Jump to content

Why Linux?


Recommended Posts

Hi all,I think that this section should be renamed to GNU/Linux since Linux is only the 'kernel' and GNU would refer to the 'whole' OS....what say?007

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ThunderRiver
If you rename it GNU/Linux, I want to see a BSD forum too... ;-)Better leave it the way it is and avoid the flames :)
Go OpenBSD! FreeBSD! :rolleyes:
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, Linux pretty much covers it. ;) I'm a kind of semi Linux noob. I've run Mandrake and Red Hat both. More like, I've played around with them. ;) I liked Red Hat better, but that's jmo.I'm not currently running any *nix OS'es, but will soon be installing RH again. Different OS'es always interest me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ComputerBob

Hi L P,I'm in the process of trying Mandrake 9.1, after having a horrible experience with Mandrake 9.0. So far, 9.1 is giving me far fewer problems than 9.0 did, but it is still giving me a few problems (no sound and no CD burning). ;) I've also ordered "Pink Tie 9" (RedHat 9) from CheapBytes.com, and I'm looking forward to trying it, too. And I'm always looking for other people's insights as to which Linux distro they prefer. ;) Would you be willing to share why you like RH better than MDK?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LilBambi

I agree ... leave it as Linux is probably best ... I understand what the GNU folks are saying but if they wanted to do that, they should have done it from the start ... too late now for new naming conventions on what is trying to become a household word ;) Although 'Why UNIX/Linux?' or 'Why Linux/UNIX?' would work for me too ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe make it *nix? That's what everyone seems to use when talking about unixes/linuxes/bsds in general. Of course, it might again confuse the windows lusers ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi L P,I'm in the process of trying Mandrake 9.1, after having a horrible experience with Mandrake 9.0. So far, 9.1 is giving me far fewer problems than 9.0 did, but it is still giving me a few problems (no sound and no CD burning). ;) I've also ordered "Pink Tie 9" (RedHat 9) from CheapBytes.com, and I'm looking forward to trying it, too. And I'm always looking for other people's insights as to which Linux distro they prefer. ;) Would you be willing to share why you like RH better than MDK?
Hi ComputerBob. I ran both Mandrake and Red hat on a 3 year old HP, and RedHat just seemed to run smoother on that tower.
Link to post
Share on other sites

But guys, there is more to GNU/Linux than just Linux....I mean Linux would never have been there without the GNU OS...The primary reason that GNU/Linux is free (as in freedom and Free Beer) is bcause of the GNU/GPL license..The only way we can continue and support the great community of FSF is by calling it GNU/Linux..It's always nice to give credit where it is due. If we take it on upon us to educate the pl about the actual concept about GNU, then that would be great for us all and the community would grow even more....Once the initial thrust is given, then there is no turning back. Better late then never. Btw, my fav distro is RedHat and fav desktop env is Window Maker..Lucky for me, I got a chance to listen to Dr. Stallman when he was down in India and man! that guy is a wiz allright..He is clearly ahead of time, and that is evident by the tonnes of high quality free software one can find circulating freely. Pls take some time and read this FAQ:-http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.htmlrgds,007Keeping my fingers crossed... :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ThunderRiver

