I don't mean to badmouth the GNU folks, but you can have a fully functional Linux system without any GNU. Busybox for the userspace (which is very adequate considering its target audience) with uclibc and whatever services you want to run. Apache foundation httpd? ISC's Bind? That game server I wrote a year back?
Not saying it'd be a fun OS, but it's Linux and it works.
Actually Linus' MINIX. I agree with the rest of your post though.
DeHackEd: When I say "GNU/Linux", I mean a distro with GNU userspace and a Linux kernel (which applies to nearly all distros)
Also, the free software movement was started by GNU, not Linux. What originally inspired Linus Torvalds to GPL-license his kernel was that it would let him link with GNU software, IIRC. Since Linux 0.01, he was trying to get bash/gcc/etc to work.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
Johannes wrote:
Bumping up this thing to say that I take back my whining about GNU/Linux and that Arch is awesome. It's my main OS now.
Calling it GNU/Linux is an insult to the Linux developers.
If you're in the camp that believes an OS is more than a Kernel, then calling it GNU/Linux is an insult to everyone else.
Nice way to put your foot in your mouth for our amusement :-)
You have it completely backwards: "Linux" is the name of kernel (derived from "Linus' Unix"). So, "f you're in the camp that believes an OS is more than a Kernel", the name "Linux" insults everyone but the kernel developers because you are lumping X, GNOME, KDE and everything else under the name of the kernel... This is especially true since the kernel alone would be all but useless without all those other utilities.
You really don't get it, either just call it Linux, the name of the OS, or lump everyone else in there, don't just decide to lump one of them in there and leave it at that.
I myself run Linux/KDE.
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
Where's GNOME
A GNU project, all the way. It was started by the Free Software Foundation because KDE was flirting with the (then) non-GPL Qt.
Yes, but not as part of making an OS, but as part of destroying something else.
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
In fact the GNU coreutils that the name is derived from is the least amount of work involved. [...]Take credit for <0.001% of everything installed, and putting your name first?
Yes I do, and the name they're giving it is based on the coreutils, that is the reason cited in every one of RMSs papers on the subject.
marzojr wrote:
The GNU project have this habbit of pulling things under their umbrella, that doesn't mean they made it. They just want to expand reasons why they came up with everything, even though they didn't.
marzojr wrote:
The conclusion: you should really learn anything on the subject before going making wild unsupported statements like that.
I would say the same thing to you.
The whole RMS and his team invented everything back in 1992 except for a Kernel is a complete and total lie. Which is constantly being perpetrated by calling it "GNU/Linux".
They barely invented anything back then at all, and a little research shows it.
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
Do we call it zlib/Windows? zlib/Mac OS X?
By your logic, "Windows" should actually be called "NT" instead, and "Mac OS X" should be "XNU" instead: those are the names of their kernels, after all. But regardless, the "zlib" part is such a horrible, horrible analogy it can be dismissed out of hand: comparing all the GNU software typically bundled in GNU/Linux distributions to zlib is like saying that New York is 1 mile away from San Francisco...
You seem not to follow my logic at all.
But for fun, tell me why you think the setup I have should be called GNU.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
you can have a fully functional Linux system without any GNU.
Folks at FSF actually agree that systems like that, using no GNU utilities, should not be called "GNU/Linux" but, in some cases, simply "Linux" (see their FAQ). Which means that this argument is at best tangent to the Linux vs GNU/Linux controversy: the FSF advocates the GNU/Linux name only for OSes based on the Linux kernel and the GNU utilities.
You really don't get it, either just call it Linux, the name of the OS, or lump everyone else in there, don't just decide to lump one of them in there and leave it at that.
But the issue is exactly that the OS is being called by the name of the kernel. And doing that is unfair to the hard work folks at the FSF did for years before Torvalds entered the scene.
Nach wrote:
Yes, but not as part of making an OS, but as part of destroying something else.
