What Are You Doing Right Now
-
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Then I just asked, why the hell are there so many versions?
Why not have so many different version? Different use cases, different methods, improved security vs usability etc.
It's why Kali-Linux isn't used as a mainline desktop. Same reason why Gentoo exist but many people would rather use CentOS or RedHat.
I understand that now. The Linux kernel being free gave any hobbyist the ability to build a custom OS however they wanted. That's fine - but calling these things Linux, and not whatever Rambo'esque name you came up with just never made sense to me.
Again being based on the Linux kernel didn't ensure any kind of compatibility at all, it only ensured some shared code.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
So I have to ask - does does Linux get the name - get the air time? Because tech writers are idiots who really don't know jack and just screwed it up and it was never fixed?
People need generalizations. Because people need a single simple name. But Professionals should know the details.
What? That makes no sense -
Calling something Linux because it makes all the Linux flavored OSs simple is anything but - which personally is one of the major hurtles with it. You can't install a Ubuntu install on CentOS (maybe you can, but often we see posts where you can't). If we need it to be this simple, why don't we call call AMD x64 based computers by the same name - hell they all run the same software - so they're the same, right? LOL
You just posted the other day why you use used one Linux OS because the repos supported that version and not the others.. not that you couldn't make it work, but that it would be more difficult, and less supported by the vendor.
Once Scott explained that Linux OSs were potentially as different as OSX vs Windows, I started having less problems dealing with all of the versions. Then I just asked, why the hell are there so many versions?
Because people have to call it something, and they are all Linux kernal based systems.
People do not call Windows by their version numbers or types. They just say "Windows." Well honestly most people just say "my computer."
Professionals, such as we purport to be, should know this difference and respect it.
But that does not preclude me from just generalizing sometimes and saying "Linux" when there is no need to be specific.
I'm just wondering where the term Linux came into the normal persons vernacular? Why didn't Mandrake or Red Hat or CentOS or Ubuntu become the norm? Why Linux? Probably because, as Scott said, somebody, probably a journalist, wrote about Linux as an OS and the normals just grabbed onto it.
I would say Linux became the "normal" term because you can use it to refer to any variant. Like Ransomware is the normal word almost everyone would know, rather than Locky.
Problem is, there is no useful similarity between all Linux systems, so there is no reason for someone non-technical to refer to them as a group. Other than a casual discussion about market adoption, in what situation do you care that CentOS, Ubuntu, Android, microwave firmware and ChromeOS are all using a Linux kernel? Never. It's just not useful. Apps don't run across them, they share no commonality that an end user could leverage.
-
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Then I just asked, why the hell are there so many versions?
Why not have so many different version? Different use cases, different methods, improved security vs usability etc.
It's why Kali-Linux isn't used as a mainline desktop. Same reason why Gentoo exist but many people would rather use CentOS or RedHat.
I understand that now. The Linux kernel being free gave any hobbyist the ability to build a custom OS however they wanted. That's fine - but calling these things Linux, and not whatever Rambo'esque name you came up with just never made sense to me.
Again being based on the Linux kernel didn't ensure any kind of compatibility at all, it only ensured some shared code.
And that's why mostly we don't. And exactly, just some shared code. What they really meant was something else having to do with behaviour that we still have no term for.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
So I have to ask - does does Linux get the name - get the air time? Because tech writers are idiots who really don't know jack and just screwed it up and it was never fixed?
People need generalizations. Because people need a single simple name. But Professionals should know the details.
What? That makes no sense -
Calling something Linux because it makes all the Linux flavored OSs simple is anything but - which personally is one of the major hurtles with it. You can't install a Ubuntu install on CentOS (maybe you can, but often we see posts where you can't). If we need it to be this simple, why don't we call call AMD x64 based computers by the same name - hell they all run the same software - so they're the same, right? LOL
You just posted the other day why you use used one Linux OS because the repos supported that version and not the others.. not that you couldn't make it work, but that it would be more difficult, and less supported by the vendor.
Once Scott explained that Linux OSs were potentially as different as OSX vs Windows, I started having less problems dealing with all of the versions. Then I just asked, why the hell are there so many versions?
Because people have to call it something, and they are all Linux kernal based systems.
People do not call Windows by their version numbers or types. They just say "Windows." Well honestly most people just say "my computer."
Professionals, such as we purport to be, should know this difference and respect it.
But that does not preclude me from just generalizing sometimes and saying "Linux" when there is no need to be specific.
I'm just wondering where the term Linux came into the normal persons vernacular? Why didn't Mandrake or Red Hat or CentOS or Ubuntu become the norm? Why Linux? Probably because, as Scott said, somebody, probably a journalist, wrote about Linux as an OS and the normals just grabbed onto it.
I would say Linux became the "normal" term because you can use it to refer to any variant. Like Ransomware is the normal word almost everyone would know, rather than Locky.
