-
The best Kiwifarms splinter site on the internet
All races, religions and political orientations are welcome.
Sexual Orientation/Gender Identity (Male, female, gay, straight. cis, trans) we don't care.
If you can swing with a pack of gremlins on the Onionfarms, you are one of us. -
🔎Under the Magnifying Glass - KennethErwinEngelhardt.net
March 15, 2024: A pissed off Israel mulls retaliation after the Iranian Drone and Missile attack over the weekend as both Iran and Israel launch a tirade against each other in the United Nations.
Technology GNU+Linux Thread
- Thread starter nil
- Start date
Technical Related Threads
The Open Source community has a notable man called Stallman. When he was young, he wanted to write his own software, but everything he wrote ended up becoming a notepad. Once upon a time, struggling with implementing the “onKey” event, he found a letter from a Finnish student who wanted to write his own OS. He wrote, in particular, “hello, I’m 17 and I wrote a bootloader, pls help me write the rest, my OS is almost ready. Linus from Finland”. Stallman responded: “Hello, my name is Richard Stallman, I’ve already written a notepad for Unix and I think I can help you write your own OS, young man” The first thing Richard did was to try write a kernel for Linus’ bootloader, which he called The hURD. Unfortunately, once again it ended up being a text editor. Linus was angry and then another person, called Cox, came and wrote the whole kernel. He was a very good British man who could not stand others feel bad. Stallman, seeing how his fame is being stolen by Cox, said: “I have already written many notepads for the Linux system, you cannot just delete it all”. Linux had to agree, due to their friendship, and left all the notepads inside the Linux. It was renamed to “the GNU’. To this day, even in 2015, we can enjoy the beauty of Stallman’s genius. For example, there’s a program which takes one file and renames it to another file. Also, there’s a program which deletes a file. Windows doesn’t have such things. Just imagine Linux without such software.
Stallman’s magnum opus is emacs. It’s one of his notepads where he put a scripting language into. Only a visioner is capable of writing a text editor and putting a scripting language there. Some may say it’s 1 grade students’ project, but they will be wrong, as Stallman didn’t put there Basic or Pascal — he’s put there Lisp. It’s a very powerful language, because it’s functional (Basic and Pascal are called dysfunctional). From what I understood reading Wikipedia, functional languages are very awesome because they’re very math. Only smartest people can code in them because it’s too math for common people. Basic is not enough math, C is not enough math, Lisp is a lot of math because it’s functional. So emacs has Lisp in it, so it’s a very good editor made by a innovator and a genius, who understands math and functions.
When he turned 62, Stallman got a bit tired of writing notepads, so he founded Free Software Foundation to promote his ideas. The foundation’s main idea is that you cannot use a program unless it’s written by Stallman himself. He believes that anything not written by Stallman is potentially a patent troll and a vendor lock-in, because there’re no guarantees to Stallman, and only Stallman gives guarantees to himself. And we again return to the topic of notepads, unfortunately. In a perfect world, there are not other programs, but notepads written by Richard Stallman. Preferably with LISPs inside (no less than 85% functional). Maybe Stallman is right, maybe he is wrong, I can’t tell for sure. What I know for sure is that he’s a visioner, an innovator, and we definitely should at least consider his opinion.
Stallman’s magnum opus is emacs. It’s one of his notepads where he put a scripting language into. Only a visioner is capable of writing a text editor and putting a scripting language there. Some may say it’s 1 grade students’ project, but they will be wrong, as Stallman didn’t put there Basic or Pascal — he’s put there Lisp. It’s a very powerful language, because it’s functional (Basic and Pascal are called dysfunctional). From what I understood reading Wikipedia, functional languages are very awesome because they’re very math. Only smartest people can code in them because it’s too math for common people. Basic is not enough math, C is not enough math, Lisp is a lot of math because it’s functional. So emacs has Lisp in it, so it’s a very good editor made by a innovator and a genius, who understands math and functions.
When he turned 62, Stallman got a bit tired of writing notepads, so he founded Free Software Foundation to promote his ideas. The foundation’s main idea is that you cannot use a program unless it’s written by Stallman himself. He believes that anything not written by Stallman is potentially a patent troll and a vendor lock-in, because there’re no guarantees to Stallman, and only Stallman gives guarantees to himself. And we again return to the topic of notepads, unfortunately. In a perfect world, there are not other programs, but notepads written by Richard Stallman. Preferably with LISPs inside (no less than 85% functional). Maybe Stallman is right, maybe he is wrong, I can’t tell for sure. What I know for sure is that he’s a visioner, an innovator, and we definitely should at least consider his opinion.
No, Richard, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.
Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.
One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you?
(An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.
Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.
You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument.
Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD?
If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this:
Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag.
Thanks for listening.
Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.
One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you?
(An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.
Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.
You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument.
Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD?
If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this:
Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag.
Thanks for listening.
I use Devuan Beowulf, which is Debian 10 without systemd
For anyone wondering wtf systemd is, here's the basic gist of it: https://nosystemd.org/
For anyone wondering wtf systemd is, here's the basic gist of it: https://nosystemd.org/
>Hannah Montana
>not bloated
Pick one and only one.>not bloated
For a normie Debian-using faggot like myself, why would I consider migrating to Devuan? What is it about systemd that's so objectionable?