The FSF had rightful concerns about Qt: they had no way of knowing that Qt would eventually be licensed in the triple GPL/LGPL/proprietary license it has nowadays, and they were concerned that (then)Trolltech could kill KDE with licensing issues. The only way they saw to safeguard free software was to make their own desktop environment.
Nach wrote:
Yes I do, and the name they're giving it is based on the coreutils, that is the reason cited in every one of RMSs papers on the subject.
Even if this is the case, the fact that glibc and all that userland software are needed to get the kernel to actually do anything but sit idly still make a powerful argument for the name.
Nach wrote:
The whole RMS and his team invented everything back in 1992 except for a Kernel is a complete and total lie. Which is constantly being perpetrated by calling it "GNU/Linux".
They barely invented anything back then at all, and a little research shows it.
A little research, such as finding the Linux 0.01 release notes (look for "Sadly, a kernel by itself") and a message from the 1992 debate with Tanenbaum (search for "As has been noted"), both of which have Linus Torvalds explicitly acknowledging that fact? Were these messages by Torvalds actually lies by Stallman too? What about the fact that the name GNU/Linux wasn't even proposed at first by Stallman or the FSF, but was proposed along with GNU+Linux and other names on Usenet in the 1991-1993 period, right after the Kernel was initially released and had begun development? Why, there was even a distribution back then, the "Yggdrasil Linux/GNU/X" distribution (from late 1992), which explicitly acknowledged X too. Meanwhile, Stallman and the FSF only started their business of promoting GNU/Linux name in 1994... oh, the evil.
Nach wrote:
But for fun, tell me why you think the setup I have should be called GNU.
Without knowing your exact setup, I can only give one procedure which will unambiguously determine that: go to your /bin and /usr/bin directories and delete all files from GNU coreutils (and bash) that are present there; you may consider deleting glibc from /lib or /usr/lib too, for good measure. Then reboot and check if your system is still usable after that. Reaching a terminal and being able to do anything (like changing to a different directory, listing the files in the current dir or editing a file) counts as "usable". If it is not usable, then "GNU/Linux" it is. If the utility is not from GNU, but another utility built for the same purpose, you shouldn't delete it.
The whole RMS and his team invented everything back in 1992 except for a Kernel is a complete and total lie. Which is constantly being perpetrated by calling it "GNU/Linux".
They barely invented anything back then at all, and a little research shows it.
I don't really understand what you mean by "invented". That word seems to imply that they came up with completely original programs which nobody else had thought of before. At least that's how I understand the word "invent" to mean.
I have never heard anybody claiming that the FSF invented the standard Unix tools. Instead, what I have always heard is that the FSF wanted to develop a free alternative to all the commercial Unixes out there at the time. In other words replicate all the standard Unix tools, using a free license, so that people would have an alternative to the commercial products.
(Of course that's not to say that the Gnu people haven't truly invented some original tools and programs, because they certainly have. However, nobody has ever claimed that they invented everything.)
Where did this "they invented everything" suddenly come from?
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
You really don't get it, either just call it Linux, the name of the OS, or lump everyone else in there, don't just decide to lump one of them in there and leave it at that.
But the issue is exactly that the OS is being called by the name of the kernel.
I see an OS nothing more than a Kernel, so I have no problem with that. And unlike other OSs, for Linux, everyone is using that Kernel in conjunction with a wide range of setups, the only common denominator being the Kernel.
If however, you're in the camp (which I'm not part of) that believe an OS is more than a Kernel , don't you dare call it GNU/Linux, putting GNU first, and leaving out everyone else.
marzojr wrote:
And doing that is unfair to the hard work folks at the FSF did for years before Torvalds entered the scene.
And what hard work is that?
Yes, I am minimizing the FSF's accomplishments here.
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
Yes, but not as part of making an OS, but as part of destroying something else.
