5 ms·

Yet another re-skinned Linux, if you dig far enough.

by jff 14y ago

e12e 14y ago
As Stallman is fond of (rightly) remarking: Linux is not an operating system. I wonder if this (if it will ever be released as Free software), Unity, some other Gnome or Plasma Active/mobile will be the first real alternative to Linux/Android... I'd love to have something with Linux+Android hw support and powersavings, but with at different software stack on top of the kernel...
- mkr-hn 14y ago
  > As Stallman is fond of (rightly) remarking: Linux is not an operating system. "Linux" is commonly used as a brand for the ecosystem of bits, media, and community around the kernel. It makes sense as a default meaning, so that's how most people use it.
  - pjmlp 14y ago
    Sure, but those people should learn how to say it properly.
    - mkr-hn 14y ago
      Fortunately, Linus won't insult me for preferring a different pronunciation. I'll use his pronunciation if I ever have the opportunity to speak to (or around) him.
      - steevdave 14y ago
        Iirc, Linus doesn't care about calling it Linux v GNU/Linux
        mkr-hn 14y ago
        That's the joke. Stallman acolytes tut-tut any usage of "Linux" that isn't referring to the kernel. The rest of the world happily uses the term for all contexts with no confusion. In fact, talking about the kernel is the only time it could be confusing. We have "Linux kernel" for that lone source of confusion. The Linux kernel is at the center of the Linux ecosystem. The Linux ecosystem has many Linux distributions based on the Linux kernel. Words are flexible, and language has tools to deal with confusion.
        e12e 14y ago
        > The Linux ecosystem has many Linux distributions based on the Linux kernel. There are many operating system distributions that run the Linux kernel. But something like Debian/kFreebsd or illumos are in many ways quite similar to other distributions like Ubuntu -- without running on Linux. The Linux kernel is a tremendously important piece of the Free software world we live in -- but it isn't a userland -- and I don't understand why people that actually understand the difference gets so worked up about it. The GNU userland is important. The Gnome project is important. Xorg is important. The Apache foundation software is important. I don't see why people insist on labelling these things "Linux". The GNU name actually makes sense: GNU's not unix. But it's close. You can compile GNU software and run it on Microsoft Windows. Or under OS X. GNU is a platform. Sort of.
        mkr-hn 14y ago
        "GNU/Linux" is clunky. And I'm badgered with it any time I use the much less clunky "Linux." The people pushing the RMS-approved term hardest have no concept of presentation, and it turns people off of listening. I would be instantly associated with the worst pushers of the term if I started using it, so it's a nonstarter. Edit: GNU would get more attention if the FSF partnered with major Linux distribution vendors to give GNU a prominent placement in installers, documentation, and marketing. RMS peeing a line at the unmarketable "GNU/Linux" is only going to alienate people.
        pjmlp 14y ago
        Debian
  - e12e 14y ago
    So by that reasoning, we should call it Linux when it runs an Android or Sailfish userland as well? Or does Android "make more sense" because it has stronger branding? Is it still Android if it's a fork? GNU runs fine on top of Solaris, freebsd and to a certain extent (certain definitions of fine :) Microsoft Windows and OS X. Linux runs fine without GNU (as eg: "Android"). I understand that for a lot of people the distinction seems trivial -- I guess I appreciate the GNU part a lot more after being exposed to Solaris 8 and ancient *BSD installs.
- qznc 14y ago
  So we should be talking about GNU/Linux and Android/Linux?
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
pjmlp 14y ago
Linux is just the kernel. The same as with WebOS or Android. Any of these OS can decide tomorrow to change to another kernel, and Linux is history in the mobile space. If this ever would make sense this is another question.
- npsimons 14y ago
  Any of these OS can decide tomorrow to change to another kernel, and Linux is history in the mobile space. Sure, they could do that. Oops, there goes all those drivers. Hey, what happened to that port to X architecture? What do you mean only Linux and NetBSD run on it?
  - pjmlp 14y ago
    Hence my remark of that would make sense, but strange are the ways of upper management...
zokier 14y ago
That's one of it's main selling points. Your point being?
- jff 14y ago
  Don't call it "a new OS" if it's really just a bunch of programs running on Linux. Maybe I'm research-biased, but the OS is the kernel, and whatever userspace you put on top is gravy.
  - zokier 14y ago
    That's pretty unconventional definition of OS.
    - sjs 14y ago
      More outdated than unconventional.
  - recoil 14y ago
    So OS X is really just a skinned FreeBSD?
    - npsimons 14y ago
      No, it's a Mach microkernel (except it's not because they shoved some non-microkernel stuff in) with a BSD userland, and a NextSTEP GUI/framework on top.
      - recoil 14y ago
        As I understand it, the kernel is pretty much a hybrid of Mach and FreeBSD, and I don't think you can really say that it's more of one than the other: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU There's definitely more BSD in there than just the userland.

