Introducing UbuntuBSD
-
@scottalanmiller said:
But Linux has had this working better for decades
And uses it MUCH more heavily, too.I didn't know that--well, that Linux used it more heavily. This is one of many the fuzzy parts of my knowledge
-
@wirestyle22 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
But Linux has had this working better for decades
And uses it MUCH more heavily, too.I didn't know that--well, that Linux used it more heavily. This is one of many the fuzzy parts of my knowledge
On Windows, it is VERY common for libraries to be statically compiled in. On Linux, strong library management is used to promote better patching and updates with leaner systems.
-
@scottalanmiller I don't think most people realise that Linux is a Unix (as in BSD and/or children of AT&T Unix V) clone, I even had a CS teacher years ago who claimed Linux was Unix, and no he didn't mean in the way it meets the POSIX requirements enough to be called Unix if they want to pay the price for it. As in it's a different tree with different branches, where as BSD you can trace back to AT&T Unix V directly -- he claimed it was a part of that tree.
From a userland perspective it's the same, which when I read above people talking about screen caps, in fact, that's the point of Linux is that from an API standpoint you're not really supposed to be able to tell the difference, and the programs which run on top shouldn't really be able to either. There are some specific differences, however, that Linux does differently, but installing Linux binary support on FreeBSD basically covers your bases, except in certain places where you have to do hacks because of reliance on differences (/proc, et al) between Unix (as in BSD) and Linux.
And I'm very proud nobody said GNU/Linux in this thread. The world would've been so much better off if Linus would've used the BSD libraries instead of GNU, which were openly available at the time (as they are now).
-
@tonyshowoff said:
@scottalanmiller I don't think most people realise that Linux is a Unix (as in BSD and/or children of AT&T Unix V) clone, I even had a CS teacher years ago who claimed Linux was Unix, and no he didn't mean in the way it meets the POSIX requirements enough to be called Unix if they want to pay the price for it. As in it's a different tree with different branches, where as BSD you can trace back to AT&T Unix V directly -- he claimed it was a part of that tree.
From a userland perspective it's the same, which when I read above people talking about screen caps, in fact, that's the point of Linux is that from an API standpoint you're not really supposed to be able to tell the difference, and the programs which run on top shouldn't really be able to either. There are some specific differences, however, that Linux does differently, but installing Linux binary support on FreeBSD basically covers your bases, except in certain places where you have to do hacks because of reliance on differences (/proc, et al) between Unix (as in BSD) and Linux.
And I'm very proud nobody said GNU/Linux in this thread. The world would've been so much better off if Linus would've used the BSD libraries instead of GNU, which were openly available at the time (as they are now).
I'm so glad I've never met anyone in real life that made sure to say GNU/Linux to make a point. I think I would have to kick them in the teeth.
-
Yeah, the GNU/Linux people seem to have died off long ago. It was one of those big trends once upon a time.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Yeah, the GNU/Linux people seem to have died off long ago. It was one of those big trends once upon a time.
I've seen them on Reddit, or other forums. But I don't know many people IRL that probably even know what Linux is.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Yeah, the GNU/Linux people seem to have died off long ago. It was one of those big trends once upon a time.
They still exist, they just aren't as prevalent. Their typical reasons are:
- Richard Stallman has done a lot for FOSS and deserves the recognition
Sort of, but not really. He's been anti-open source for years, the open source people have done a lot more than he has. If anything his forgiveness of child pornography and 1970s approach to computing (no passwords, whoever is using the computer at the moment should be able to do anything they want, etc), and his demand that GNU's name be included with Linux -- unlike every single other project in history, for example, it's MangoLassi, not nodeBB/MangoLassi -- has hurt the free software movement as well as open source.
- Seeing GNU will get people interested in the free software movement.
That's like saying if someone sees the words "Microsoft Windows" they'll care more about Microsoft's philosophies than Windows, i.e. nobody cares if the product works.
I wrote about their attitudes the other day, strangely enough:
I think they've largely died out because "Linux" is promoted as the name by the biggest people/companies involved with it. I know that officially Debian still uses the term "GNU/Linux" for some reason, but most people can't even pronounce their name correctly, so I think they focus on the wrong thing anyway -- it's a contraction of "Debra" and "Ian" so it's no more "Deebian" than Linux is "Lighnux."
I think LLVM is one of the greatest things ever, the goal is to replace all of the last pieces of the GNU toolchain (BSD already can replace most of them, but it's not as extensive) and it's open source. However, because it's not the GNU project, Stallman considers it evil and anti-freedom, because it doesn't praise him.
In all, most people who do know of Stallman, don't seem to want to give credit to someone who hasn't programmed in 30 years, has really terrible views, has a weird sense of entitlement, and has never held a real job outside of the academic community so him suggesting everyone work for free doesn't really go over well.
-
@tonyshowoff said:
I know that officially Debian still uses the term "GNU/Linux" for some reason, but most people can't even pronounce their name correctly, so I think they focus on the wrong thing anyway -- it's a contraction of "Debra" and "Ian" so it's no more "Deebian" than Linux is "Lighnux."
