scalding take
🇳🇱
scalding take
@tuxcrafting Whats a good one? Only gui based coding ive seen has been horrific.
re: scalding take
there have been no serious attempts at making a general-purpose one
re: scalding take
@tuxcrafting Fair argument but even then I'm skeptical. While i couod see the benefit of better visualizations I'd argue text is still the best way to code.
Let me guys your a windows user?
re: scalding take
If you call our operating system “Linux”, that conveys a mistaken idea of the system’s origin, history, and purpose. If you call it “GNU/Linux,” that conveys (though not in detail) an accurate idea.
But does this matter? Is it important whether people know the system’s origin, history, and purpose? Yes, because people who forget history are often condemned to repeat it. The Free World that has developed around GNU/Linux is not secure; the problems that led us to develop GNU are not completely eradicated, and they threaten to come back. When I explain why it’s appropriate to call the operating system “GNU/Linux” rather than “Linux,” people sometimes respond this way:
"Granted that the GNU Project deserves credit for this work, is it really worth a fuss when people don’t give credit? Isn’t the important thing that the job was done, not who did it? You ought to relax, take pride in the job well done, and not worry about the credit."
This would be wise advice, if only the situation were like that—if the job were done and it were time to relax. If only that were true! But challenges abound, and this is no time to take the future for granted. Our community’s strength rests on commitment to freedom and cooperation. Using the name GNU/Linux is a way for people to remind themselves and inform others of these goals.
People who know they are using a system that came out of the GNU Project can see a direct relationship between themselves and GNU. They won’t automatically agree with our philosophy, but at least they will see a reason to think seriously about it. In contrast, people who consider themselves “Linux users,” and believe that the GNU Project “developed tools which proved to be useful in Linux,” typically perceive only an indirect relationship between GNU and themselves. They may just ignore the GNU philosophy when they come across it.
The GNU Project is idealistic, and anyone encouraging idealism today faces a great obstacle: the prevailing ideology encourages people to dismiss idealism as “impractical.” Our idealism has been extremely practical: it is the reason we have a free GNU/Linux operating system. People who love this system ought to know that it is our idealism made real.
If “the job” really were done, if there were nothing at stake except credit, perhaps it would be wiser to let the matter drop. But we are not in that position. To inspire people to do the work that needs to be done, we need to be recognized for what we have already done. Please help us, by calling the operating system GNU/Linux.
I disagree with your leadin that calling it "linux" shows ignorance of the origin. I'd say the opposite, it shows an understanding of the separation between these concepts and means you wish to specify something more general than **just** gnu linux.
As otehrs have mentioned many of us dont run a GNU userland, some of us do. Sometimes we want to be inclusive of all linux, not just GNU/Linux.
Its really no different than specifying Linux as opposed to your distro. You are intentionally be general so as to be inclusive of all the flavors.
uses GNU make syntax (Just checked with my OpenBSD make and it didn't work). Meaning apline depends on GNU, alpine uses GNU software.
>loyal to the kernel itself
@r yes I am all about the linux kernel and linus, not so much of a GNU fan boy however.
@r No thats not what I said, I support open-source software, I just prefer open source alternatives to the GNU wherever I can.
Nothing is wrong with it. I just have no loyalty to using it and am more than happy to use non-GNU replacements on linux. Especially so if they have less-viral licenses, but that isnt really a huge driving factor.
It has less to do wiht me taking issue with the GNU which i dont 9but to listen to "r" you would think I do) and more to do with the fact that my loyalty in terms of the software I use is centered around the linux kernel. Thats the must-have component for me.
GNU is fine its just not the part im going to shout from the roof tops is all. Its not the part of my system I happen to be announcing to others or feel relevant to mention most of the time (unless being asked about my userland)
There are various distros that lack or replace GNU to varying degrees. Andoid pretty much eliminates it completely.
Regardless there are a few distros which have little or no GNU in them.
But the fact that the GNU orginzation contributed some vital parts to the userland is nice and all, but so have thousands of other organizations and people.
Thats why I'm liking going to use one of three terminology, for the sake of percision and because of what information I hope to convey:
1) *nix - I use this just talk about the whole family of POSIX systems
2) Linux - I use this when I want to convey was flavor of kernel I use specifically. This is most common lately since all my systems run linux, not all of them run GNU, so it would be incorrect to say "I only use GNU/Linux" but it would be correct to say "I only use Linux"
3) Archlinux - I use this when I want to specify the entire operating system I use. This will convey the fact that I am using GNU userland, or at least that I am likely to use it, but also convery much of the other non-GNU userland I use. If i want to describe my whole operating system then this is the term I use.
I see little need to specify GNU/Linux which is basically just saying what kernel I use and arbitrarily picking an organization that happened to write a few key userland apps and libraries I use (which ignoring all the other organizations involved). It strikes me as a largely non-descript and pointless phraseology.
It has nothing to do with hating the GNU though or anything like that.
78112130_p0.jpg