Yet another re-skinned Linux, if you dig far enough.

by jff 14y ago

Yet another re-skinned Linux, if you dig far enough.

e12e 14y ago

As Stallman is fond of (rightly) remarking: Linux is not an operating system. I wonder if this (if it will ever be released as Free software), Unity, some other Gnome or Plasma Active/mobile will be the first real alternative to Linux/Android... I'd love to have something with Linux+Android hw support and powersavings, but with at different software stack on top of the kernel...

mkr-hn 14y ago
> As Stallman is fond of (rightly) remarking: Linux is not an operating system. "Linux" is commonly used as a brand for the ecosystem of bits, media, and community around the kernel. It makes sense as a default meaning, so that's how most people use it.
- pjmlp 14y ago
  Sure, but those people should learn how to say it properly.
  - mkr-hn 14y ago
    Fortunately, Linus won't insult me for preferring a different pronunciation. I'll use his pronunciation if I ever have the opportunity to speak to (or around) him.
    - steevdave 14y ago
      Iirc, Linus doesn't care about calling it Linux v GNU/Linux
      - mkr-hn 14y ago
        That's the joke. Stallman acolytes tut-tut any usage of "Linux" that isn't referring to the kernel. The rest of the world happily uses the term for all contexts with no confusion. In fact, talking about the kernel is the only time it could be confusing. We have "Linux kernel" for that lone source of confusion. The Linux kernel is at the center of the Linux ecosystem. The Linux ecosystem has many Linux distributions based on the Linux kernel. Words are flexible, and language has tools to deal with confusion.
        e12e 14y ago
        > The Linux ecosystem has many Linux distributions based on the Linux kernel. There are many operating system distributions that run the Linux kernel. But something like Debian/kFreebsd or illumos are in many ways quite similar to other distributions like Ubuntu -- without running on Linux. The Linux kernel is a tremendously important piece of the Free software world we live in -- but it isn't a userland -- and I don't understand why people that actually understand the difference gets so worked up about it. The GNU userland is important. The Gnome project is important. Xorg is important. The Apache foundation software is important. I don't see why people insist on labelling these things "Linux". The GNU name actually makes sense: GNU's not unix. But it's close. You can compile GNU software and run it on Microsoft Windows. Or under OS X. GNU is a platform. Sort of.
        mkr-hn 14y ago
        "GNU/Linux" is clunky. And I'm badgered with it any time I use the much less clunky "Linux." The people pushing the RMS-approved term hardest have no concept of presentation, and it turns people off of listening. I would be instantly associated with the worst pushers of the term if I started using it, so it's a nonstarter. Edit: GNU would get more attention if the FSF partnered with major Linux distribution vendors to give GNU a prominent placement in installers, documentation, and marketing. RMS peeing a line at the unmarketable "GNU/Linux" is only going to alienate people.
        pjmlp 14y ago
        Debian
- e12e 14y ago
  So by that reasoning, we should call it Linux when it runs an Android or Sailfish userland as well? Or does Android "make more sense" because it has stronger branding? Is it still Android if it's a fork? GNU runs fine on top of Solaris, freebsd and to a certain extent (certain definitions of fine :) Microsoft Windows and OS X. Linux runs fine without GNU (as eg: "Android"). I understand that for a lot of people the distinction seems trivial -- I guess I appreciate the GNU part a lot more after being exposed to Solaris 8 and ancient *BSD installs.
qznc 14y ago
So we should be talking about GNU/Linux and Android/Linux?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

pjmlp 14y ago

Linux is just the kernel. The same as with WebOS or Android. Any of these OS can decide tomorrow to change to another kernel, and Linux is history in the mobile space. If this ever would make sense this is another question.

npsimons 14y ago
Any of these OS can decide tomorrow to change to another kernel, and Linux is history in the mobile space. Sure, they could do that. Oops, there goes all those drivers. Hey, what happened to that port to X architecture? What do you mean only Linux and NetBSD run on it?
- pjmlp 14y ago
  Hence my remark of that would make sense, but strange are the ways of upper management...

zokier 14y ago

That's one of it's main selling points. Your point being?

jff 14y ago
Don't call it "a new OS" if it's really just a bunch of programs running on Linux. Maybe I'm research-biased, but the OS is the kernel, and whatever userspace you put on top is gravy.
- zokier 14y ago
  That's pretty unconventional definition of OS.
  - sjs 14y ago
    More outdated than unconventional.
- recoil 14y ago
  So OS X is really just a skinned FreeBSD?
  - npsimons 14y ago
    No, it's a Mach microkernel (except it's not because they shoved some non-microkernel stuff in) with a BSD userland, and a NextSTEP GUI/framework on top.
    - recoil 14y ago
      As I understand it, the kernel is pretty much a hybrid of Mach and FreeBSD, and I don't think you can really say that it's more of one than the other: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU There's definitely more BSD in there than just the userland.