4 ms·

I didn't make the comment, but I interpret it this way. In the past, if you were on a Unix-like system and wanted a nicer interface, you could install GNU tool

I didn't make the comment, but I interpret it this way. In the past, if you were on a Unix-like system and wanted a nicer interface, you could install GNU tools. You got nifty things like ls and grep that color their output, a tar that works correctly, etc. Today, if you are on a Unix-like system and want a nicer interface, you install the Gnome shell. Never mind that it's not what everyone wants (bah Gnome 2 is better than 3, or Xmonad rulez, or Fluxbox is good enough for everyone), that's not the point. Gnome gives you a free, complete desktop roughly comparable with Apple/Microsoft/etc. offerings. You can configure your wireless adapter or plug in a USB drive without the need for root access. Perhaps Gnome is the face of what you get when you want a nice free Unix. (Don't mix up GNU and FSF, even though they're both projects started by Richard Stallman, and still intimately connected. Licensing and activism are FSF goals, GNU goals are to make software.)

jlgreco 14y ago
Gnome might get you something roughly comparable to Apple/Microsoft/etc, but without the GNU tools there is really no technical reason to prefer Gnome to Apple/Microsoft/etc. Sure you could use NetBSD's userland instead of GNU, or BusyBox, or any other number of alternative userlands, but who actually does that? BusyBox is very popular, but only in all of the places that Gnome definitely is not.
- dietrichepp 14y ago
  GNU might get you something roughly comparable to BSD/Solaris/etc, but without the Linux kernel there is really no technical reason to prefer GNU to BSD/Solaris/etc. Sure you could use Hurd instead of Linux, or Mach, or any other number of alternative kernels, but who actually does that? Mach is very popular, but only in all of the places that GNU definitely is not. (Clarification: I was explaining how Gnome may be filling the same, er, cultural role that GNU filled in years past. They're both software projects that try to give us the Unix experience we want. Part of what has changed is which part of the OS we pay attention to -- GNU is not as relevant because it achieved so many of its goals, not like Gnome.)
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    > "GNU might get you something roughly comparable to BSD/Solaris/etc, but without the Linux kernel there is really no technical reason to prefer GNU to BSD/Solaris/etc." This might make sense... except that it is popular to use GNU userlands on non-Linux systems, and that has always been the case. Hell, what do you think people were doing before Linux existed? So really it makes zero sense whatsoever. Gnome without a userland, GNU or otherwise, is completely and utterly pointless. Who would use such a thing? GNU without Linux is business as usual.
    - dietrichepp 14y ago
      "Gnome is the new GNU" is an analogy, not a mathematical formula.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        Yeah, and it makes no sense.

jlgreco 14y ago

Gnome might get you something roughly comparable to Apple/Microsoft/etc, but without the GNU tools there is really no technical reason to prefer Gnome to Apple/Microsoft/etc. Sure you could use NetBSD's userland instead of GNU, or BusyBox, or any other number of alternative userlands, but who actually does that? BusyBox is very popular, but only in all of the places that Gnome definitely is not.

dietrichepp 14y ago
GNU might get you something roughly comparable to BSD/Solaris/etc, but without the Linux kernel there is really no technical reason to prefer GNU to BSD/Solaris/etc. Sure you could use Hurd instead of Linux, or Mach, or any other number of alternative kernels, but who actually does that? Mach is very popular, but only in all of the places that GNU definitely is not. (Clarification: I was explaining how Gnome may be filling the same, er, cultural role that GNU filled in years past. They're both software projects that try to give us the Unix experience we want. Part of what has changed is which part of the OS we pay attention to -- GNU is not as relevant because it achieved so many of its goals, not like Gnome.)
- jlgreco 14y ago
  > "GNU might get you something roughly comparable to BSD/Solaris/etc, but without the Linux kernel there is really no technical reason to prefer GNU to BSD/Solaris/etc." This might make sense... except that it is popular to use GNU userlands on non-Linux systems, and that has always been the case. Hell, what do you think people were doing before Linux existed? So really it makes zero sense whatsoever. Gnome without a userland, GNU or otherwise, is completely and utterly pointless. Who would use such a thing? GNU without Linux is business as usual.
  - dietrichepp 14y ago
    "Gnome is the new GNU" is an analogy, not a mathematical formula.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      Yeah, and it makes no sense.