Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 13 minutes later[^][v]#455,497
inb4 mac
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[^][v]#455,500
Graphical interfaces? Is that what you people without neckbeards are into these days? How cute.
Meta joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 38 minutes later, 56 minutes after the original post[^][v]#455,506
@OP
Linux runs a wide variety of GUIs, most are as good or better than Windows/Mac. Which specific GUI did you have a problem with?
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#455,507
@previous (Meta)
I have a problem with every Linux-enforcer being a chode. What's up with that?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#455,511
@455,506 (Meta)
No, X-FeCEs is not better than Windows or Mac.
Aesthetically speaking, only Unity and GNOME 3 even come close, yet those have the utility of a giant turd. KDE is functional, but guaranteed to give migraines and break immediately upon update.
(Edited 59 seconds later.)
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 3 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#455,542
I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linuxâ€, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux†distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
Meta replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#455,543
@455,507 (B)
Kimmo Alm, M.D. diagnosed me with acute psychotic fucktardism three years ago. I cannot help my medical condition.
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#455,544
@previous (Meta)
Woah, buddy. I never accused you of being a chode. I'm just simply asking a question based on past experiences, in an unprejudiced manner.
Meta replied with this 13 years ago, 13 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#455,545
@previous (B)
Imagine a car where one person built the chassis, another built the body, someone else built the engine, and another person built the transmission. That's your typical Linux distro.
Meta double-posted this 13 years ago, 10 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#455,546
@455,544 (B)
Linux on the desktop is more of a hobbyist pursuit/FOSS religious devotion than anything else, as can be seen by its 1-5% (depending on who you ask) market share.
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 50 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#455,547
@455,545 (Meta)
Doesn't that make it more susceptible to problems and inconsistency? Who do I go to for repairs?
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 19 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#455,548
@455,545 (Meta) > Imagine a car where one person built the chassis, another built the body, someone else built the engine, and another person built the transmission.
Isn't that normal? Doesn't it take lots of people to build parts and assemble a car? Can I actually buy a car built entirely by one person?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 8 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#455,550
@previous (C)
You're right! I never thought of it like that, wow. Meta is full of it. I'm glad someone around here is thinking straight.
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#455,552
@previous (B)
Most distros aren't for everybody. Meta has a point. I just think the comparison is shit. Microsoft, Apple, and companies that make big-name software have fucktons of programmers, all in teams under managers, individually working on some particular function of the end product.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#455,558
Linux needs like a beginner learning distro. A distro that walks you through basic Linux stuff, like drag and drop a file into terminal, launching a shell script, installing a package. A ton of simple things are not obvious when you boot into Linux. Many people would love to learn how to navigate Linux, but few want to dedicate their lives to it. I check Linux out every few years, but I always give up on it. I like Linux, but it's so frustrating when the slightest problem comes up.
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 26 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#455,560
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
You're at least old enough to remember running DOS through a CLI. How do you give up on Linux? How is that difficult to understand? DOS was basically a quick and dirty copy of *nix-like systems. Many of the commands are the same, hierarchical file systems aren't any different, and batch files are basically (cheap and silly imitations of) shell scripts; it's like intro *nix for kids. How do you not get it?
Meta replied with this 13 years ago, 8 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#455,562
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 8 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#455,563
@previous (Meta)
I understand the gist of what you were saying, but it's wrong. Separate people do actually build those things. It's like making a point by referring to Eskimos leaving their elders out to die on ice floes. If that was a comment within a meaningful essay about the treatment of elders in modern society that contained plenty of valid points, then we could take it in stride and accept it as a rhetorical device. Everyone knows that's silly that old people would be left out on ice floes, but we could all say, "He must be accentuating such-and-such point he just succinctly made a paragraph earlier in his well thought-out essay..." On the other hand, if that piece of misinformation is the only point your post makes, then you just look silly.
Meta replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#455,564
Yes my analogy was not, in fact, literally correct. Car components such as engines and transmissions are usually built by many people on a mass production assembly line. Thank you for pointing out this error to me.