The FSF had rightful concerns about Qt: they had no way of knowing that Qt would eventually be licensed in the triple GPL/LGPL/proprietary license it has nowadays, and they were concerned that (then)Trolltech could kill KDE with licensing issues. The only way they saw to safeguard free software was to make their own desktop environment.
No, the only way they saw to kill it was make their own desktop environment. If they wanted to safeguard it they would have reimplemented the same library. Plans to do so were scrapped, in favor of killing it, just like the rest of the communist FSF's goals.
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
Yes I do, and the name they're giving it is based on the coreutils, that is the reason cited in every one of RMSs papers on the subject.
Even if this is the case, the fact that glibc and all that userland software are needed to get the kernel to actually do anything but sit idly still make a powerful argument for the name.
Funny isn't it that glibc is mostly from Red Hat then?
I also fail to see the "powerful argument". You really think creating a bunch of the userland software at that time was such a big deal? Not to mention many of them were freely available elsewhere.
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
The whole RMS and his team invented everything back in 1992 except for a Kernel is a complete and total lie. Which is constantly being perpetrated by calling it "GNU/Linux".
They barely invented anything back then at all, and a little research shows it.
A little research, such as finding the Linux 0.01 release notes (look for "Sadly, a kernel by itself") and a message from the 1992 debate with Tanenbaum (search for "As has been noted"), both of which have Linus Torvalds explicitly acknowledging that fact? Were these messages by Torvalds actually lies by Stallman too? What about the fact that the name GNU/Linux wasn't even proposed at first by Stallman or the FSF, but was proposed along with GNU+Linux and other names on Usenet in the 1991-1993 period, right after the Kernel was initially released and had begun development? Why, there was even a distribution back then, the "Yggdrasil Linux/GNU/X" distribution (from late 1992), which explicitly acknowledged X too. Meanwhile, Stallman and the FSF only started their business of promoting GNU/Linux name in 1994... oh, the evil.
That doesn't at all justify RMS saying he invented a whole OS minus the actual OS part.
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
But for fun, tell me why you think the setup I have should be called GNU.
Without knowing your exact setup, I can only give one procedure which will unambiguously determine that: go to your /bin and /usr/bin directories and delete all files from GNU coreutils (and bash) that are present there;
I don't use either of those.
I have BSD Utils, BusyBox, and tcsh, as well as a shell I designed myself.
marzojr wrote:
you may consider deleting glibc from /lib or /usr/lib too, for good measure.
I don't have glibc either. Although perhaps you may want to cite that I have a forked glibc...
Warp wrote:
Nach wrote:
The whole RMS and his team invented everything back in 1992 except for a Kernel is a complete and total lie. Which is constantly being perpetrated by calling it "GNU/Linux".
They barely invented anything back then at all, and a little research shows it.
I don't really understand what you mean by "invented". That word seems to imply that they came up with completely original programs which nobody else had thought of before. At least that's how I understand the word "invent" to mean.
I'm referring to them citing they invented the GNU OS minus the actual OS. And then what they did "implement" was mostly stuff which was no big deal, or could be gotten elsewhere.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
^^I don't know why you call the FSF Communist, I mean they're all about freedom while Commies hate freedom
Warp wrote:
If you perform a thorough cleaning of your Windows drive eg. once a year, not only using Windows' own cleaning utilities, but searching for obsolete files manually (there are very good tutorials on the net about this subject), you can often free up several gigabytes for better use.
I would like to see one of those; the most I do is run CCleaner and also clean out Opera's opcache (which is not touched by CCleaner or by Opera's own cache-deletion operations).
Yes I do, and the name they're giving it is based on the coreutils, that is the reason cited in every one of RMSs papers on the subject.
Even if this is the case, the fact that glibc and all that userland software are needed to get the kernel to actually do anything but sit idly still make a powerful argument for the name.
Funny isn't it that glibc is mostly from Red Hat then?
