Because Shiny Things Are Fun - The New New Windows v Linux Thread

Originally Posted by brianL Microsoft fanboy trolling around.

Please don't adapt the fact that Linuxians are fanboys to other systems. We are not fanboys of anything.

fanboys of anything

Just generators of loads of hot air???

Originally Posted by YesItsMe Please don't adapt the fact that Linuxians are fanboys to other systems. We are not fanboys of anything.

Well, the way you've been praising Windows in this thread certainly gives that impression. We? Is there more than one of you, or are you royalty?

Originally Posted by Mill J I really doubt anybody disagrees that BSD is more secure but then again doesn't it use mostly Linux software? like desktops etc?

What you call "Linux software" is not actually Linux software (technically the Linux kernel is Linux software). X.org for example, is not "Linux software", to name just one. There are of course some very "Linux proprietary" pieces of software which are designed specifically for "Linux" or the Linux kernel and where the developers specifically don't want to target other UNIX type OS (one obvious example of this would be systemd of course), but this does not constitute the majority of packages you'd find in the repositories of a typical Linux distribution. Many of such software is not even released under the typical GPL licences, but under BSD, ISC, MIT, etc, "permissive" licences.

"BSD" is also a fallacious term. BSD is long since discontinued, though there are operating systems descended from BSD, such as NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and DragonFly BSD - but these have diverged considerably.

You are correct however that the "*BSDs" can optionally use some of the same 3rd party software installed via "ports" that is commonly found on Linux distributions. But much of this is also available for Windows and macOS, as well as some other OS. The base system of any given *BSD is not GNU however. The *BSDs are complete operating systems rather than just a kernel.

Originally Posted by Mill J This thread is not about Mac, but here goes. Mac has drifted pretty far from its bsd roots, however an open source version of it is being worked on here. http://www.puredarwin.org It doesn't claim to be bsd

Darwin itself is open source anyway. The one you link to is a 3rd party effort, which seems to be something similar to the old OpenDarwin project. (They can't release it under a different license.)

Originally Posted by cynwulf What you call "Linux software" is not actually Linux software (technically the Linux kernel is Linux software). X.org for example, is not "Linux software", to name just one

Please, give a guy a break. You know what I meant and everybody else in the thread knows what I meant.

By the way. If you go to a website for software that supports Linux, you'll see Runs On Linux, not Runs on Ubuntu, Mint, Arch, suse, slackware, tiny core etc,etc,etc and so on for a whole page.

Originally Posted by Trihexagonal ...The Crazy Uncle, maybe. With my "FreeBSD Power To Serve" T-shirt, table talk with my nieces about how to deal with someone performing a DOS on one of their friends PS4 and what he must have considered controversial computer subjects conversed so casually among clan...

More information about the conversation PLEASE The only controversy I can think of is the init system which must not be named? Or is there another?

My sister's kids' significant others consider me The Zealot rather than crazy.

Originally Posted by fido_dogstoyevsky More information about the conversation PLEASE The only controversy I can think of is the init system which must not be named? Or is there another? My sister's kids' significant others consider me The Zealot rather than crazy.

Well, in addition to defining and advising them on options available to dealing with the Denial of Service attack, according to my bother-in-law his daughters were all big fans of Napster and we talked a bit along those lines. He used to worry the Feds would come knocking on his door because they once had over 4000 songs on their computers. It was common knowledge and something we all considered normal conversation.

It didn't occur to me at the time his parents were attorneys and talk of Copyright Infringement, piracy and hacking were probably not topics he was used to hearing in that context at the dinner table. He did look a little peaked, and left the table while we were all still eating pizza. I picked up on it right away then.

I think his headache left around the same time I did.

Originally Posted by Trihexagonal ...It didn't occur to me at the time his parents were attorneys and talk of Copyright Infringement, piracy and hacking were probably not topics he was used to hearing in that context at the dinner table. He did look a little peaked, and left the table while we were all still eating pizza. I picked up on it right away then...

Copyright - one of my favourite hobby horses. The younglings (when they were young) had trouble understanding how I could so forcefully criticise copyright legislation and yet avoid unlicensed copying myself*.

Originally Posted by Trihexagonal ...I think his headache left around the same time I did.

I always put that down to a generational difference

*Not so much "the law is the law", but more "don't give up the moral high ground if you want to win".

Originally Posted by Mill J Please, give a guy a break. You know what I meant and everybody else in the thread knows what I meant.

You may have missed my point. I was not making the "Linux is a kernel" point, if that's what you've assumed? My response was to this comment:

Originally Posted by Mill J I really doubt anybody disagrees that BSD is more secure but then again doesn't it use mostly Linux software? like desktops etc?

You have implied that "desktops etc" are "Linux software" in that you've led me to believe that you consider "desktops etc" to be "Linux software"? My response was to the effect that most "desktops" - i.e. windows managers and X itself were not developed for Linux. In the case of X, it pre-dates Linux as do many window managers and lots of other software.

My point being that there is no "Linux software" as such, except for perhaps certain bits of plumbing, which are developed specifically for the Linux kernel.

Originally Posted by Mill J By the way. If you go to a website for software that supports Linux, you'll see Runs On Linux, not Runs on Ubuntu, Mint, Arch, suse, slackware, tiny core etc,etc,etc and so on for a whole page.

