Yes, except X had reasons for becoming like it is. But now when computers compute and draw on the same computer, wayland is way better. If only those freedesktop people would finalize this after 3 years of looking at it.
I’m always curious as to what these “don’t bother coming at me” comments are actually supposed to achieve. What is the point of making a public statement, and preemptively dismissing discussion as “bots” in one fell swoop? Is it just you venting out or something?
I don't agree with Nick, but the point of making such a comment is to be heard and it does serve an important role in society. It's easy not to empathize with a group we perceive as tiny and without representation, and it's difficult to speak up when you think you're alone.
Ideally they would defend their point, but not everybody has a spare several hours each day to spend on the Fediverse.
I’d agree if it wasn’t that in this specific case, I don’t think you really get heard by making such absolute statements and calling people that disagree with the point of view bots.
I don't think that's true at all. I'm ok with systemd, but I don't really like it, and find much of the criticism valid. At this point the reason I use it, and am more-or-less fine with it, is that it has become the de facto standard and is very well supported.
Which is also one of the reasons I dislike it --- it is such an integral part of modern Linux systems that it can be hard to change, which reduces a lot of the appeal of Linux --- flexibility and freedom.
I'm fine with systemd, but I really do get the feeling that it exists more because of Red Hat's NIH syndrome than anything that was actually bad about upstart.
Nah, upstart actually sucked. I used it in an embedded project and getting things to start consistently was a nightmare. We had to put all kinds of sleeps in because there was no way to tell when something actually started, only when it was told to start (i.e. start on started x would start both at essentially the same time).
With systemd, that all went away. It magics away sockets and whatnot so things just work properly. Also, our startup time went way down because things could start just a bit earlier, and the config files were more intuitive.
Upstart was a poor solution in search of a problem, and items sysvinit was honestly better imo because sysvinit didn't hide little gotchas all over the place. Systemd is an over engineered solution to a real problem, but it works really well. Oh, and socket activation is magical.
That said, I still prefer the FreeBSD way, which is just a slightly fancy sysvinit. It works well, though it won't win any awards for fanciness. Maybe launchd, if it ever comes to FreeBSD (maybe it has? I've been OOTL since 12), will be cool, IDK.
This is the Unix philosophy: Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface.
Either way the whole point is to write programs/code that can interoperate and be composed. SysD programs comunicate over an "implementation is the specification" protocol, so they might as well be one blob instead of separate programs.
A quotation circulates on the Internet, attributed to me, but it wasn't written by me.
Here's the text that is circulating. Most of it was copied from statements I have made, but the part italicized here is not from me. It makes points that are mistaken or confused.
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linux,” and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use.
Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
The main error is that Linux is not strictly speaking part of the GNU system—whose kernel is GNU Hurd. The version with Linux, we call “GNU/Linux.” It is OK to call it “GNU” when you want to be really short, but it is better to call it “GNU/Linux” so as to give Torvalds some credit.
We don't use the term “corelibs,” and I am not sure what that would mean, but GNU is much more than the specific packages we developed for it. I set out in 1983 to develop an operating system, calling it GNU, and that job required developing whichever important packages we could not find elsewhere.
busybox based distros like Alpine, or maybe Android, are probably the closest thing to non GNU-based Linux. Although I have no idea if they really have zero GNU stuff or just coreutils specifically.
And why would that be? GNU and the Free Software Movement have made an amazing positive contribution to the entire world, including your life even if you do not use GNU/Linux. I find this unwarranted hate on the amazing people that developed the GNU utilities and their equally as astounding work to be extremely disrespectful and quite frankly very petty.
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.
Everybody kept insulting his OS stack for bloat so... he uninstalled. Some say he still lurks on the boards from mobile, posting incoherently about "LFS" and "His own distro with blackjack and hookers." Others say he's still there compiling, waiting for the day he can open a browser.
You seem to lack an understanding of operating system architecture. Linux is indeed only the kernel and not an operating system by itself. There is endless amounts of primary and secondary literature on that. And from its earliest conception onward, when Linus Torvalds was still at the University of Helsinki and struggled with finding POSIX documentation, Linux (the kernel) never worked as a complete general-purpose operating system without external utilities. In the beginning, those were MINIX based, but Linus then adopted the freely available GNU utilities. So no, Linux is not an operating system and you cannot run it as such without utilities. Now, those must not necessarily be GNU, but I think that the term GNU/Linux is still justified because GNU and Linux are strongly intertwined with each other from the point of the latter's birth until today and into the future.
Why is Linux unique in this? Windows, Mac, Solaris, and BSD all don't follow that nomenclature.
Also get why the FSF nags a bit, many in industry would be very happy to remove the FSF all together and focus on maximizing software development for corporations instead of maximising freedom for users.
Yes, the point is that the speaker is impassioned and confident and usually vibes with the statements of the original post-er, but they get zero sex because of how not interested in this niche the opposite sex is at parties.
