LinuxQuestions.org
Share your knowledge at the LQ Wiki.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


View Poll Results: Do you want a Linux with an Interview Style Install and Setup?
I'm a newbie/novice and Yes, I love that idea. thats just what Linux needs. 906 53.83%
I'm an occassional user, I don't care either way. 222 13.19%
I'm an experience/hardcore user and I don't need it to be any easier. I am happy with it the way it is. 555 32.98%
Voters: 1683. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
  Search this Thread
Old 03-13-2005, 08:28 AM   #1921
ahh
Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: UK
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 293

Rep: Reputation: 31

Quote:
Originally posted by amosf
Sure, but while linux IS used with GNU shell tools, it COULD be used with non-GNU shell tools. These shells interact with the kernel, not the hardware directly.
It certainly could, just as GNU tools could be used with a different kernel. These would make different OS's.

The clue is in the words "operating system".

The system, as is the case with all systems, is made up of various parts. The kernel is one of the parts, in this case the GNU tools are another part.

And of course the use of the word "operating" implies that you could operate the computer with this system. The kernel on its own, or indeed the GNU tools on their own, fail this criteria.
 
Old 03-13-2005, 08:35 AM   #1922
amosf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Distribution: Mandriva/Slack - KDE
Posts: 1,672

Rep: Reputation: 46
Yawn
 
Old 03-13-2005, 08:44 AM   #1923
JSpired
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Distribution: Slackware, Suse 9.2
Posts: 565

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by amosf
Yawn
Necessary post?
 
Old 03-13-2005, 08:50 AM   #1924
amosf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Distribution: Mandriva/Slack - KDE
Posts: 1,672

Rep: Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally posted by JSpired
Necessary post?
Necessary post?
 
Old 03-13-2005, 08:58 AM   #1925
ahh
Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: UK
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 293

Rep: Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally posted by amosf
Yawn
Damn, I hate when someone puts up an irrefutable argument that just blows my considered opinion out of the water.

I have now completely reversed my stand on this and will use this argument myself to show anyone who thought like me how wrong they are.

 
Old 03-13-2005, 09:08 AM   #1926
amosf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Distribution: Mandriva/Slack - KDE
Posts: 1,672

Rep: Reputation: 46
Well, can I put it this way... I've been seeing this stuff for almost 15 years now. It's just really really old and hard to get very enthusiastic about. Nothing personal.

Do we call it gnu, bsd, mit, qt, gtk, kde, etc linux?

Why not?

quiz 2. Was win3.1 an opperating system? Explain you answer...

etc.

It's also 1 am here in Australia. A yawn at that time of night is hardly unusual.
 
Old 03-13-2005, 09:44 AM   #1927
alanbe
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2005
Location: Kannapolis NC
Posts: 6

Rep: Reputation: 0
I am new to linux as well.

My latest attempt has been with Simply Mepis. I am using an old computer: 128mb AMD K6 400mz, 4 gig HD.

My windows XP machine is not a whole lot better: Del Optiplex GXA PII-233, 320 MB 40Gig HD.

With Mepis, you have a hobson's choice of desktops, so I just work to make KDE as fast as possible. Eliminating the mouse animations, removing services I don't need, etc.

I use open source on both machines where I can. Two programs I use surprised me with their perfomance on the supposedly slower Linux Machine: The Gimp, and Squeak - a smalltalk implementation.

Both the Gimp and Squeak are almost unusable on my windows machine, but they zip on the Mepis system. (the K6 is using a special adaptor to work on a higher voltage Socket 7 which originally held a Pentium procecessor, so I don't really believe the K6 is working at full potential).

I had given up on learning Squeak on my Windows XP machine, but I am enjoying the experience on my Mepis system.

Firefox renders pages faster on the mepis system. Initial program startup is slower, but once loaded, firefox zips.

OpenOffice is slower on the Mepis system, but I believe this is purely do to the low memory and the swapping going on.



Alanbe
 
Old 03-13-2005, 10:01 AM   #1928
ahh
Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: UK
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 293

Rep: Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally posted by amosf
Well, can I put it this way... I've been seeing this stuff for almost 15 years now. It's just really really old and hard to get very enthusiastic about. Nothing personal.
Thats cool, but not everyone has been seeing it for 15 years. To some this is new and interesting, and some people (e.g. me) like to know what is what.

