I will bash every facet of every system that I don't use because they're not Linux and are therefore obviously evil and have stupid users!".

I don't know enough about the FSF or RMS or such to have a viewpoint on that, so I don't know if there's any overlap with the aforementioned bunch.

 

[beavith]

I use Vista :unsure:

 

[Ollonk]

In general, I'm with Prometheus: It is irritating to have to be lumped together with the sect of RMS, just because I use free software.

Thanks, though I think I should make it clear that I was only referring to the crowd whose general vibe seems to come off sounding like "Ho, ho, ho, I use Linux so I will bash every facet of every system that I don't use because they're not Linux and are therefore obviously evil and have stupid users!".

I don't know enough about the FSF or RMS or such to have a viewpoint on that, so I don't know if there's any overlap with the aforementioned bunch.

I'm an avid Linux user and I don't particularly like Windows, but if I buy a computer that has Windows (Not Vista) installed, I keep it. Windows is stable when free of malware and usable - a failsafe for when GRUB breaks or a kernel update makes wifi unusable. Linux is great and fast, but it's also terribly unreliable. It's my favorite OS family, but I love to hate it.

 

[TrashyMG]

In general, I'm with Prometheus: It is irritating to have to be lumped together with the sect of RMS, just because I use free software.

Thanks, though I think I should make it clear that I was only referring to the crowd whose general vibe seems to come off sounding like "Ho, ho, ho, I use Linux so I will bash every facet of every system that I don't use because they're not Linux and are therefore obviously evil and have stupid users!".

I don't know enough about the FSF or RMS or such to have a viewpoint on that, so I don't know if there's any overlap with the aforementioned bunch.

I'm an avid Linux user and I don't particularly like Windows, but if I buy a computer that has Windows (Not Vista) installed, I keep it. Windows is stable when free of malware and usable - a failsafe for when GRUB breaks or a kernel update makes wifi unusable. Linux is great and fast, but it's also terribly unreliable. It's my favorite OS family, but I love to hate it.

I wouldn't call it unreliable, I had a Pentium II Linux Web/file server that ran for 10 years straight only downtime I had was the occasional Distribution upgrade. I would say at times it's been finicky, Also keeping up with new changes been interesting over the years.

 

[WizardStan]

I'm an avid Linux user and I don't particularly like Windows, but if I buy a computer that has Windows (Not Vista) installed, I keep it. Windows is stable when free of malware and usable - a failsafe for when GRUB breaks or a kernel update makes wifi unusable. Linux is great and fast, but it's also terribly unreliable. It's my favorite OS family, but I love to hate it.

I actually have a 2GB partition with a fresh, fully updated but otherwise untouched copy of Win2K for exactly that reason, and a DVD with a ghost of it. In the event that my Linux install gets hosed, and my "normal" Windows partition is misbehaving, I at least have something I can get going right away.
I also have liveCDs, but they might be old enough to have trouble or be missing drivers or something. Better to have backup for backup for backups

 

[Tom`]

Windows is stable when free of malware and usable - a failsafe for when GRUB breaks or a kernel update makes wifi unusable. Linux is great and fast, but it's also terribly unreliable. It's my favorite OS family, but I love to hate it.

It's been my experience that Linux is at least as stable as Windows, at least given equal levels of knowledge on the part of the system administrator. True, Windows is generally stable when it's free of malware, at least if you don't install too many applications and make sure you reinstall it every six months to a year. That isn't easy to ensure in many cases, though. And Linux is a lot easier to fix when something does break.

So, a reasonably intelligent and knowledgeable user will be able to keep a Windows system operating just about as well as a Linux system, if they put a bit of work into it. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of Windows, especially when it costs hundreds of dollars compared to the generally-free-as-in-beer Linux.

And I've never had problems on Linux with drivers breaking (except proprietary ones, and then not recently). The only thing that's ever broken GRUB for me is Windows.

edit: remove some rantiness

 

[Exophase]

I second the stability concerns. About a week ago an automatic update on Ubuntu hosed my video driver and locked me out of X. This isn't the first time something like this has happened. Nothing like that has ever happened to me on Windows.

 

[Prometheus]

I'm rather the opposite. I've never had any Linux breakage (I stick rigidly to the Kubuntu Long Term Support releases, for what it's worth ), and the same goes for Mac OS X, too. The only issues I've come across were entirely my own doing, like the time I tried to force Kubuntu to use the wrong video driver. :lol:

As for Windows, it has simply never suited my needs, and is unlikely ever to do so, which is why I don't use it. (*Additionally* every time I encounter it, it decides to be problematic. I was asked to help someone set up a new Windows 7 machine recently, and I found it incredibly frustrating. Never again, no thankyou. :lol: )

 

[Tom`]

I second the stability concerns. About a week ago an automatic update on Ubuntu hosed my video driver and locked me out of X. This isn't the first time something like this has happened. Nothing like that has ever happened to me on Windows.

This is interesting, because I used to have this problem regularly with the proprietary NVDIA driver - the kernel module that interfaced with the driver had to be recompiled every time the kernel was updated, and I always had to manually update and compile that module. I haven't had to do this in over a year, though - was that the same driver you had problems with?

As for Windows, it has simply never suited my needs, and is unlikely ever to do so, which is why I don't use it. (*Additionally* every time I encounter it, it decides to be problematic. I was asked to help someone set up a new Windows 7 machine recently, and I found it incredibly frustrating. Never again, no thankyou. :lol: )

I've had the same problem - Microsoft's continuing attempts to dumb down their OS have had exactly the opposite result. The few times I've had to work with Vista or Windows 7, it's taken me ages to do tasks that would have been very simple in Linux, and not even that difficult in Windows XP.

 

[Prometheus]

I can't speak for Microsoft "dumbing down" things, as I don't encounter Windows enough to have a view on that. I do agree with what you say of Windows Vista and Windows 7, though - I've encountered the same (except I also faced the same with Windows XP, too, although to a slightly lesser degree ). I also came across the same with SUSE 11 - with both I've found that there's far too much attempting to sound verbose and "technical" where it's unnecessary, whilst actually obfuscating what I want to know, in my experience and humble opinion.

 

[Exophase]

This is interesting, because I used to have this problem regularly with the proprietary NVDIA driver - the kernel module that interfaced with the driver had to be recompiled every time the kernel was updated, and I always had to manually update and compile that module. I haven't had to do this in over a year, though - was that the same driver you had problems with?

Yes, this was the issue - a kernel update didn't include the reconfiguration steps to compile the nvidia kernel module. The fix was simple, but if I didn't have another computer with which to look it up it would have been a pretty major problem.

 

[pder]

I second the stability concerns. About a week ago an automatic update on Ubuntu hosed my video driver and locked me out of X. This isn't the first time something like this has happened. Nothing like that has ever happened to me on Windows.

Nvidia drivers can be quite an annoyance if you aren't familiar with how to recover from such situations. But part of this pain has to do with the fact that the drivers are proprietary, and every time the kernel is upgraded the driver wrapper has to be recompiled against the new kernel headers. Secondly if there really are stability issues with the closed source driver, you are pretty much out of luck, because there is nothing kernel developers can do to help.

To offer a counter example of an automatic update breaking Windows, I had an issue in which after upgrading to Windows XP SP3, multiple Athlon 64 machines I had would just endlessly reboot right after showing the Windows start up screen. Even safe mode wouldn't boot. Ultimately I ended up having to use a linux rescue disk to back up the data on the machines before reinstalling Windows.