Meta double-posted this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#455,565
@455,563 (C)
The point I was trying to make is that a Linux distro is built from separate parts, developed by separate groups of people as opposed to, say, Windows, where the whole OS from the kernel to the GUI is made by the same company.
And yes, functioning cars have been more or less entirely built by one person. Granted, they weren't very good cars but they were cars.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#455,566
@455,564 (Meta)
I think the thrust of your argument is, in fact, spot on. On the consumer end Linux is still spotty. It is (on the desktop) mostly a hobbyist pursuit. When it comes to servers, mainframes, or supercomputers...
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous C double-posted this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#455,567
@455,565 (Meta)
No, I see your point. I was just quibbling the details. I doubt different teams of Microsoft programmers communicate as much as some parts of the FOSS community do on a daily basis. On either end, it's never one entity. My point is that it's always teams of different people working on different parts.
Meta replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#455,569
@455,566 (C)
Don't forget phones/tablets, most of which are running a Linux, BSD, or QNX kernel.
The year of Linux on the desktop will never happen but it won't need to, either. Linux will own computing without most consumers ever knowing.
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#455,571
@455,564 (Meta)
Well you should start making analogies that are more accurate. Maybe then I'll be able to get your point.
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#455,572
@455,569 (Meta)
EEEeeerrrrmmm....
Android ≈ Linux
iOS ≈ BSD
I feel like they are becoming their own things slowly (try porting something from iOS to Android!) and moving apart in the process. But, yes, they both come from similar roots.
Meta replied with this 13 years ago, 10 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#455,575
@455,567 (C)
Of course not. But with Microsoft there's only a handful of versions of Windows for the desktop. Mac OS X only comes in regular and server flavors, IIRC. How many different Linux desktop distros are there?
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 10 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#455,581
fucking nerds, go outside and make eye contact with real people
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 38 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#455,585
@455,575 (Meta)
Distros? Quite a number. How many go with KDE over Gnome? How many offer something else? There are a lot of distros, but even a popular distro like Ubuntu offers communities that embrace a number of different desktop environments and window managers. These aren't specific to distro as they aren't dependent on or coded by people who release said distro. A separate distro may embrace a certain environment or window manager, but that generally doesn't mean that their choice of environment or window manager is exclusive. There are a lot of linux distros. They often offer one of a number of desktop environments and/or window managers that are available and maintained independently. Saying there are a lot of distros is missing the point.
With MS or Apple, it's their version or nothing. With Windows... yeah you get weekly updates (which demand you reboot and install unexpectedly whenever you have to print something quickly. Except when .NET doesn't update because You have Microsoft Windows 7 .NET update XC55875DSv0.56.78 instead of the needed .NET F00K.MY.L1Fe update which was supposed to come in regular updates but Microsoft didn't send that out in time that week and you received a different one that didn't trigger the whole warning until now because the update you received doesn't fix itself and the MS website is no help because it points you to third party solutions because the people using the software have actually come up with ways to solve to problem faster than the company that produces it.) ...rambling again.
Anyway, I suppose it's a matter of preference. I'd rather be lost about what to do on a Linux system. It's like a blank canvas where I know what I can and can't do, even if doing a certain thing looks difficult. In contrast, Windows looks like a watercolor paint set that a skilled person could use to do some cool shit and OS X looks like a fucking fingerpaint-by-numbers book.
Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 55 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#455,596
@455,545 (Meta) @455,546 (Meta) @455,558 (Ks !KansasxqvM) @455,560 (C) @455,565 (Meta) @455,566 (C) @455,569 (Meta) @455,572 (C) @455,575 (Meta) @previous (C)
I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linuxâ€, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux†distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 5 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^][v]#455,673
@455,545 (Meta)
You do realize corporations aren't really people, don't you?
Anyway, distros are supposed to take care of that for us the way contractors take care of it when building houses. But they can never get it right because they never really know the hardware their building on.