Quote:
Originally posted by amosf
Do we call it gnu, bsd, mit, qt, gtk, kde, etc linux?

why not?
Obviously not, though you can start if you like. Maybe it will catch on. Though why anyone would want to add the name of a desktop manager or graphical toolkit to an OS is beyond me.

Quote:
Originally posted by amosf

quiz 2. Was win3.1 an opperating system? Explain you answer...
Ask Bill, he's the one who instigated it.

Actually, it was a product, it came with an OS though...

Quote:
Originally posted by amosf

It's also 1 am here in Australia. A yawn at that time of night is hardly unusual.
Its not unusual for me to yawn at any time, I need more fresh air and exercise.
 
Old 03-13-2005, 04:03 PM   #1929
amosf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Distribution: Mandriva/Slack - KDE
Posts: 1,672

Rep: Reputation: 46
"Thats cool, but not everyone has been seeing it for 15 years. To some this is new and interesting, and some people (e.g. me) like to know what is what."

Okay, then for some of us old timers the OS tends to be a very basic core (as in the old CP/M days and before) and most of the rest are apps that run on that OS core.... So with linux the majority of the 'OS' is linux which has GNU shells and was build with GNU tools...

The kernel is the hard part. If it was easy we wouldn't still have a HURD kernel that isn't of much real use even after a decade of developement.

"Obviously not, though you can start if you like. Maybe it will catch on. Though why anyone would want to add the name of a desktop manager or graphical toolkit to an OS is beyond me."

The point is the tools that most people call the OS these days come from more source than just GNU and RMS. For many people the 'OS' is not much use without the gui tools. They 'need' those tools to opperate the 'OS' so they are part of the 'OS' as far as they are concerned. In many ways they are correct. KDE IS a major part of the OS these days for most... So it's a all in the way you look at it...

You could call any OS a lot of things, so you tend to just call it either what the base is (linux, DOS) or the shell (KDE, windows3.1/95).

"Ask Bill, he's the one who instigated it.
Actually, it was a product, it came with an OS though..."

DOS was the OS, but win 3.1 had the tools, so to many win3.1 became the OS. win95 blurred the line more. Some people called it winDOS, but it all got a little silly

"Its not unusual for me to yawn at any time, I need more fresh air and exercise."

Yep, that probably goes for a lot of us...
 
Old 03-13-2005, 05:53 PM   #1930
ahh
Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: UK
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 293

Rep: Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally posted by amosf
"Thats cool, but not everyone has been seeing it for 15 years. To some this is new and interesting, and some people (e.g. me) like to know what is what."

Okay, then for some of us old timers the OS tends to be a very basic core (as in the old CP/M days and before) and most of the rest are apps that run on that OS core.... So with linux the majority of the 'OS' is linux which has GNU shells and was build with GNU tools...
Except, of course, even the early OS's consisted of more than a kernel. They still had an interface layer (did I realy say interface layer?!) by which the operator could communicate with the computer. It was just a lot simpler, and wasn't necessarily through a keyboard. Is RMS considered an old timer?

Quote:
Originally posted by amosf
The kernel is the hard part. If it was easy we wouldn't still have a HURD kernel that isn't of much real use even after a decade of developement.
Hats off to Linus then.

Quote:
Originally posted by amosf
The point is the tools that most people call the OS these days come from more source than just GNU and RMS. For many people the 'OS' is not much use without the gui tools. They 'need' those tools to opperate the 'OS' so they are part of the 'OS' as far as they are concerned. In many ways they are correct. KDE IS a major part of the OS these days for most... So it's a all in the way you look at it...
They would be correct if you could not operate the computer without it, and perhaps they don't realise you can. Does a common misconception make something right?

Quote:
Originally posted by amosf
You could call any OS a lot of things, so you tend to just call it either what the base is (linux, DOS) or the shell (KDE, windows3.1/95).
I can see a non geek end user would call Windows their operating system, I did the same, and MS encourage it through their advertising. I can see a geek would argue that in fact DOS was the operating system and Windows a graphical interface on top of it. Whoever was right, DOS is an operating system because you can operate a computer with it.

The confusion with Linux is because people are lazy and simply stopped calling it GNU/Linux and called it Linux for short. Linux used in this form is an operating system because you can operate a computer with it. Linux used to mean Linux the kernel isn't an operating system because you can't operate a computer with it.