Problem is, there is no useful similarity between all Linux systems, so there is no reason for someone non-technical to refer to them as a group. Other than a casual discussion about market adoption, in what situation do you care that CentOS, Ubuntu, Android, microwave firmware and ChromeOS are all using a Linux kernel? Never. It's just not useful. Apps don't run across them, they share no commonality that an end user could leverage.
This was my whole point!!!
-
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
So I have to ask - does does Linux get the name - get the air time? Because tech writers are idiots who really don't know jack and just screwed it up and it was never fixed?
People need generalizations. Because people need a single simple name. But Professionals should know the details.
What? That makes no sense -
Calling something Linux because it makes all the Linux flavored OSs simple is anything but - which personally is one of the major hurtles with it. You can't install a Ubuntu install on CentOS (maybe you can, but often we see posts where you can't). If we need it to be this simple, why don't we call call AMD x64 based computers by the same name - hell they all run the same software - so they're the same, right? LOL
You just posted the other day why you use used one Linux OS because the repos supported that version and not the others.. not that you couldn't make it work, but that it would be more difficult, and less supported by the vendor.
Once Scott explained that Linux OSs were potentially as different as OSX vs Windows, I started having less problems dealing with all of the versions. Then I just asked, why the hell are there so many versions?
Because people have to call it something, and they are all Linux kernal based systems.
People do not call Windows by their version numbers or types. They just say "Windows." Well honestly most people just say "my computer."
Professionals, such as we purport to be, should know this difference and respect it.
But that does not preclude me from just generalizing sometimes and saying "Linux" when there is no need to be specific.
I'm just wondering where the term Linux came into the normal persons vernacular? Why didn't Mandrake or Red Hat or CentOS or Ubuntu become the norm? Why Linux? Probably because, as Scott said, somebody, probably a journalist, wrote about Linux as an OS and the normals just grabbed onto it.
I would say Linux became the "normal" term because you can use it to refer to any variant. Like Ransomware is the normal word almost everyone would know, rather than Locky.
Problem is, there is no useful similarity between all Linux systems, so there is no reason for someone non-technical to refer to them as a group. Other than a casual discussion about market adoption, in what situation do you care that CentOS, Ubuntu, Android, microwave firmware and ChromeOS are all using a Linux kernel? Never. It's just not useful. Apps don't run across them, they share no commonality that an end user could leverage.
This was my whole point!!!
It was a good point.
-
HEading to the barn, again.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
So I have to ask - does does Linux get the name - get the air time? Because tech writers are idiots who really don't know jack and just screwed it up and it was never fixed?
People need generalizations. Because people need a single simple name. But Professionals should know the details.
What? That makes no sense -
Calling something Linux because it makes all the Linux flavored OSs simple is anything but - which personally is one of the major hurtles with it. You can't install a Ubuntu install on CentOS (maybe you can, but often we see posts where you can't). If we need it to be this simple, why don't we call call AMD x64 based computers by the same name - hell they all run the same software - so they're the same, right? LOL
You just posted the other day why you use used one Linux OS because the repos supported that version and not the others.. not that you couldn't make it work, but that it would be more difficult, and less supported by the vendor.
Once Scott explained that Linux OSs were potentially as different as OSX vs Windows, I started having less problems dealing with all of the versions. Then I just asked, why the hell are there so many versions?
Because people have to call it something, and they are all Linux kernal based systems.
People do not call Windows by their version numbers or types. They just say "Windows." Well honestly most people just say "my computer."
Professionals, such as we purport to be, should know this difference and respect it.
But that does not preclude me from just generalizing sometimes and saying "Linux" when there is no need to be specific.
I'm just wondering where the term Linux came into the normal persons vernacular? Why didn't Mandrake or Red Hat or CentOS or Ubuntu become the norm? Why Linux? Probably because, as Scott said, somebody, probably a journalist, wrote about Linux as an OS and the normals just grabbed onto it.
I would say Linux became the "normal" term because you can use it to refer to any variant. Like Ransomware is the normal word almost everyone would know, rather than Locky.
Problem is, there is no useful similarity between all Linux systems, so there is no reason for someone non-technical to refer to them as a group. Other than a casual discussion about market adoption, in what situation do you care that CentOS, Ubuntu, Android, microwave firmware and ChromeOS are all using a Linux kernel? Never. It's just not useful. Apps don't run across them, they share no commonality that an end user could leverage.
This was my whole point!!!
It was a good point.
This is why I think JB's early comment that the public needs a simple term doesn't apply here - these OSes are not the same thing, there is NO reason to group them together.
Vendors selling Linux products today aren't helping the situation either - they generally just say they support Linux, but they don't say what OS - so what, you're supplying source that you expect me to compile for my flavor of Linux - come on....