I too agree that GNU OS comes before Linux, but there seems to be more Linux users around here than Solaris or BSD users.I, myself, is an OpenBSD user, and I don't really mind that the forum is mainly designated to Linux user. I would think that Linux users have more problems with their system than BSD users :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ComputerBob
I would think that Linux users have more problems with their system than BSD users :D
:D That's probably mostly due to the BSD's excellent reputation for stability, but it's also partly because there are many more Linux users than BSD users. And there are more Linux users than BSD users partly because it is widely reported that, although the BSDs are more powerful and secure, it takes a much higher level of technical skill to become a BSD user than it does to become a Linux user. I know that, as a Linux newbie, I've successfully (???) installed Mandrake 9.0, Mandrake 9.1, and SuSE 8.1, but, from what I've read about them, I'd be terrified to try to install a BSD. Maybe some day, but in the meantime, I try to learn how to install and use Linux, and I envy those who know how to install and use a BSD. :D
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ThunderRiver
I would think that Linux users have more problems with their system than BSD users :D
:D That's probably mostly due to the BSD's excellent reputation for stability, but it's also partly because there are many more Linux users than BSD users. And there are more Linux users than BSD users partly because it is widely reported that, although the BSDs are more powerful and secure, it takes a much higher level of technical skill to become a BSD user than it does to become a Linux user. I know that, as a Linux newbie, I've successfully (???) installed Mandrake 9.0, Mandrake 9.1, and SuSE 8.1, but, from what I've read about them, I'd be terrified to try to install a BSD. Maybe some day, but in the meantime, I try to learn how to install and use Linux, and I envy those who know how to install and use a BSD. :D
Hehe you should check the tutorial hosted on OpenBSD/FreeBSD. You would be amazed by the detailed explanations. The only distro that has similar tutorial would be Gentoo.Also, BSD is only one that tries to protect your Windows partition from accidental deletetion. Unlike BSD, Mandrake or Red Hat tends to be "smart" (blank) to manage the partition for you without your permission.check out the OpenBSD tutorial herealso, Gentoo tutorial hereI was abit scared of BSD in the beginning, but a friend of mine gave me a hand and led me to the light of the holy grail :P Software installation is soo easy, and you never never never need to worry about software dependency because BSD always checks for you, and if it finds something missing, it would get the source online all by itself. The only two Linux distro that does that are probably Debian and Gentoo Linux.ThunderRiver
Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between the BSDs and Linux is mainly that the BSDs don't try to make all the decisions for you, and that they try to keep the system lean and to a minimum.To illustrate the latter point: a few weeks ago, a friend told me he's comfortable with SuSE, since he knows what to turn off after the installation to make the machine secure. With BSDs, after the installation, you turn on what you need.If you're the point-and-click user that simply wants to get your work done and not worry about the system too much, using BSD will likely be an excersize in frustration, since you'll have to do things like setting up X yourself (once it's running though, maintenance is easy, can even be totally automated).On the other hand, I believe that if your goal is to learn how a *nix works, the BSDs are an excellent system. The file system is very logically layed out and clean, and as I mentioned the base installs are lean, which makes it easy to understand what's going on, and why things happen the way they happen. This is helped by the excellent documentation that's available. Have a glance at the FreeBSD Handbook, lot's of high quality information in there. Also, BSD's manpages are generally useful and complete (that is *not* a given for a lot of other *nixes).I'm not saying that this isn't possible with linux. I'm merely saying, BSD is an excellent choice if you're interested in what's going on inside your computer ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LilBambi

freeBSD, openBSD .... all BSDs are great :o I don't think anyone would say otherwise ... even the most insecure BSD is generally considered to be more secure 'out of the box' than any Linux distro for the very reasons that Maxlor so elequently pointed out.From what I have seen, ALL OSes need security patches from time to time, no matter what OS it is ... that is inevitable. As long as there are people with human curiosity, or people who are devious, I don't think we can get away from this.However, they have a simple method of going and getting what's needed is handled to patch the system in freeBSD installations and it is extremely well done, as it is in the other BSDs from what I have read.Many Linux distros are even getting on the bandwagon with that capability to help keep their OSes up to date.Windows also has the automatic updates available (and I am not going to go into my Windows rant again ... they can be found in other Topics :lol: )As far as the GNU aspect of any *nix ... I think I need someone to explain this to me.I really don't understand why any OS should change it's name to include GNU and why pick on Linux with it.I don't see BSDs including it in their distribution names ... all their names say is that they are a form of BSD. Then you have Linux with distribution names just like the BSDs have.They all (BSD and Linux) have GNU roots/take advantage of GNU programs.... but BSDs are not changing their names to GNU/openBSD, GNU/freeBSD, etc. It is understood. As it is with Linux. Isn't it? Or am I missing something here? :o

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point the GNU people make is that the majority of the Linux userland is actually GNU software. So if you take away the GNU contributions, you'd more or less had the kernel and X and KDE remaining, but not all the nifty console commands we love.The BSDs do not use GNU software by default. The BSD tools are developed independently of the GNU tools, and they are available under a different license (the BSD license, not the GPL) too. (There's some exceptions of course, BSD too uses the GNU c compiler.) A side effect of this is that there's often subtle diffences in the way the BSD version and the GNU version of the same command work, which can be a bit confusing at times you swap between both systems.I do think that the GNU folks argument is valid, without them Linux wouldn't be what it is. On the other hand, it is a bit silly, after all it's only a name, and it's not like GNU'd sell something and needed to get as much PR as possible...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ur right, it may be only a name, but that very name reflects a HUGE number of real professional coders who contribute fantastic software for free..By calling it just Linux, we are forcing ourselves to forget about their contributions alltogether and this tends to give a more commercial view of the whole concept..ie:People will think of Linux as just another commercial product on the shelf and forget about the tonnes of free software making up the Operating System..When pl see the term GNU, they will get inquisitive and try to find out more about what the term means, etc..By removing the term alltogether, it would be just misinforming the public.rgds,007