Sure, here's a non-technical explanation: You know how with every Windows release since 7, Microsoft have been catering to normies to make things "simpler" for them to use their OS? That's basically what systemd is... huge chunks of spaghetti code that's supposed to "simplify" using Linux not just for normies, but for the corporate world as well. Unfortunately, not only does systemd break more things than fixes them, it has backdoors for easy hacking access and has been reported to fallback on Google DNS, which I shouldn't need to tell you are HUGE privacy concerns.
The worst part is, even if you use a non-systemd distro, you're still forced to use a "false" systemd library to get some things to work properly. Anything audio related is a big example of that. ALSA and PulseAudio are two libraries that linux uses for audio. However, if you wanna STRICTLY use ALSA, you're fucked. Many things (like watching YouTube on a browser, recording audio from the computer, etc...) have been locked behind PulseAudio, which is also linked to systemd, and as you can guess, PulseAudio is not safe from crashes and breakage. Only way that I've been able to record any sound from my computer with ALSA is if I get a double male audio jack and connect it to the "Audio Out" and "Line In/Microphone" ports, but even then the recording comes out with VERY low bass and high treble. If there's a better work around, I haven't been able to find it, as not many people seem to love ALSA as much as they love PulseAudio.
Deleted member 158
Any software from Poettering is gonna fuck you over, really. No one asked for SysTemD at all, it was brute forced into the Linux mainstream by Red Hat with ties to doubleplusungood agencies.
Linux is far more powerful and fun if you spend the few weeks learning how to build it from scratch and compile it yourself, and you can rest knowing gigabytes of information describing your usage and files aren't being piped out on the daily to strange servers.
Deleted member 158
You're right. Normalfags just use Windows 10 on the latest Intel/AMD arch.
Plenty of reasons not to use SystemD. Backdoors aside, it goes against the unix ideology and is maintained by a retard who you should not be entrusting your security or system operation to.
Unix ideology is useless in this day and age, in the words of the late great Terry A Davis “Linux wants to be a 1970s mainframe”. It’s an arhciac relic from when computers did not have much power. I use a ninth gen I7 system with 16gb of ram. Why should i give a shit if something’s bloat if i have more power than i know what to do with. And i use this fourm and i used Kiwi Farms. Do you think i care about trusting retards with my shit? In the words of Rorschach “hang on by the edge and never look down”. and besides.. who the fuck is going to be hacking my PC? everyone on Linux acts like their target number 1 for a super hacker.
I used to be a diehard Linux extremist, and I did the whole Arch Linux/tiling window manager/ricing/fuck-SystemD/fuck Poettering/fuck PulseAudio/fuck IDEs/fuck ____ thing. And that was really fun! Until it wasn't.
Truth be told, these days I spend most of my Linux time on stock default Ubuntu 20.04. (Wait, don't hit me! Not the face!)
I dunno, maybe I'm just getting old, but I've found myself caring less and less about this shit. Even as recently as a year ago, I used to be really gung-ho about decking out my own operating system and making it look fiiine and all of that shit and keeping up with rolling releases as long as I got bleeding-edge software. But a non-trivial amount of my time at my job these days is spent getting software to work on machines that aren't mine, or making sure that everyone's on the same page technologically and that when issues arise, I have some idea of how to help (e.g. I can't just say "Lol, your R/Python libraries are all fucked and it's not letting you install anything anymore? Well just use a proper operating system scrubbb", as much as I really fucking want to sometimes). So I end up using the more basic bitch operating systems just due to my job roles. And lately I've found I really just don't care enough to run (and configure, and update frequently, and...) a different operating system in my (increasingly scarce) downtime.
t. Normalfag, I guess.
Deleted member 158
Do not let yourself be led by narcissists and the egotistical. You are not a subhuman or normalfag for using Ubuntu, and especially in your case. As fun as customization and understanding the small details of an operating system is, one day you'll have to actually get shit done. The OS should be invisible unless voluntarily brought to light.
Deleted member 184
No need to feel bad about using Ubuntu. I use Linux Mint, and it's very similar to Ubuntu. Based off of Ubuntu as well. I also don't care to update as much as well. It gets annoying when any device wants to update all the time anyways.
is it finally time for doas to shine bros
tay
Registered
Linux and non-Linux users are both humans, having arms, legs, digits, hearts, lungs, brains, eyes, ears, mouths.
We both breath, we feel pain, we have remorse, we feel joy, we enjoy kinship, we enjoy accomplishment, we feel frustration. We both refresh ourselves by submerging into a nutrient rich bath of clear gel.
Then why Linux haters have problems showing unconditional love to those who choose Linux?
We both breath, we feel pain, we have remorse, we feel joy, we enjoy kinship, we enjoy accomplishment, we feel frustration. We both refresh ourselves by submerging into a nutrient rich bath of clear gel.
Then why Linux haters have problems showing unconditional love to those who choose Linux?