-
I think if there would have been a main Linux based OS that someone was willing to stand behind and really promote and get software developers to make software for, we would have seen Linux on the desktop ages ago. But then I have to ask, would it still be a free and open system?
-
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
I think if there would have been a main Linux based OS that someone was willing to stand behind and really promote and get software developers to make software for, we would have seen Linux on the desktop ages ago. But then I have to ask, would it still be a free and open system?
You mean like, Canonical, Red Hat, or SUSE?
-
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
So I have to ask - does does Linux get the name - get the air time? Because tech writers are idiots who really don't know jack and just screwed it up and it was never fixed?
People need generalizations. Because people need a single simple name. But Professionals should know the details.
What? That makes no sense -
Calling something Linux because it makes all the Linux flavored OSs simple is anything but - which personally is one of the major hurtles with it. You can't install a Ubuntu install on CentOS (maybe you can, but often we see posts where you can't). If we need it to be this simple, why don't we call call AMD x64 based computers by the same name - hell they all run the same software - so they're the same, right? LOL
You just posted the other day why you use used one Linux OS because the repos supported that version and not the others.. not that you couldn't make it work, but that it would be more difficult, and less supported by the vendor.
Once Scott explained that Linux OSs were potentially as different as OSX vs Windows, I started having less problems dealing with all of the versions. Then I just asked, why the hell are there so many versions?
Because people have to call it something, and they are all Linux kernal based systems.
People do not call Windows by their version numbers or types. They just say "Windows." Well honestly most people just say "my computer."
Professionals, such as we purport to be, should know this difference and respect it.
But that does not preclude me from just generalizing sometimes and saying "Linux" when there is no need to be specific.
I'm just wondering where the term Linux came into the normal persons vernacular? Why didn't Mandrake or Red Hat or CentOS or Ubuntu become the norm? Why Linux? Probably because, as Scott said, somebody, probably a journalist, wrote about Linux as an OS and the normals just grabbed onto it.
I would say Linux became the "normal" term because you can use it to refer to any variant. Like Ransomware is the normal word almost everyone would know, rather than Locky.
Problem is, there is no useful similarity between all Linux systems, so there is no reason for someone non-technical to refer to them as a group. Other than a casual discussion about market adoption, in what situation do you care that CentOS, Ubuntu, Android, microwave firmware and ChromeOS are all using a Linux kernel? Never. It's just not useful. Apps don't run across them, they share no commonality that an end user could leverage.
This was my whole point!!!
It was a good point.
This is why I think JB's early comment that the public needs a simple term doesn't apply here - these OSes are not the same thing, there is NO reason to group them together.
Vendors selling Linux products today aren't helping the situation either - they generally just say they support Linux, but they don't say what OS - so what, you're supplying source that you expect me to compile for my flavor of Linux - come on....
What vendor says that?
-
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
I think if there would have been a main Linux based OS that someone was willing to stand behind and really promote and get software developers to make software for, we would have seen Linux on the desktop ages ago. But then I have to ask, would it still be a free and open system?
But there is, always has been and we do. So you were right, and it came true. Ta da!
-
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
I think if there would have been a main Linux based OS that someone was willing to stand behind and really promote and get software developers to make software for, we would have seen Linux on the desktop ages ago. But then I have to ask, would it still be a free and open system?
And would we have seen innovations like systemd, syslog-ng, rsyslog and what not? The massive amount of innovations and drivers for the Linux kernel? Probably not.
-
@coliver said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
I think if there would have been a main Linux based OS that someone was willing to stand behind and really promote and get software developers to make software for, we would have seen Linux on the desktop ages ago. But then I have to ask, would it still be a free and open system?
You mean like, Canonical, Red Hat, or SUSE?
This is why he said a main one. Those are all great Distros, though... There's just several as opposed to one.
-
@dafyre said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@coliver said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
I think if there would have been a main Linux based OS that someone was willing to stand behind and really promote and get software developers to make software for, we would have seen Linux on the desktop ages ago. But then I have to ask, would it still be a free and open system?
You mean like, Canonical, Red Hat, or SUSE?
This is why he said a main one. Those are all great Distros, though... There's just several as opposed to one.
Red Hat has been the main one for two decades now. No question that a main one arose early and has maintained itself all this time.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@dafyre said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@coliver said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
I think if there would have been a main Linux based OS that someone was willing to stand behind and really promote and get software developers to make software for, we would have seen Linux on the desktop ages ago. But then I have to ask, would it still be a free and open system?
You mean like, Canonical, Red Hat, or SUSE?
This is why he said a main one. Those are all great Distros, though... There's just several as opposed to one.
Red Hat has been the main one for two decades now. No question that a main one arose early and has maintained itself all this time.
