Why I hate Microsoft:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oGFogwcx-E
Child abuse!
Also, LEAVE MY EARS ALONE. THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING TO DESERVE THIS.
That is all.
Child abuse!
Also, LEAVE MY EARS ALONE. THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING TO DESERVE THIS.
That is all.
Why I hate Linux
http://blogs.csoonline.com/why_i_hate_linux
Bwahahahhahhaa
May I end with a Bill Gates Quote:
http://blogs.csoonline.com/why_i_hate_linux
Bwahahahhahhaa
| when I choose a particular piece of software—was it developed professionally with QA standards and security code review or by a 14-year-old in his parents’ basement? |
May I end with a Bill Gates Quote:
| Microsoft has had clear competitors in the past. It’s a good thing we have museums to document that. |
Last edited on
Well... that is one horrible commercial, but I suspect the commercial won't impact sales... assuming the software isn't free.
| Linux expects that you know what you are doing, even if it’s a dumb thing to do--it's non-judgemental. Non-Unix systems expect that you will do dumb things and refuses to do them. |
This is why I hate RMS: http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Sep-10.html
Hint: See the last paragraph.
Hint: See the last paragraph.
closed account (z05DSL3A)
I guess I have more of a humanist mentality than tribal. The whole us verses them thing leaves me cold, I prefere to judge each on there own merits and surcumstances.
I disagree - I think it should be called GNU/Linux. Linux is just the kernel, not the whole thing. GNU stuff accounts for like, 15% of the OS, so perhaps it could be Linux/GNU, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't bother me, though - regardless of what it's called, I'll officially call it "GNU/Linux", and in conversation, I still call it Linux anyway.
I want to see how GNU Hurd comes out. They've been making that since 1984, so it's been a long time in the making. Supposedly it's got "an advanced architecture" or something. I doubt, though, that what was considered "advanced" in 1984 is still relevant now...
Edit:
I don't really see a microkernel as being that advanced. The window NT kernel is a microkernel.
I want to see how GNU Hurd comes out. They've been making that since 1984, so it's been a long time in the making. Supposedly it's got "an advanced architecture" or something. I doubt, though, that what was considered "advanced" in 1984 is still relevant now...
Edit:
| the Hurd uses a server-client architecture, built on top of a microkernel |
I don't really see a microkernel as being that advanced. The window NT kernel is a microkernel.
Last edited on
You can install a Debian distro of GNU Hurd if you want to try it http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/
Anyway, I don't understand what's the difference in calling 'Linux' or 'GNU/Linux' or whatever, I think all Linux users already know that it has some parts derived from the GNU project
Anyway, I don't understand what's the difference in calling 'Linux' or 'GNU/Linux' or whatever, I think all Linux users already know that it has some parts derived from the GNU project
I know. If she could even carry a tune it wouldn't sound as bad...
Also I hate how they put "Rated S for Songtastic".
I want to hit whoever came up with songsmith.
Also I hate how they put "Rated S for Songtastic".
I want to hit whoever came up with songsmith.
| I disagree - I think it should be called GNU/Linux. |
1. GNU is not an integral part of the OS. You could replace it with a different userland or even leave the kernel running by itself and the system will still be Linux. If you put in a BSD kernel then it's not Linux anymore. Why should something so malleable be in the name of the OS?
2. Don't other packages that are as big, if not bigger, than the userland deserve any credit?
3. FreeBSD (and probably other BSDs as well) uses code from the GNU. Most notably, a modified GCC. Why isn't the FSF on a quest to rename those?
4. Ultimately, whether a Linux distro uses the GNU userland or not is up to the distro developers. It's their responsibility to name their distro Distro Linux or Distro GNU/Linux.
IMO: Despite what he claims, RMS doesn't care about giving credit to the GNU project (which is his project, anyway. Quick, name me a contributor other than RMS). He wants to get himself credit for something he didn't make. Namely, the GNU OS. Even if this was some wacky backwards universe where GNU/Linux was the proper name for the OS, I'd still call it Linux just to spite him.