I've actually never heard that spoken any way except for Deb-Ian. But I can see where people not knowing what it was would find a different way to pronounce it.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@tonyshowoff said:
I know that officially Debian still uses the term "GNU/Linux" for some reason, but most people can't even pronounce their name correctly, so I think they focus on the wrong thing anyway -- it's a contraction of "Debra" and "Ian" so it's no more "Deebian" than Linux is "Lighnux."
I've actually never heard that spoken any way except for Deb-Ian. But I can see where people not knowing what it was would find a different way to pronounce it.
Well, as a non-native English speaker, I'm not a big stickler about that kind of thing. It just seems to me they'd want people to say their name first for business reasons, before worrying about something as mundane and uninteresting to business as "GNU."
-
@tonyshowoff said:
Well, as a non-native English speaker, I'm not a big stickler about that kind of thing. It just seems to me they'd want people to say their name first for business reasons, before worrying about something as mundane and uninteresting to business as "GNU."
There is no business there. That's the same crowd as the GNU people. Some weird hippy fringe, not production systems people.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@tonyshowoff said:
Well, as a non-native English speaker, I'm not a big stickler about that kind of thing. It just seems to me they'd want people to say their name first for business reasons, before worrying about something as mundane and uninteresting to business as "GNU."
There is no business there. That's the same crowd as the GNU people. Some weird hippy fringe, not production systems people.
More business than any business GNU could have, after all, Debian is semi-popular for "the cloud," but nobody on Earth uses GNU with the Linux kernel, not even Stallman.
-
You mean you guys don't use these GNU/Linux distributions?
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html
"GNU/Linux is used by millions, though many call it “Linux” by mistake."
AHHHHH
-
@johnhooks If it's GNU/Linux then it's also Zend/Wordpress. I hope one day we can all live in a world where the GNU toolchain no longer matters at all, and it's actually pretty close.
-
the quote on your site:
with this model there would no need for publishers at all. All profits would go to developers, the people who deserve the money and did the work. No need to spend on marketing or distribution either, ergo no need for publisher.
Ha he sounds like every single minimum wage worker. "The CEO doesn't do any work", "those 'Fat Cat' executives that just sit in their offices while we do all of the hard work"
Also, if you don't spend money on marketing or distribution, how the eff do people find out about your software? Am I the only one that doesn't comb through GitHub every morning when I wake up to find new free open source software?
-
Yup, just you. that's what I do all morning, comb GitHub.
-
@johnhooks said:
the quote on your site:
with this model there would no need for publishers at all. All profits would go to developers, the people who deserve the money and did the work. No need to spend on marketing or distribution either, ergo no need for publisher.
Ha he sounds like every single minimum wage worker. "The CEO doesn't do any work", "those 'Fat Cat' executives that just sit in their offices while we do all of the hard work"
Also, if you don't spend money on marketing or distribution, how the eff do people find out about your software? Am I the only one that doesn't comb through GitHub every morning when I wake up to find new free open source software?
Well as I pointed out they don't really think about things like that, my guess is they've either never had a real job, or never had to struggle with a low paying job (possibly also academic). And yes, I also see the latest free and open source stuff out there, and steal tons of ideas too.
-
The never had a real job thing is big. Tons of those people don't have any clue where work is done or who is putting in effort.
-
@johnhooks said:
the quote on your site:
with this model there would no need for publishers at all. All profits would go to developers, the people who deserve the money and did the work. No need to spend on marketing or distribution either, ergo no need for publisher.
Ha he sounds like every single minimum wage worker. "The CEO doesn't do any work", "those 'Fat Cat' executives that just sit in their offices while we do all of the hard work"
Also, if you don't spend money on marketing or distribution, how the eff do people find out about your software? Am I the only one that doesn't comb through GitHub every morning when I wake up to find new free open source software?
Seriously I've never done that, not once! I've gone to a few direct links..
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Yeah, the GNU/Linux people seem to have died off long ago. It was one of those big trends once upon a time.
Richard Stallman died off? .... (joke)
I swear, in EVERY conversation I've heard him engage, he spins the conversation into the naming (GNU/Linux... NOT Linux). I think in the flick Revolution OS he talked about it no less than 60 times.
-
@BBigford said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Yeah, the GNU/Linux people seem to have died off long ago. It was one of those big trends once upon a time.
Richard Stallman died off? .... (joke)
I swear, in EVERY conversation I've heard him engage, he spins the conversation into the naming (GNU/Linux... NOT Linux). I think in the flick Revolution OS he talked about it no less than 60 times.
That movie also hinted at what a total psycho Eric S Raymond also is with his bizarre explosive behaviour. He's also pretty... pretty extremely sexist and actually not even really that technical, he's more like Stallman. What I do like is him complaining about Stallman, sometimes it's pretty funny what he writes and calls him out on.