Depends on who you ask. Because there are so many linux Distros, there can't be single winner / main one. It will vary from IT Pro to IT Pro. For instance, I like Ubuntu for server stuff... You prefer... CentOS, I think?
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
So I have to ask - does does Linux get the name - get the air time? Because tech writers are idiots who really don't know jack and just screwed it up and it was never fixed?
People need generalizations. Because people need a single simple name. But Professionals should know the details.
What? That makes no sense -
Calling something Linux because it makes all the Linux flavored OSs simple is anything but - which personally is one of the major hurtles with it. You can't install a Ubuntu install on CentOS (maybe you can, but often we see posts where you can't). If we need it to be this simple, why don't we call call AMD x64 based computers by the same name - hell they all run the same software - so they're the same, right? LOL
You just posted the other day why you use used one Linux OS because the repos supported that version and not the others.. not that you couldn't make it work, but that it would be more difficult, and less supported by the vendor.
Once Scott explained that Linux OSs were potentially as different as OSX vs Windows, I started having less problems dealing with all of the versions. Then I just asked, why the hell are there so many versions?
Because people have to call it something, and they are all Linux kernal based systems.
People do not call Windows by their version numbers or types. They just say "Windows." Well honestly most people just say "my computer."
Professionals, such as we purport to be, should know this difference and respect it.
But that does not preclude me from just generalizing sometimes and saying "Linux" when there is no need to be specific.
I'm just wondering where the term Linux came into the normal persons vernacular? Why didn't Mandrake or Red Hat or CentOS or Ubuntu become the norm? Why Linux? Probably because, as Scott said, somebody, probably a journalist, wrote about Linux as an OS and the normals just grabbed onto it.
I would say Linux became the "normal" term because you can use it to refer to any variant. Like Ransomware is the normal word almost everyone would know, rather than Locky.
Problem is, there is no useful similarity between all Linux systems, so there is no reason for someone non-technical to refer to them as a group. Other than a casual discussion about market adoption, in what situation do you care that CentOS, Ubuntu, Android, microwave firmware and ChromeOS are all using a Linux kernel? Never. It's just not useful. Apps don't run across them, they share no commonality that an end user could leverage.
This was my whole point!!!
It was a good point.
This is why I think JB's early comment that the public needs a simple term doesn't apply here - these OSes are not the same thing, there is NO reason to group them together.
Vendors selling Linux products today aren't helping the situation either - they generally just say they support Linux, but they don't say what OS - so what, you're supplying source that you expect me to compile for my flavor of Linux - come on....
What vendor says that?
boxes selling to consumers
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
I think if there would have been a main Linux based OS that someone was willing to stand behind and really promote and get software developers to make software for, we would have seen Linux on the desktop ages ago. But then I have to ask, would it still be a free and open system?
But there is, always has been and we do. So you were right, and it came true. Ta da!
Obviously not enough - Apple is doing that one off thing really well, I don't see anyone advertising the shit out of Mint on their hardware, as an example. that's what I'm talking about.
It would be like HP picking up on Mint and just going to town advertising and selling machines with it. then at the same time hitting up developers to really push them to develop software for Mint.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@dafyre said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@coliver said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
I think if there would have been a main Linux based OS that someone was willing to stand behind and really promote and get software developers to make software for, we would have seen Linux on the desktop ages ago. But then I have to ask, would it still be a free and open system?
You mean like, Canonical, Red Hat, or SUSE?
This is why he said a main one. Those are all great Distros, though... There's just several as opposed to one.
Red Hat has been the main one for two decades now. No question that a main one arose early and has maintained itself all this time.
Sure on the server side - but not the desktop side. Why not?
-
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Vendors selling Linux products today aren't helping the situation either - they generally just say they support Linux, but they don't say what OS - so what, you're supplying source that you expect me to compile for my flavor of Linux - come on....
What vendor says that?
boxes selling to consumers
But many vendors will do that, offer you the source and compile it in your preferred environment. This doesn't muddy the explanation of what is "Linux" because the people that the sources are being targeted to are people who actually understand the difference.
"Linux compatible" is a really short way of saying "Install-able to a linux distro or family." It's fits well on a package and doesn't need additional clarification.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Vendors selling Linux products today aren't helping the situation either - they generally just say they support Linux, but they don't say what OS - so what, you're supplying source that you expect me to compile for my flavor of Linux - come on....
What vendor says that?
boxes selling to consumers
But many vendors will do that, offer you the source and compile it in your preferred environment. This doesn't muddy the explanation of what is "Linux" because the people that the sources are being targeted to are people who actually understand the difference.
"Linux compatible" is a really short way of saying "Install-able to a linux distro or family." It's fits well on a package and doesn't need additional clarification.
John Q six pack isn't going to compile anything to run on something. He wants to download a file and it just works! I'm talking about consumers here - not businesses and have been for a while in case that was missed.
