Linux: What`s yours called

[WizardStan]

There exists hardware/firmware that can load an entire kernel...

What is this all about? Are you trying to say me that a kernel itself _can_ be an operating system? And a PC without a bootloader is something very unusual like programming down to the bare kernel without using a libc.

Remember, a kernel may be "just a program", but so is a boot loader. A boot loader is "just a program" that is located at a very specific location on the hard drive that the PC knows how to load. There is absolutely no reason that you can't put an entire microkernel, or at the least a very simple kernel loader into that section since the loader space is actually pretty small.
On embedded systems, this is even easier, where it just starts executing whatever is loaded at memory location 0.

 

[urjaman]

On the note of the kernel not being able to load itself, does anyone remember that the 2.4 branch of linux can load itself from a floppy disk? Writing the bzImage file directly to a floppy disk makes it bootable.

The feature was removed from the 2.6 branch because the kernel is nowadays often too big to fit a floppy (and propably because nobody actually uses that feature anymore).

 

[Polossatik]

Excuse my ignorance of not reading trough 6 pages of highly interesting but rather nitpickingy/ academic about what to call "linux".
I use personally about 5 different OS's on weekly bases ranging from Linux distro's (redhat, ubuntu, SLES...which I count as one) to AIX, Windows (in all its forms) , Solaris, HP-UX and even the odd OS/2.
If I use the word "Linux" then most tech people know it a distro using Linux kernel with GNU/etc software around.

John Do however almost has no idea bout the difference between Office applications a Browser or an OS.

They just "see" stuff on their screen what does stuff. They are not interested in what does what, they just want to do that.

Do Stuff.

The tendency on being over "religious" is one of the biggest reasons IMHO why it took so long to get "Linux" (or whatever you want to call it) on the desktop. PC's are for most people already confusing as hell. They know "MP3" means music in "pc terms" - no point in trying to dragg them to ogg if that stuff is not working on their "MP3" player. If they can't open "MP3" they are not happy, for them it means "no music".

Reason why I less and less talk about "Linux" to non-tech people but simply say "Ubuntu" - not because it's technically the best (what is?), but because that tend to work nice for John Do - it allows them to do "stuff" without worrying about what is actually doing it.

Having "one name" - just like microsoft "windows" managed to put in the "market" is all they care about to describe a system that does something.

Even my parents are now saying to their friends that since they use that "Ubuntu windows" they have less "problems" and it's free, which makes it even better ... Open Office is for them just a part of that "Ubuntu stuff".

I know a friend of my parents who went to a big shop and was not happy because he wanted a laptop with that "new windows ubuntu version" and was utterly frustrated they did not sell those .

Some with browers, if you show John Do that if he installs that "firefox" thingy and adds "adblock plus" websites load faster and the interface is not to different then they are very happy to stop clicking on that blue icon but on the curly foxy thing because there is a clear advantage.
This is a very successfully way of advocating "better" software, but you need a consistent (even if not 100% correct by some people opinions) name.

 

[WizardStan]

Linux is to Windows
as
Ubuntu is to Vista

That's my opinion.

 

[Exophase]

Linux is to Windows
as
Ubuntu is to Vista

That's my opinion.

... are you saying Ubuntu is the Vista of the Linux world?

If so, that comes with the major discrepancy that Ubuntu is actually the most popular form of Linux, not so much the case with Vista and Windows.

Ubuntu has its problems but I'm generally pretty happy with it. I would really call them more compromises than outright flaws.

 

[quadomatic]

John Do however almost has no idea bout the difference between Office applications a Browser or an OS.

I remember my Anthropology TA was telling us to use Internet Explorer and not other "internet engines" like FireFox because they might not work with the school's Blackboard suite.

I get really tweaked when people say "Ubuntu" as a word for all linux distros. Yes, I am using Ubuntu 10.04...but there's other distros, like Arch

Exophase: compared to distros like Arch, Ubuntu is the fat and retarded SoB of the linux family relative to many of the others. On the other hand, Ubuntu is a simple kind of guy, and easy to get along with, whereas building "relationships"/installing other distros is hard because they're really snooty

 

[TrashyMG]

I'm a Fedora Guy in an Ubuntu world.. Always liked the way Red Hat handled things. Although I have an odd quirk and always avoid even numbered Fedora releases.

 

[WizardStan]

... are you saying Ubuntu is the Vista of the Linux world?

No, I'm saying that talking about Linux is like talking about Windows: generally the same, but comes in different "versions".
Ubuntu is like Vista only in so much as it's a specific instance of their respective systems. I chose Ubuntu and Vista because they're both well known names now.

 

[mahousaru]

... are you saying Ubuntu is the Vista of the Linux world?

No, I'm saying that talking about Linux is like talking about Windows: generally the same, but comes in different "versions".
Ubuntu is like Vista only in so much as it's a specific instance of their respective systems. I chose Ubuntu and Vista because they're both well known names now.

*Scratches head*

Isn't Vista a version of Windows? So it would be like the version number of Ubuntu x.yz, or actually the animal name

Ubuntu/RH/SLES... is a distribution, I don't think there is really a comparision in MS. Plenty in the nix world though I guess I could even call OSX a distro of BSD

 

[WizardStan]

*Scratches head*

Isn't Vista a version of Windows? So it would be like the version number of Ubuntu x.yz, or actually the animal name

Ubuntu/RH/SLES... is a distribution, I don't think there is really a comparision in MS. Plenty in the nix world though I guess I could even call OSX a distro of BSD

It's an imperfect analogy, but it's the closest that I could come up with. Saying you run Linux is akin to saying you run Windows, while saying you run Ubuntu is the more specific akin to running Vista.
Or, let's use XP. Saying you run Linux is like saying you run Windows. Saying you use Ubuntu is like saying you use WinXP. Saying you have Ubuntu 9.04 is like saying you have Win XP Service Pack 3.
(I switch to XP because I'm not aware of different service packs for Vista)

 

[Vitel]

Saying you run Linux is like saying you run Windows NT kernel. Saying you use Ubuntu is like saying you use WinXP. Saying you have Ubuntu 9.04 is like saying you have Win XP Service Pack 3.
(I switch to XP because I'm not aware of different service packs for Vista)

I fixed that for you.

