Mansplaining (a blend word of man and the informal form splaining of the gerund explaining) is a pejorative term meaning "(for a man) to comment on or explain something, to a woman, in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner"
It's not meant to be a stereotype applied to all men, just the a thing that some men do. It happens when a man assumes, perhaps subconsciously, that the woman he is speaking to is his intellectual inferior and would surely benefit from his opinion on whatever topic without any regard to her possible expertise on the topic, or even his own lack thereof. I've rarely witnessed it myself, but know women who have had to put up with it. Stereotypeing all men as "manslainers" would be rude, but mocking the men who actually behave that way is cool with me.
Even the term itself is a generalising stereotype. But it we are to have a somewhat serious discussion about it, I'd say It's a human condition, not a gendered condition. For example, given what is (not) known about our respective genders, you felt the need to explain this.
Who's obsessed? It's a joke about a dude attempting to man-splain even when they're wrong (I'm a dude and I've definitely seen it) and her turning the tables on him. That's it. To get defensive about that is... weird.
What are you talking about? I've witnessed it several times now at work, especially regarding programming or EE. Have you not yet suffered through a programmer condescendingly explain trivial matters to others, especially to women?
The post is obviously a hyperbole but it's not too far off from reality.
Eventually the proper name for the operating system will just be the full configuration.nix file, and we'll all rename our backups to "FullLegalName"OS
In this future, NixOS replaces all other distros as the defacto standard way to manage packages
If only nix wasn't such a pain to read, with all the conveniences it has like automatically looking up variables in all of the places available.
I understand the thought, but it feels like a lot of things done to simplify writing the code makes it way harder to read, and nix's design is decades old and it really shows
Also, there are sometimes issues with nix on macos, but I'm inclined to blame it on Apple
I made the joke that we’ll have SystemD/Linux replacing GNU/Linux and the number of “well asckuallys…” that popped up was simultaneously humorous and saddening.
https://github.com/uutils/coreutils - I'm waiting for a distro to switch to this, and clang base, and then musl. But glibc compatibility still lacking usually - one day!
What's the point? Move from a free license to a corporate cuck license is not something that values normal users, only if you are a corporation and you need a more permissive license for some reason
and a giant "fuck you" to Lennart Poettering for that. Not for creating an init system option - but for lobbying it into major distributions, instead of letting the users decide what they prefer. May he forever stub his toes on furniture.
Systemd is also horrible project because it has sd-dbus - a dbus implementation, that requires systemd. And some projects(like Anbox) when migrating from abstraction layer to direct use of dbus accidentally choosen sd-dbus instead of dbus. And devs genuenly belive that sd-dbus is not systemd-specific.
I'm not blindly hating. I despise the asshole responsible for the choice being taken away from me for many major distros and I wish him the plague for his manipulative approach in getting there.
The choice of making way more things than just the job of an init system harder than it has to be, especially when both flavors have to work. Feel free to call generous people who work for the community "assholes", but it's you who's that, if anyone
People who lobby with decision makers at major distributions for their software to be made the de-facto standard, instead of leaving it to the userbase, have a deeply anti-democratic mindset, and that makes them assholes.
I didn't know much about Linux when Systemd was adopted by Debian. And how would I make myself loud enough for people to notice? I still don't have the technical knowledge to completely grasp the operating reasons why people chose it, all I know is that systemd was meant to be an init system, and now it is no longer just an init system. It's in things it shouldn't be in. I'm sure people worked hard on it but one program edging out general alternatives shouldn't have been the way of development
You don't know the details of why it was chosen, yet you complain about people with obviously more knowledge on these topics having chosen it… reminds me of science deniers.
All I'm saying is that it shouldn't have gone beyond being an init system. Is it so hard to understand that one might want one application to do one thing and do it well?
Your opinion is that systemd is objectively better being more than an init system?
I prefer my software to work as single units which can communicate using standard, agnostic technologies to one another, not be a gigantic binary blob which is too hard for even some of the most brilliant people in the community to understand
It's not even a single binary blob. Shows your competence around this topic. Feel free to continue rambling and whatever without knowing anything about it.
That's weird as fuck. Major distros use it because it's the most functional. If the other ones were as good, they'd be used. There is no "lobbying" lol, it just makes the most technical sense and is significantly more than just an init system. I'd rather users have a system that "just works" instead, since arbitrary choices aren't necessarily a good thing.
Poettering is a douchebag, a Royal fucking asshole, who happened to code a usable, performant, well coded project hosting subprojects that does a better job for the users than all their predecessors.
He’s the guy people love to hate, and he’s really damn good.
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're refering to as GNU/Linux, is in fact, systemd/GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, systemd plus GNU plus Linux. GNU/Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning systemd init system made useful by the systemd daemons, shell utilities and redundant system components comprising a full init system as defined by systemd itself.
Many computer users run a modified version of the systemd init system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of systemd which is widely used today is often called GNU/Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the systemd init system, developed by the Red Hat.
There really is a GNU/Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the init system they use. GNU/Linux is the os: a collection of programs that can be run by the init system. The operating system is an essential part of an init system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete init system. GNU/Linux is normally used in combination with the systemd init system: the whole system is basically systwmd with GNU/Linux added, or systemd/GNU/Linux. All the so-called GNU/Linux distributions are really distributions of systemd/GNU/Linux!
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.