As for calling your OS KDE, I've never heard it done. Mandrake, SuSE etc. yes.

I agree that people call OS's a lot of things, and in day to day conversation it is not important. But if someone is looking for help it is important that you know what a term means, that way you know you are both talking about the same thing and it saves time. If you tell someone to reload the OS and they reload KDE it could be a long conversation...
 
Old 03-13-2005, 08:02 PM   #1931
Deeze
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Distribution: Debian - Sarge -- Slackware 10.1 - Dropline
Posts: 154

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by amosf
KDE IS a major part of the OS these days for most... So it's a all in the way you look at it...
Ewwwww. KDE isn't ANY part of my OS, much less a major part. I certainly would not define a desktop environment that is not even neccessary to have installed (nor sometimes even wanted) as a part of the OS. In fact one of the criteria in my choice of distro is that it *not* be a KDE centric distro.
 
Old 03-13-2005, 08:06 PM   #1932
amosf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Distribution: Mandriva/Slack - KDE
Posts: 1,672

Rep: Reputation: 46
"Except, of course, even the early OS's consisted of more than a kernel. They still had an interface layer (did I realy say interface layer?!) by which the operator could communicate with the computer. It was just a lot simpler, and wasn't necessarily through a keyboard. Is RMS considered an old timer?"

In DOS you just had apps that ran. even command.com was just an app. It depends on where you draw the line. My point is you either just call it linux or you call it a variety of things. GNU tools are just another part of many.

And RMS feels that he doesn't get the recognition that someone like linus got and he's not happy about it. That's life. I'd be happily using HURD if he would have used a similar model to the linux kernel, but people chose to do it differently. One way worked better (or at least faster) than the other and sure, hurd may end up better and less chaotic, but linux is out there working.

"They would be correct if you could not operate the computer without it, and perhaps they don't realise you can. Does a common misconception make something right?"

Different people see it differently to others. Right and wrong differ according to point of view. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Everyone is going to take a different position here. With win95 you had to have the gui to run the OS. Was it all the OS or was it really DOS with a shell and an extra couple of DLL's... In the end it doesn't matter. The OS was called win95. But you COULD use just the DOS part to run the PC in theory... And in practice actually.

"The confusion with Linux is because people are lazy and simply stopped calling it GNU/Linux and called it Linux for short. Linux used in this form is an operating system because you can operate a computer with it. Linux used to mean Linux the kernel isn't an operating system because you can't operate a computer with it."

I have 'used' linux since the very early days, even before my 'official' use started in 1995. I always called it linux. I knew it was build using GNU tools and ran GNU tools but still called it linux. It could get messy otherwise with things like MacOS/Darwin and win95/DOS and so forth. People come up with a common name and the common useage is what the OS gets called.

The OS these days is indeed becoming mandrake and FC and such, and so we use the main core of these to call them the linux operating systems. Most of the tools in the OS these days are just based on the original RMS stuff anyway and have been forked every which way.

It works, who cares what it's called. But just typing linux or hurd is a lot easier regardless of what you think the OS is.
 
Old 03-13-2005, 08:13 PM   #1933
amosf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Distribution: Mandriva/Slack - KDE
Posts: 1,672

Rep: Reputation: 46
"Ewwwww. KDE isn't ANY part of my OS, much less a major part. I certainly would not define a desktop environment that is not even neccessary to have installed (nor sometimes even wanted) as a part of the OS. In fact one of the criteria in my choice of distro is that it *not* be a KDE centric distro."

It's a point of view. If someone uses KDE on xorg on bash on linux, then he uses disk tools and filemanagers and all the rest to operate his computer - ie organize and compute data... As far as he is concerned it's an OS. The same could be said about gnome. I don't necessarily agree, but can certainly see how something like Mandrake could be defined as an OS. You may not feel you need KDE installed to use the OS. Others would disagree and be lost without it

And you don't like KDE. Fine. The beauty of the linux group of 'OS's' means you don't have to. It's TS if you don't like the windows interface

I've used linux from early on with a CLI to fvwm to KDE. I'll use whatever I want and I don't have a problem with using a GUI. Other purists like CLI only or have to have a light wm... I don't have that problem or need. Each to their own.
 
Old 03-13-2005, 11:48 PM   #1934
ahh
Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: UK
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 293

Rep: Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally posted by amosf
In DOS you just had apps that ran. even command.com was just an app.
App is just another name for executable or program. The kernel is just an app too. I dont see your point.