 

[WizardStan]

Saying you run Linux is like saying you run Windows NT kernel. Saying you use Ubuntu is like saying you use WinXP. Saying you have Ubuntu 9.04 is like saying you have Win XP Service Pack 3.
(I switch to XP because I'm not aware of different service packs for Vista)

I fixed that for you.

No you didn't, you made it worse!
Regular people don't say they have "Windows NT kernel", they say they use Windows. If you're lucky, they will say Win2K, or WinXP, or Vista.
You totally missed the point of what I (and several others, if I understand correctly) have been trying to say.

 

[Vitel]

Regular people don't say they have "Windows NT kernel", they say they use Windows.

1. Regular people shouldn't say they use 'Linux' when they mean an operating system.
2. Lie is still a lie even if millions believe in it. (c) Leo Tolstoy

 

[mahousaru]

Saying you run Linux is like saying you run Windows NT kernel. Saying you use Ubuntu is like saying you use WinXP. Saying you have Ubuntu 9.04 is like saying you have Win XP Service Pack 3.
(I switch to XP because I'm not aware of different service packs for Vista)

I fixed that for you.

I posted up a email from Linus in another thread in regards to how Linux is used in naming, did you get the chance to read it?

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.misc/msg/7781d4221fceedb2

From the way I read it as long as you have Linux in the name, he really doesn't mind what it is called

I think to save grief in the future we should assume Linux = "Linux distro" and the kernel should be called the Linux kernel. Fits into how the media currently uses the word!

 

[WizardStan]

2. Lie is still a lie even if millions believe in it. (c) Leo Tolstoy

One man's opinion does not equal fact. (c) WizardStan

 

[Exophase]

One man's opinion does not equal fact. © WizardStan

Unless that man is pope rms and you are one of the many followers of the church of FSF ;p

A name is not a lie, it's an accepted convention. It carries with it no proclamations of contribution or ownership. Linux could have been called "hogabaoloo" it would have all amounted to the same - the fact that Linux is clearly named after Linus Torvalds is irrelevant, and the fact that it was the name of the kernel is also irrelevant. rms makes many claims about what what calling the "operating system" "Linux" implies, but like most everything he says it's very subjective and coming from a very partial source.

It should come as little surprise that FSF puts great emphasis on the meaning of words given how they themselves use them as jagged weapons. Using such absolutes as "lies", "freedom", "ethics", "odium", and so on, they conjure up grandiose imagery of the battle for justice they're carrying out, and divert attention from the actual pragmatic ends (or lack thereof) and actual damage they cause. In my mind it's very similar to the games the media plays with words such as "terrorism", "socialism", "patriotism", and of course "freedom."

 

[Vitel]

I posted up a email from Linus in another thread in regards to how Linux is used in naming, did you get the chance to read it?

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.misc/msg/7781d4221fceedb2

As you might have already noticed, I prefer RMS' opinion (rather than Linus') in this question.

 

[darionapole]

tl : dr

for me :
GNU = Idea behind the OS based in the linux kernel (freeBSD and others not included)
Linux = Kernel
Ubuntu = The "personal" name of that OS based on the GNU idea.
Windows = both, because windows is both the OS's name and the kernel itself

Windows XP uses WinNT v5.x Kernel
Vista uses WinNT v6.x kernel
Vista7 uses WinNT v6.1.x kernel

 

[mahousaru]

I posted up a email from Linus in another thread in regards to how Linux is used in naming, did you get the chance to read it?

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.misc/msg/7781d4221fceedb2

As you might have already noticed, I prefer RMS' opinion (rather than Linus') in this question.

I kinda got that from your other posts, but I just wanted to check.

I guess it would be like following the Pope's opinion if Jesus was still alive. But then again Jesus would be Steve Jobs, so I guess that doesn't work

 

[moxie]

This reminds me of a discussion several years ago when a newly converted vegan tried to convince a whole mailing list that they shouldn't eat at KFC: "Do you know what your eating? That so called food is made from the carcasses of birds!!!"

Um, yea. We know that.

And I think that is the problem here too. I do imagine most of us know the position of RMS. Several of us might have agreed with him or even idolized him in the past - I know I have. And then, after a while (once again speaking for me), the glamour wears off and you see the ceaseless propagandizing and aggrandising (if this is not the right words - bear with me. I'm swedish.) for just that - propaganda, intolerance and politics. So saying over and over again that RMS wants everyone to say "GNU/Linux" will have no effect. Linking to more RMS-spout when the man himself says it again will have even less effect. See, I read that already, and once upon a time I even believed it. I've left that sect behind me now, though. History tells us to be aware of charismatic men that wants to remake the world in their image. That is a good lesson.

There is a parallell to more traditional religion, too. I do call myself a christian, from time to time. That is a bit difficult these days, though. Not because of Dawkins or Dennet or the famous "militant atheist", but because of rightwing televeangelists and high-profile "christian" profiles. I can spar with the (not very impressive) arguments of Dawkins any day, but realizing that I'm in some way in the same boat as Jerry Falwell et al embarasses me no end.

RMS is to open software as Jerry Falwell is to religion.