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LilBambi

I understand what you are saying...but I think my point remains.Window XP is a Windows KernelfreeBSD is a BSD KernelMandrake Linux is a Linux KernelThere are many components in any OS that are not strictly classed as the kernel of an operating system and many of them are not necessarily owned by the OS maker. They may have rights to those components, but they do not have to change their name to include these companies in the name of their OS.Don't get me wrong, I think GNU is very important to Linux. I think credit should be given to GNU, but I just have a hard time thinking that when the Linux name is just getting to be more common that it should be changed to something else! And really, GNU/Linux ... doesn't quite roll off the tongue now does it :rolleyes: What would have happened to Windows if they had changed their name early in the game after it had just taken off just because their ScanDisk or Optimize, and/or other components was done and maybe even still technically owned by another company?I am sure GNU doesn't want to cause harm to Linux, but I am afraid that is what the result would be at this stage of the game.Just my 2 cents :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Windows is not just a kernel. Neither is BSD. You've got to understand - "Linux" really is nothing more. Linus Torvalds does not work on the userland. He has had no influence about how, say, the cp command works. All the software you actually use, and this includes the smallest command line tool, is added by 3rd parties, ie, the distributors. It's up to them what they add to the kernel, and how, and this is the reason for the great diversity between the different linux distros.This is fundamentally different from how windows or BSD works! With both products, it's the same group of people that watches over both aspects, kernel and userland! This results in a noticeably tighter integration between the two parts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I see is the word "Linux" becoming a generalized term, rather like "Frisbee" or "Kleenex". In casual conversation, nobody ever asks for a "flying disc" or a "soft facial tissue". They use the specific brand names, whether they are technically applicable or not. Heck, where I grew up, all soda pops were called "coke". Conversations would commonly go:

"Can you get me a coke?""Sure. What kind do you want?""Dr. Pepper.""OK, here you go."
I see the same thing happening with "Linux".
"Hey, have you ever used Linux?""Sure, all the time.""Oh yeah? What distro?""Mainly RedHat 9.0, but I've dabbled with FreeBSD, too."
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ComputerBob
Heck, where I grew up, all soda pops were called "coke". Conversations would commonly go:
"Can you get me a coke?""Sure. What kind do you want?""Dr. Pepper.""OK, here you go."
I remember meeting people in central Indiana in the early 1970s who did the exact same thing. :lol:I agree with you about the increasingly generic use of the word "Linux."
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LilBambi

Maxlor --Thanks ... and your point is well taken.Having said that ...ComputerBob and eksimba --I agree.Still ... There might be a way to do it ... they do it all the time with name brand computers ...Mandrake Linux 9.1GNU InsideORRedHat 9.0 LinuxPowered by GNUORDebian Linuxwith GNU Now!Just a little levity there ... but who knows we may be onto something here! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
GolfProRM

To be honest, I really don't know a lick about GNU/Linux or BSD... I once tried setting up Redhat 7.0 back when it was new, but had some problems, and decided to give up... I haven't had the time/energy/need to try again... I don't know that I'll ever get around to setting up a dual-boot with XP/Linux, but it'll be interesting to read posts from people that use it on a regular basis... Back to the topic... I do have to agree that the word Linux has become about as standard as a word as Kleenex or Coke... before I read this thread, I had no idea what GNU was.... I'd heard of BSD (although I really don't have a clue what it is).... anyway, just thought I'd put my 2 cents in on this thread :) maybe someday I'll understand Linux like the rest of you :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
All the software you actually use, and this includes the smallest command line tool, is added by 3rd parties, ie, the distributors. It's up to them what they add to the kernel, and how, and this is the reason for the great diversity between the different linux distros.
The software that the distributors add are just frontends for existing GNU/Linux software, they are just customising the existing GNU OS and packaging it by adding the bells and whistles to make it more user friendly etc..rgds,007
Link to post
Share on other sites
To be honest, I really don't know a lick about GNU/Linux or BSD...  I once tried setting up Redhat 7.0 back when it was new, but had some problems, and decided to give up... I haven't had the time/energy/need to try again...  I don't know that I'll ever get around to setting up a dual-boot with XP/Linux, but it'll be interesting to read posts from people that use it on a regular basis...
Dual booting between XP and GNU/Linux is really simple...Why dont u get hold of the latest distro, RH 9 and post ur queries here. We can get it going in no time.rgds,007PS: Join ur GNU/Linux Local User Group..I'm sure they carry out demos and stuff.
Link to post
Share on other sites
(as in freedom and Free Beer)
Freedom is NEVER *free* it *always* has a cost associated with it... and I sure would like to find where they serve FREE BEER! :unsure: but I digress... ^_^ -Mike
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ComputerBob

I think the whole Linux vs. GNU/Linux is a moot issue. As many people have said on many different forums, the name "Linux" has become a generic term. Trying to get everyone to call it GNU/Linux would simply confuse people, make people think of Linux as even more of a "geek" OS than they do now, and cause a torrent of questions like, "I've been using Mandrake Linux for a month, but now I hear that there's a new version, called GNU/Linux. How is GNU/Linux better than Mandrake Linux, and where can I get a copy of it?"Personally, all of my free time is already spent working on my Web site, moderating forums, and trying to get people to finally start calling Post-its by their real name: 3M Post-it ® Brand Sticky Notes. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...