2 ms·

I would generally agree with this. This philosophy (along with it being Free Software) is why I chose to migrate to Linux in the first place, so long ago: it w

by pdkl95 13y ago

I would generally agree with this. This philosophy (along with it being Free Software) is why I chose to migrate to Linux in the first place, so long ago: it was Unix. Ya, ya, "Unix-like", technically, due to the trademark on Unix. That last statement is very strange: > Fedora that they ought to be Unix As somebody who wore an authentic Red Hat fedora for many years, this makes no sense. They've certainly called themselves a unix (in the generic, no trademark), and alternative to Unix (tm, aka Solaris, HP-UX, and others derived from Bell Labs IP) http://www.redhat.com/solutions/migration/migrate-from-unix-platforms/ http://www.redhat.com/solutions/migration/migrate-from-unix-... Wikipedia, on fedora: "OS family: Unix-like" etc When the term "Linux" is used in general, we mean a unix. The distinction has only ever a trademark thing. So yes, refugees from Windows coming over to distros that have always been unix(-like) and trying to change them into the some sort of Windows-like junk is a problem. Some of us left that world of bad design little choice a long time ago, and have no intention of returning.

coldtea 13y ago
>When the term "Linux" is used in general, we mean a unix. The distinction has only ever a trademark thing. Not really. The implementation of the kernel, userland features etc are quite different between traditional derived unices and Linux. But it sure is a full blown POSIX.
TheCondor 13y ago
Modern Linux distributions don't tend to honor "The UNIX philosophy" is a common theme these days, or so it is said by a vocal group. The GNU tools tend to be more feature rich then many of their counterparts, often with performance advantages and usability but more is more and more code tends to mean more bugs. Fedora is in many ways the leader of this, it and Ubuntu are symbolic to those folks. The irony here is that they can go fork all of this stuff, it's not like none of it has forked before, if they don't like redhat they can run something else. Getting passed off and forking is also the UNIX way
drewcrawford 13y ago
> They've certainly called themselves a unix (in the generic, no trademark), At one point, they probably were a Unix. But Unix as a place and Unix as a goal are two very different things. Both skiers and mountainclimbers find themselves at the tops of mountains. > When the term "Linux" is used in general, we mean a unix. You mean a Unix. I mean Linux. There is no "we". > So yes, refugees from Windows coming over to distros that have always been unix(-like) and trying to change them into the some sort of Windows-like junk is a problem. I don't believe you. Where are these vanguard Unix-style Linux distros? RHEL? Adopting systemd. Debian? Adopting systemd. SUSE? Adopting systemd. These are distributions from the days of old. They have formed a consensus that systemd-style Linux is the future. I mean I think it is fair to say that the Linux community is divided on this issue. But characterizing the systemd/dbus/ufs folks as "Windows refugees" is totally inaccurate. Systemd has the backing of important community members of the Linux community.

by pdkl95 13y ago

coldtea 13y ago

>When the term "Linux" is used in general, we mean a unix. The distinction has only ever a trademark thing. Not really. The implementation of the kernel, userland features etc are quite different between traditional derived unices and Linux. But it sure is a full blown POSIX.

TheCondor 13y ago

Modern Linux distributions don't tend to honor "The UNIX philosophy" is a common theme these days, or so it is said by a vocal group. The GNU tools tend to be more feature rich then many of their counterparts, often with performance advantages and usability but more is more and more code tends to mean more bugs. Fedora is in many ways the leader of this, it and Ubuntu are symbolic to those folks. The irony here is that they can go fork all of this stuff, it's not like none of it has forked before, if they don't like redhat they can run something else. Getting passed off and forking is also the UNIX way

drewcrawford 13y ago

> They've certainly called themselves a unix (in the generic, no trademark), At one point, they probably were a Unix. But Unix as a place and Unix as a goal are two very different things. Both skiers and mountainclimbers find themselves at the tops of mountains. > When the term "Linux" is used in general, we mean a unix. You mean a Unix. I mean Linux. There is no "we". > So yes, refugees from Windows coming over to distros that have always been unix(-like) and trying to change them into the some sort of Windows-like junk is a problem. I don't believe you. Where are these vanguard Unix-style Linux distros? RHEL? Adopting systemd. Debian? Adopting systemd. SUSE? Adopting systemd. These are distributions from the days of old. They have formed a consensus that systemd-style Linux is the future. I mean I think it is fair to say that the Linux community is divided on this issue. But characterizing the systemd/dbus/ufs folks as "Windows refugees" is totally inaccurate. Systemd has the backing of important community members of the Linux community.