Not exactly sure how that's relevant?

Pretty good thread on my feelings about microsoft.

https://forum.mxlinux.org/viewtopic.php?f=107&t=45574

This type of apparatus is designed to only allow Windows with a signed Secure boot installation to run from hard disk drive. You can successfully run Live Linux distros like MX from USB if you can turn off secure boot, but the device will fail to operate the bootloader if it is installed to hard disk because it does not contain a signed boot file. This is a design requirement forced on manufacturers by Microsoft through their OEM licensing agreement for sealed portable devices such as tablets and the like. There have been some manufacturers who have left a back door open that allows a user to over-ride this obstacle, but they risk being "all but put out of business" by Microsoft if discovered.

I say screw micro$oft and the OEMs. I believe if you paid with your hard earn money on a computer or laptop, you should do whatever you want with it even if you void the warranty.

I've installed linux twice with two laptops. I was able to disable secure boot and switch to legacy mode AND was able to install linux on it.

The only laptops that isn't too easy to do this on are chromebooks. You have to switch to developer mode and install croutons along side of chromeOS. Bumper

Originally Posted by tecjykidd I say screw micro$oft and the OEMs. I believe if you paid with your hard earn money on a computer or laptop, you should do whatever you want with it even if you void the warranty. [...] The only laptops that isn't too easy to do this on are chromebooks.

You can of course throw your computer off a bridge if you don't mind voiding the warranty.

It's interesting that you can still get Linux, *BSDs and some other OS, to install on most x86 hardware (for the time being) just by disabling secureboot and/or switching to legacy boot, etc. But as you've pointed out, it's not so easy with devices which were shipped with ChomeOS or Android. google have locked those devices down to the extent where nothing but the original google provided OS will install and run. This is equivalent to, if not far worse than, what MS are doing, or plan to do, with Windows 10 and OEMs.

The fact that 'BSD or Linux users, for example, can install the OS on anything at all is a bonus. As we've seen with Android and Apple smartphones, the OEM/vendor often does not see the need to facilitate an alternative OS install.

Some Linux fans wilfully ignore this, because many consider Android to be "Linux" and google are not Microsoft.

Originally Posted by cynwulf It's interesting that you can still get Linux, *BSDs and some other OS, to install on most x86 hardware (for the time being) just by disabling secureboot and/or switching to legacy boot, etc. But as you've pointed out, it's not so easy with devices which were shipped with ChomeOS or Android. google have locked those devices down to the extent where nothing but the original google provided OS will install and run. This is equivalent to, if not far worse than, what MS are doing, or plan to do, with Windows 10 and OEMs.

So true. Sometimes we can forget that google can be more malevolent than microsoft at times.

Originally Posted by tecjykidd So true. Sometimes we can forget that google can be more malevolent than microsoft at times.

I seem to have a bigger problem remembering that not everybody has access to the information the average Linux user has and some people don't even know.

Another thing I completely take for granted is that I routinely install on external media or put my hard drives in enclosures after installing Linux. It's no big deal to switch/share computers because our "stuff" is not tied to specific hardware.

Mostly I'm able to interface with non-Linux users with Sopranica or maybe a few little white lies about using my brain instead of the imaginary smartphone they automatically assume I have. Sometimes I forget how bad it really is out there for "average joes" who were less fortunate than myself. Sometimes I don't know who to thank for the fact that I was randomly spared.

Originally Posted by cynwulf You can of course throw your computer off a bridge if you don't mind voiding the warranty. It's interesting that you can still get Linux, *BSDs and some other OS, to install on most x86 hardware (for the time being) just by disabling secureboot and/or switching to legacy boot, etc. But as you've pointed out, it's not so easy with devices which were shipped with ChomeOS or Android. google have locked those devices down to the extent where nothing but the original google provided OS will install and run. This is equivalent to, if not far worse than, what MS are doing, or plan to do, with Windows 10 and OEMs. The fact that 'BSD or Linux users, for example, can install the OS on anything at all is a bonus. As we've seen with Android and Apple smartphones, the OEM/vendor often does not see the need to facilitate an alternative OS install. Some Linux fans wilfully ignore this, because many consider Android to be "Linux" and google are not Microsoft.

This makes a case for older hardware staying in use. Software vendors mating hardware to their OS is nothing new (Mac), but for those of us running Linux or a BSD derivative, having OS agnostic hardware is essential. I refuse to buy PC hardware that will not run Linux. Fortunately, there are a lot of both smart, and rebellious folks out there if it comes down to modding hardware to run Linux, or producing hardware to run Linux. I don't think even microsoft can or wants to, kill off Linux because frankly, the Internet depends on it. They may try to force OEMs into building strictly for windows 10 but I don't think that will succeed in terms of shutting out Linux PCs. Microsoft did have a project called "TCM" (?) which stood for "trusted computing module" (I may have that wrong). Hardware level checks to see if your OS is "signed" and you are virus free and your "signed" OS is up to date. That has big brother written all over it because it gives complete control over a computer to the OEM and OS vendor. I call that "treacherous computing".

As I mentioned, there will always be rebels out there who buck the system. More power to those who take the path less traveled and keep our freedom.

Sorry, that was a rant...