Quote:
Originally posted by amosf
Different people see it differently to others. Right and wrong differ according to point of view. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Everyone is going to take a different position here.
It's not about right or wrong, it's about agreeing on a definition of a term (or phrase). Would you be happy to get tea instead of coffee because a waiter called all hot drinks tea? Or would he not be wrong?

Quote:
Originally posted by amosf
I have 'used' linux since the very early days, even before my 'official' use started in 1995. I always called it linux. I knew it was build using GNU tools and ran GNU tools but still called it linux. It could get messy otherwise with things like MacOS/Darwin and win95/DOS and so forth. People come up with a common name and the common useage is what the OS gets called.
Thank you for repeating my point,
Quote:
Originally posted by ahh
The confusion with Linux is because people are lazy and simply stopped calling it GNU/Linux and called it Linux for short. Linux used in this form is an operating system because you can operate a computer with it. Linux used to mean Linux the kernel isn't an operating system because you can't operate a computer with it.
Quote:
Originally posted by amosf
It works, who cares what it's called. But just typing linux or hurd is a lot easier regardless of what you think the OS is.
It's not important what you call it, as long as there's no confusion as to what you are refering to in the context it's used. It is more important, for example when troubleshooting, that both people agree what terms mean. If it is suggested that you upgrade your OS and you upgrade your kernel it wont have the desired effect.
 
Old 03-14-2005, 12:21 AM   #1935
amosf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Distribution: Mandriva/Slack - KDE
Posts: 1,672

Rep: Reputation: 46
"It's not about right or wrong, it's about agreeing on a definition of a term (or phrase). Would you be happy to get tea instead of coffee because a waiter called all hot drinks tea? Or would he not be wrong?"

I don't have a different name for tea with and without milk and/or sugar tho. Get my point? I still just call it tea, not sugar/tea or milk/tea... I just say tea, with milk and sugar please... Like my linux, with GNU tools and xorg and KDE please.

"It's not important what you call it, as long as there's no confusion as to what you are refering to in the context it's used. It is more important, for example when troubleshooting, that both people agree what terms mean. If it is suggested that you upgrade your OS and you upgrade your kernel it wont have the desired effect."

Exactly. There is no confusion in calling linux linux, and upgrading the kernel is essentially upgrading the OS as it contains the drivers and filesystem comtrol and memory management and VFS and all the important OS systems. You can keep the old shell tools and upgrade the OS for new hardware just by upgrading the kernel. So in my book that makes it the OS, or at least the core of the OS.

You think different, that's okay. It doesn't make any difference to the world of linux or who uses it and so forth. But perhaps you can list exactly which components should be called the OS so we know where we stand. Where do you draw the line? bash? ls? fdisk? All the items in /sbin, /usr/sbin maybe, vi, emacs, xorg?

If I say I upgraded my linux OS however, the general feeling in these days and times is that means I went from mandrake 10 to mandrake 10.1... Things (and language and definitions) move along with time.

Now if I am having trouble with hardware, chances are I just need a module or kernel upgrade. If it's a lib problem then we might suggest a distro upgrade. When we get technical we really don't use the term 'OS' as it doesn't mean much at all. We tend to talk about the actual component, kernel, module, library, binary, source, distro, etc, etc...

"The confusion with Linux is because people are lazy and simply stopped calling it GNU/Linux and called it Linux for short. Linux used in this form is an operating system because you can operate a computer with it. Linux used to mean Linux the kernel isn't an operating system because you can't operate a computer with it."

My point is that I didn't start calling it one thing and then 'get lazy' and call it something else. It was always simply linux. Just as BSD in just BSD and hurd is hurd. Simple enough. I don't call it GNU/Hurd either, tho I know some do... And that is REALLY silly when you think about it.
 
  


Closed Thread

Tags
cups, guide


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
General question while running make "make[2]: *** [main.o] Error 1" matazar42 Linux - Software 3 08-15-2005 12:39 PM
Ethic Question:Do we have an obligation to make our technology easier djgerbavore General 18 03-04-2005 12:10 AM
Make linux easier? bolinux General 43 10-20-2003 10:22 PM
General commands to make an ISO mrsolo Linux - Software 7 10-10-2003 12:42 AM
LQ Population X11 General 32 04-17-2002 09:01 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:03 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration