LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
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


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 07-07-2017, 10:33 AM   #61
Mr. Macintosh
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2015
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 296

Rep: Reputation: 60

Quote:
Originally Posted by sycamorex View Post
Linux is american - I doubt it
Linux is Finnish - other than that it belongs to all of us
Well, part of it is. Linux is composed of two parts: 1. GNU and 2. The Linux kernel. The Linux kernel was written by Linus Torvalds, who is from Finland. But the GNU project was started by Richard Stallman, from Massachusetts. He started it because he wanted a free operating system, one which could be modified by any programmer instead of just the company which owns the source code. That desire for freedom is very American. For capitalism to work correctly (or at least fairly), innovations are necessary, and it's hard to innovate when you don't understand the thing you're improving. That's why patents expire after 20 years - to give someone else a shot at improving it. Also, Linux is capitalistic in the sense that it allows you to use pretty much whatever hardware you want - in direct contrast to Apple.

Don't get wrong - I used to think Apple was an awesome company. But then their hardware went downhill a few years ago, particularly as regards repairability and upgradability. Only being able to run MacOS on Mac hardware wasn't a problem for me back when they made good hardware. But now that they don't, it's a big problem for me. And this is why I'm moving towards Linux.

Sure, I could make a Hackintosh, but it's a lot more work than it's worth and it would be a bit like polishing the brass on the Titanic - I might as well go the extra mile and switch to Linux. In my view, macOS is dying, and I'd like to get out before it dies. Besides, I'd like to be able to use better hardware and I don't want to have to go through a lot of hacks - including modifying Linux drivers to get them working on MacOS. It'll actually be easier to switch to Linux, especially in the long run.

Last edited by Mr. Macintosh; 07-17-2017 at 10:45 AM.
 
Old 07-17-2017, 08:15 AM   #62
YesItsMe
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2014
Posts: 711

Rep: Reputation: 264Reputation: 264Reputation: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Macintosh View Post
Linux is composed of two parts: 1. GNU and 2. The Linux kernel.
GNU is not a part of Linux, neither is Linux a part of GNU. Linux is, at best, one of the kernels for the GNU operating system, but not tied to it in any way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Macintosh View Post
That desire for freedom is very American.
US-American export laws specifically disallow to export strong cryptography to certain countries. This is quite the opposite of freedom.
 
Old 07-17-2017, 08:28 AM   #63
Mr. Macintosh
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2015
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 296

Rep: Reputation: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by YesItsMe View Post
GNU is not a part of Linux, neither is Linux a part of GNU. Linux is, at best, one of the kernels for the GNU operating system, but not tied to it in any way.
I know. GNU is most of the OS and Linux is the kernel. I've watched the Revolution OS movie.

Technically, you're right. The proper name is either GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux. But it's a lot easier to refer to the whole thing as "Linux". Besides, the Linux kernel came before the HURD kernel, and so it is the most commonly used kernel. As far as I know, very few Linux users use the HURD kernel.

Code:
Development on the Hurd began in 1990 after an abandoned kernel attempt in 1986, based on the research TRIX operating system developed by Professor Steve Ward and his group at MIT's Laboratory for Computer Science (LCS).[11] According to Thomas Bushnell, the initial Hurd architect, their early plan was to adapt the 4.4BSD-Lite kernel and, in hindsight, "It is now perfectly obvious to me that this would have succeeded splendidly and the world would be a very different place today".[12] In 1987 Richard Stallman proposed using the Mach microkernel developed at Carnegie Mellon University. Work on this was delayed for three years due to uncertainty over whether CMU would release the Mach code under a suitable license.[11]
With the release of the Linux kernel in 1991, the primary user of GNU's userland components soon became operating systems based on the Linux kernel (Linux distributions), prompting the coining of the term GNU/Linux.
Development of the Hurd has proceeded slowly. Despite an optimistic announcement by Stallman in 2002 predicting a release of GNU/Hurd later that year,[13] the Hurd is still not considered suitable for production environments. Development in general has not met expectations, and there are still a significant number of bugs and missing features.[14] This has resulted in a poorer product than many (including Stallman) had expected.[15] In 2010, after twenty years under development, Stallman said that he was "not very optimistic about the GNU Hurd. It makes some progress, but to be really superior it would require solving a lot of deep problems", but added that "finishing it is not crucial" for the GNU system because a free kernel already existed (Linux), and completing Hurd would not address the main remaining problem for a free operating system: device support.[16]
The Debian project, among others, have worked on the Hurd project to produce binary distributions of Hurd-based GNU operating systems for IBM PC compatible systems.
After years of stagnation, development picked up again in 2015 and 2016, with four releases during these two years.[17]
On August 20, 2015, amid the Google Summer of Code, it was announced that GNU Guix had been ported to GNU Hurd,[18] making it the first native package manager on the Hurd.[19] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd
Most Linux users use the Linux kernel. When most Linux folks see "Linux" they mean "GNU/Linux". From that perspective, GNU is part of Linux. To most Linux users, Linux is the whole, comprised of GNU and the Linux kernel.

Why is it that every time a "free software" advocate sees "Linux" unaccompanied by "GNU/", they have to correct everyone on it?

I'm sorry if that sounded mean - I didn't intend for it to offend. I just find that "GNU/Linux" correction annoying.

Last edited by Mr. Macintosh; 07-17-2017 at 08:35 AM.
 
Old 07-17-2017, 08:38 AM   #64
YesItsMe
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2014
Posts: 711

Rep: Reputation: 264Reputation: 264Reputation: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Macintosh View Post
Besides, the Linux kernel came before the HURD kernel, and so it is the most commonly used kernel.
The HURD kernel came first, but it was not finished. A correlation is not a causality: "It has been there first" is not a valid reason for "most people use it". The BSD operating system was there 14 years before the Linux kernel...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Macintosh View Post
As far as I know, very few Linux users use the HURD kernel. (...) Most Linux users use the Linux kernel.
Technically, no Linux user does not use the Linux kernel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Macintosh View Post
Why is it that every time a "free software" advocate sees "Linux" unaccompanied by "GNU/", they have to correct everyone on it?
I am not a free software avocado, err, advocate. I prefer technically good software to ethically good software. But my actual point was not "it's GNU/Linux, hurr durr!", it was "Linux is not American but GNU is", referring to the OP. (The Linux Foundation seems to be American though.)

What does that mean for strong Linux crypto?
 
Old 07-17-2017, 08:52 AM   #65
Mr. Macintosh
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2015
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 296

Rep: Reputation: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by YesItsMe View Post
The HURD kernel came first, but it was not finished. A correlation is not a causality: "It has been there first" is not a valid reason for "most people use it". The BSD operating system was there 14 years before the Linux kernel...



Technically, no Linux user does not use the Linux kernel.



I am not a free software avocado, err, advocate. I prefer technically good software to ethically good software. But my actual point was not "it's GNU/Linux, hurr durr!", it was "Linux is not American but GNU is", referring to the OP. (The Linux Foundation seems to be American though.)

What does that mean for strong Linux crypto?
1. HURD was started first, but Stallman and his team chose a very complex design which was too difficult to be able to finish in a reasonable amount of time. Linus Torvalds finished his kernel in 1991 and made it open source in 1992. Because it was finished much sooner, the Linux kernel became the kernel used in all Linux distributions, even gNewSense and Parabola. Some distributions (i.e. Debian) have versions which use the HURD kernel for those who want it, but most folks just go with the Linux kernel.

2. Exactly. Everyone uses the Linux kernel.

3. That's interesting. It's usually free software advocates who make that sort of correction. But regardless, I'm glad that like me, you're interested in open-source due to practicality instead of philosophy -at least we have something in common. Well, that and correcting people - I often correct people's spelling, grammar, and sometimes their pronunciation (I'm not kidding), but that pretty much stops in the realm of software. I mean, does anyone say Apache OpenOffice or Apple iCloud or Microsoft Outlook? How many people say Apple Mac OS X [insert version number] or Microsoft Windows [insert version number]?
 
Old 07-17-2017, 09:06 AM   #66
YesItsMe
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2014
Posts: 711

Rep: Reputation: 264Reputation: 264Reputation: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Macintosh View Post
1. HURD was started first, but Stallman and his team chose a very complex design which was too difficult to be able to finish in a reasonable amount of time.
As far as I know, there are currently three (?) concurring microkernel designs for the HURD. While there is a (somewhat) usable GNU/Hurd operating system as of today (with a number of distributions, the most popular probably being Debian GNU/Hurd), I would not suggest to assume that this is its final incarnation. The grass is always greener on the other side.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Macintosh View Post
Because it was finished much sooner, the Linux kernel became the kernel used in all Linux distributions, even gNewSense and Parabola.
Did you mean "GNU distributions"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Macintosh View Post
most folks just go with the Linux kernel.
Yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Macintosh View Post
I'm glad that like me, you're interested in open-source due to practicality instead of philosophy -at least we have something in common.
Contra! Practicality is not really an open-source advantage (most FLOSS heavily suffers from too many developers trying to find a consensus).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Macintosh View Post
I mean, does anyone say Apache OpenOffice or Apple iCloud or Microsoft Outlook?
Does anyone say "Red Hat Linux"? Oh, wait ...

There are no rivaling OpenOffice, iCloud or Outlook providers. Your analogy might be wrong.
 
Old 07-17-2017, 09:20 AM   #67
Mr. Macintosh
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2015
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 296

Rep: Reputation: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by YesItsMe View Post
As far as I know, there are currently three (?) concurring microkernel designs for the HURD. While there is a (somewhat) usable GNU/Hurd operating system as of today (with a number of distributions, the most popular probably being Debian GNU/Hurd), I would not suggest to assume that this is its final incarnation. The grass is always greener on the other side.



Did you mean "GNU distributions"?



Yet.



Contra! Practicality is not really an open-source advantage (most FLOSS heavily suffers from too many developers trying to find a consensus).



Does anyone say "Red Hat Linux"? Oh, wait ...

There are no rivaling OpenOffice, iCloud or Outlook providers. Your analogy might be wrong.
Alright, you've got me on the number of kernels. But still, most folks just use the Linux kernel.

Sure, if you want to be picky.

Yeah, so far, the Linux kernel is the prevailing kernel for GNU/Linux.

I concur that open-source does have the issue of having many programs for the same task and too many distributions. But there actually are some advantages to open-source. For starters, there's no licensing to deal with - you can install on as many computers as you want. You can also improve open source software. If there's a bug, you can fix it yourself instead of hoping the company that made the program will fix it. You can make your own version of an open-source program. Another benefit is that because the source code is out there for anybody to read, it's very unlikely that there's going to be any malicious code in it. It's also a lot easier and safer to install open source software on a GNU/Linux system than it is on Windows because it's all in repositories - keeps you from having to search the web for software. Also, if someone drops an open source project, someone else can pick it up. The same cannot be said of proprietary software.

From the point of view that there aren't any alternatives which share the name, you're right. There's no Apple Outlook or Microsoft iCloud. But that's still kind of my point. I mean, who uses HURD?

That's not the same thing. When someone says Linux, they mean GNU/Linux in general. But they can always specify a distribution. For example, Debian Linux, Ubuntu Linux, Gentoo Linux, Linux Mint. Saying GNU/Linux instead of Linux means that you're specifying that you're using the Linux kernel - even though pretty much all Linux users use the Linux kernel.

Last edited by Mr. Macintosh; 07-17-2017 at 09:25 AM.
 
Old 07-17-2017, 09:32 AM   #68
YesItsMe
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2014
Posts: 711

Rep: Reputation: 264Reputation: 264Reputation: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Macintosh View Post
there's no licensing to deal with
Depends. The GNU licenses are actually rather restrictive from a developer's POV. The end user, on the other hand, does not have any advantage of being able to read the code. For most people on this planet, Open Source software is just another form of freeware. Just another thing which is severely misunderstood by most GNU/Linux advocates...

"Grandma, you can read the code! So much better than Windows!"
"The what?"



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Macintosh View Post
If there's a bug, you can fix it yourself instead of hoping the company that made the program will fix it.
And if your distributor ignores your fix, you can fix it over and over again until your very death. Oh joy!

In opposite to Windows (sorry if this wrongly looks like a flame - it is just the most obvious opposite), Open Source developers usually don't really lose anything from bad quality. If Microsoft wouldn't pay a lot of people for continuous professional code reviews, they'd lose real money because highly paid contracts could be lost. If (e.g.) Canonical just continued to release bad software and people stopped using their stuff, nobody would even notice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Macintosh View Post
You can make your own version of an open-source program.
Depends on the license.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Macintosh View Post
Another benefit is that because the source code is out there for anybody to read, it's very unlikely that there's going to be any malicious code in it.
- Not everyone can read and understand all relevant programming languages.
- Not everyone who can read C code will notice well-hidden backdoors in complex C code.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Macintosh View Post
It's also a lot easier and safer to install open source software on a GNU/Linux system than it is on Windows because it's all in repositories - keeps you from having to search the web for software.
http://www.chocolatey.org

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Macintosh View Post
I mean, who uses HURD?
I probably would if it was good enough. My computer is a tool to get things done, not a place to embody my ethics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Macintosh View Post
When someone says Linux, they mean GNU/Linux in general.
What about Android? Linux kernel, NetBSD userland, Java VM.
 
Old 07-17-2017, 09:59 AM   #69
Mr. Macintosh
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2015
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 296

Rep: Reputation: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by YesItsMe View Post
Depends. The GNU licenses are actually rather restrictive from a developer's POV. The end user, on the other hand, does not have any advantage of being able to read the code. For most people on this planet, Open Source software is just another form of freeware. Just another thing which is severely misunderstood by most GNU/Linux advocates...

"Grandma, you can read the code! So much better than Windows!"
"The what?"





And if your distributor ignores your fix, you can fix it over and over again until your very death. Oh joy!

In opposite to Windows (sorry if this wrongly looks like a flame - it is just the most obvious opposite), Open Source developers usually don't really lose anything from bad quality. If Microsoft wouldn't pay a lot of people for continuous professional code reviews, they'd lose real money because highly paid contracts could be lost. If (e.g.) Canonical just continued to release bad software and people stopped using their stuff, nobody would even notice.



Depends on the license.



- Not everyone can read and understand all relevant programming languages.
- Not everyone who can read C code will notice well-hidden backdoors in complex C code.



http://www.chocolatey.org



I probably would if it was good enough. My computer is a tool to get things done, not a place to embody my ethics.



What about Android? Linux kernel, NetBSD userland, Java VM.
Yeah, some licenses can be difficult to work with. And yeah, if something is open-source you can't use it in a proprietary program without paying for license/exception.

Yeah, I know most people don't care about being able to see the source code. I know, it's only a big deal for programmers. But it is useful for non-programmers because it generally makes the software more secure by making a lot less likely that someone will hide some malicious code in a program.

Yeah, there is the possibility of your fix being ignored. But you could always start your own fork. Or in the very least, you could ask why your fix is being denied.

Yeah, this is true. Open-source developers don't have the motive of profit to motivate them to make good software.

That's a good point - not everyone reads every programming language. I actually hadn't thought of that. A lot of programmers might be familiar with a handful of languages - i.e. C++, Java, Python, JavaScript.

Yeah, it's also true that there might be a backdoor which is so well hidden that very few people will find them. That's why I said that it's very unlikely that open source software will contain malware - instead of saying that it's impossible.

Yeah, I've heard of that. I just meant compared to software like Adobe CC, MS Office, et cetera. Additionally, you can create blocks of Bash commands for installing a lot of software quickly.


Not being good enough isn't the point I was arguing, but you're right. A lot of free software advocates (Stallman included) would probably use HURD if it was good enough.

In the case of other systems which utilize the Linux kernel, if someone was talking about the kernel itself, they would say "Linux kernel" instead of just "Linux". This saves a lot of time for most folks. It's a lot easier to say "Linux" than "GNU/Linux". I'd rather say "Linux" and have people talking about the kernel specify that they're talking about the kernel than cause myself and others the inconvenience of saying "GNU/Linux". But this is just one of those debates which can tear apart the open-source/free software community.

But regarding the disadvantages of open-source software, I'll save some time by providing a link to an article I wrote about the issue months ago: http://jbmachelp.000webhostapp.com/m...h-by-josh.html

Last edited by Mr. Macintosh; 07-17-2017 at 10:01 AM.
 
Old 07-17-2017, 10:24 AM   #70
YesItsMe
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2014
Posts: 711

Rep: Reputation: 264Reputation: 264Reputation: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Macintosh View Post
Yeah, there is the possibility of your fix being ignored. But you could always start your own fork. Or in the very least, you could ask why your fix is being denied.
As we are on a Slackware-related forum, should I mention systemd whose team's standard resolution is "WONTFIX"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Macintosh View Post
it's very unlikely that open source software will contain malware
Counter-examples can be found in the "Linux: Security" forums here on LQ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Macintosh View Post
A lot of free software advocates (Stallman included) would probably use HURD if it was good enough.
I wonder why he does not even try. He must have become grumpy over time.

(Sorry for being short this time; almost going home.)
 
Old 07-17-2017, 10:40 AM   #71
Mr. Macintosh
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2015
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 296

Rep: Reputation: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by YesItsMe View Post
As we are on a Slackware-related forum, should I mention systemd whose team's standard resolution is "WONTFIX"?



Counter-examples can be found in the "Linux: Security" forums here on LQ.



I wonder why he does not even try. He must have become grumpy over time.

(Sorry for being short this time; almost going home.)
I was not aware of that. I'll amend my statement. In most cases, you can submit a fix to a program and your fix will be added.

I'll have to check that out later.

I guess he figures that since there's already an alternative to HURD, there's not much point in working on an alternative. It might because he figures that the Linux kernel is too entrenched for anyone to switch to HURD. Another possibility is that he is trying to prevent a duplication of effort. As we've stated before, one of the biggest problems with open-source software is the duplication of effort caused by having many different programs for the same jobs and having many different distributions.
 
Old 07-17-2017, 10:43 AM   #72
YesItsMe
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2014
Posts: 711

Rep: Reputation: 264Reputation: 264Reputation: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Macintosh View Post
Another possibility is that he is trying to prevent a duplication of effort.
If this was the case, he could have stopped the GNU project when the complete operating system 4.3BSD ("Net/1") was released as Free Software. He did not.
 
Old 07-17-2017, 10:47 AM   #73
Mr. Macintosh
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2015
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 296

Rep: Reputation: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by YesItsMe View Post
If this was the case, he could have stopped the GNU project when the complete operating system 4.3BSD ("Net/1") was released as Free Software. He did not.
Good point. I guess it's possible that he GNU (pun intended) that GNU had a future, while HURD didn't have much of one.
 
Old 07-17-2017, 11:10 AM   #74
DavidMcCann
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Jul 2006
Location: London
Distribution: PCLinuxOS, Xubuntu
Posts: 5,743

Rep: Reputation: 2128Reputation: 2128Reputation: 2128Reputation: 2128Reputation: 2128Reputation: 2128Reputation: 2128Reputation: 2128Reputation: 2128Reputation: 2128Reputation: 2128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Macintosh View Post
Linux is composed of two parts: 1. GNU and 2. The Linux kernel.
Usually, but not always. I've used Linux without GNU: you can use BusyBox, as in Alpine or Tiny Core.
 
Old 07-17-2017, 11:12 AM   #75
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: Walsall, UK
Posts: 2,600
Blog Entries: 7

Rep: Reputation: 2080Reputation: 2080Reputation: 2080Reputation: 2080Reputation: 2080Reputation: 2080Reputation: 2080Reputation: 2080Reputation: 2080Reputation: 2080Reputation: 2080
Quote:
Originally Posted by YesItsMe View Post
If this was the case, he could have stopped the GNU project when the complete operating system 4.3BSD ("Net/1") was released as Free Software. He did not.
Well no. Net/2 was the first supposedly "AT&T code unencumbered" BSD source release.

NetBSD and FreeBSD, weren't fully free of the encumbered code (and lawsuits) until 1994/1995.

This is one of the reasons why Torvalds developed his own kernel.

Last edited by cynwulf; 07-17-2017 at 11:19 AM.
 
  


Reply


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
LXer: Where are the American Linux desktop users? LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 10-24-2007 08:20 AM
LXer: Linux to help the Library of Congress save American history LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 03-29-2007 09:01 AM
American Linux veteran in Asia jdickey LinuxQuestions.org Member Intro 2 06-06-2006 11:38 AM
LXer: Novell bringing Linux to American schools LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 12-21-2005 02:46 AM
Three kinds of Linux users: an observation ptesone General 37 03-31-2004 11:53 AM

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

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:58 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