Back then, microkernels were the newest thing. Torvalds once got into a famous Usenet discussion with Tanenbaum (a professor at his university and the guy who wrote Minix, which he hated) about why and why not to use microkernels and monolithic kernels. I recommend you read it.
NT is hybrid.
1. True, GNU is not part of the OS. But when it's running, it's running GNU/Linux. If, for example, you grab a distribution like gNewSense or Debian, you're running GNU programs, GNOME and some other stuff on top of Linux. Linux is just a kernel.
If you shove the BSD kernel in, it's GNU/BSD. If you put the Hurd in, it's GNU/Hurd.
2. Yes.
3. BSD isn't as popular. I disagree with trying to force people to change the name, but their argument would probably be that BSD is less used than Linux. I was thinking of installing BSD actually, to get more *nix experience.
4. I agree.
I don't have a like/dislike for rms. I like that he started the FSF, I think it was a great idea to create GNU, but he is a little eccentric...
I've heard about the Torvalds/Tanenbaum argument thing. Maybe I will...
One of microsofts kernels is a plain microkernel, and one previous one is a monolithic kernel. I thought NT was a microkernel...
I like the idea of an exokernel, but I don't think anyone has made one yet. Maybe in a long time, if I ever get the skill and the courage to try and make one, I'll be the first... you never know. True, it's unlikely that I'll ever get that far, but it'd be nice.
I like Torvalds' accent. It's almost American but you can just about hear the Finnish behind it. Shame that he's losing his accent, really.
By the way, above, where I say "just a kernel" I don't mean to minimize the crazy amount of skill which goes into kernel development.
If you shove the BSD kernel in, it's GNU/BSD. If you put the Hurd in, it's GNU/Hurd.
2. Yes.
3. BSD isn't as popular. I disagree with trying to force people to change the name, but their argument would probably be that BSD is less used than Linux. I was thinking of installing BSD actually, to get more *nix experience.
4. I agree.
I don't have a like/dislike for rms. I like that he started the FSF, I think it was a great idea to create GNU, but he is a little eccentric...
I've heard about the Torvalds/Tanenbaum argument thing. Maybe I will...
One of microsofts kernels is a plain microkernel, and one previous one is a monolithic kernel. I thought NT was a microkernel...
I like the idea of an exokernel, but I don't think anyone has made one yet. Maybe in a long time, if I ever get the skill and the courage to try and make one, I'll be the first... you never know. True, it's unlikely that I'll ever get that far, but it'd be nice.
I like Torvalds' accent. It's almost American but you can just about hear the Finnish behind it. Shame that he's losing his accent, really.
By the way, above, where I say "just a kernel" I don't mean to minimize the crazy amount of skill which goes into kernel development.
Last edited on
closed account (z05DSL3A)
| "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." |
| 2. Yes. |
| 3. BSD isn't as popular. |
EDIT: Some of us think that words have or should have beauty in themselves. That's why "rose" and "manure" sound nothing alike.
EDIT 2: Just in case it wasn't clear, my original post was about some guy getting thrown out of the FSF because he disagreed about the name change. It wasn't meant to incite the name debate here.
Last edited on
| What? Do you realize that what you just said has some very unfortunate implications? I can already see it. GNU/X/KDE/Mozilla/[...]/Linux. |
I know... it's complicated...
| So then it's not about receiving proper credit. It's just about piggybacking on the success of others. |
The short answer is yes. The longer answer is no - they want to get credit, but as Linux is more often used, they want to get that changed first, perhaps?
| I can already see it. GNU/X/KDE/Mozilla/[...]/Linux. |
| 4. Ultimately, whether a Linux distro uses the GNU userland or not is up to the distro developers. It's their responsibility to name their distro Distro Linux or Distro GNU/Linux. |
Well, yes, but it's "Kubuntu Linux". I think it's pretty stupid, in any case. Nowadays it's easier to just put both in a DVD.