Funny how, at the time the whole GNU/Linux debacle started, Linux distros didn't even USE glibc yet (they were still using libc5).
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
arflech wrote:
^^I don't know why you call the FSF Communist, I mean they're all about freedom while Commies hate freedom
They dislike anyone making money directly off of computer software. They have to destroy everything with worse knock offs, or bash software as a service.
Pu7o wrote:
Nach wrote:
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
Yes I do, and the name they're giving it is based on the coreutils, that is the reason cited in every one of RMSs papers on the subject.
Even if this is the case, the fact that glibc and all that userland software are needed to get the kernel to actually do anything but sit idly still make a powerful argument for the name.
Funny isn't it that glibc is mostly from Red Hat then?
Funny how, at the time the whole GNU/Linux debacle started, Linux distros didn't even USE glibc yet (they were still using libc5).
That too. Although libc5 was based partially off of what was glibc at the time.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
They dislike anyone making money directly off of computer software. They have to destroy everything with worse knock offs, or bash software as a service.
My god.. Get your facts straight. You're starting to seem like a troll.
FSF wrote:
Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible — just enough to cover the cost.
Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.
The word “free” has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either to freedom or to price. When we speak of “free software”, we're talking about freedom, not price. (Think of “free speech”, not “free beer”.) Specifically, it means that a user is free to run the program, change the program, and redistribute the program with or without changes.
Free programs are sometimes distributed gratis, and sometimes for a substantial price. Often the same program is available in both ways from different places. The program is free regardless of the price, because users have freedom in using it.
Non-free programs are usually sold for a high price, but sometimes a store will give you a copy at no charge. That doesn't make it free software, though. Price or no price, the program is non-free because users don't have freedom.
No, the only way they saw to kill it was make their own desktop environment. If they wanted to safeguard it they would have reimplemented the same library. Plans to do so were scrapped, in favor of killing it,
Ah, so this is why no one has ever heard of, or uses, KDE nowadays: because the FSF "killed" it.[/sarcasm] Back in the real world, there was indeed an effort on reimplementation of the Qt libraries -- the Harmony toolkit -- which was scrapped only after and because Qt became dual licensed with GPL. Neither GNOME nor FSF had anything to do with scrapping Harmony. I further submit that, contrary to your statement, GNOME was the best thing that ever happened to KDE: competition. Both ended up doing their best to be better than the other, making things better for all end users.
Nach wrote:
just like the rest of the communist FSF's goals.
So, this is the real reason for your issue with the FSF: you disagree with them in a political and/or ideological level -- apparently stemming from a misunderstanding of what the GPL actually does, as Johannes pointed out. With this in mind, it is no surprise that you -- by your own admission -- intentionally downplay their accomplishments.
Nach wrote:
Funny isn't it that glibc is mostly from Red Hat then?
Man, you should really get your facts straight... (more below)
Pu7o wrote:
Funny how, at the time the whole GNU/Linux debacle started, Linux distros didn't even USE glibc yet (they were still using libc5).
... and so should you. By the time the Linux kernel was being developed, glibc 1.0 was out. Feeling that the FSF was too slow, the Linux kernel developers forked glibc 1.0 into libc; unknown to the kernel devs, the FSF was hard at work on glibc 2.0 at the time, which is why glibc 1.0 was apparently stalled. When it was released, February 1997, it was a lot better than the fork, which by then was libc5. Nearly all distros switched back to glibc in 1997/1998, including Red Hat -- which had finished migrating by December 1997. I find it hard to believe that they would take the better part of a year to migrate to glibc 2.0 if it was mostly from them: they would be preparing patches along the way to make the transition a lot faster. See this for an overview of the history and links.
Nach wrote:
That doesn't at all justify RMS saying he invented a whole OS minus the actual OS part.
While I do agree that Stallman downplays the role of the kernel, I think you are being guilty of overestimating its role and underestimating the role of everything else needed for an operating system. But then, again, you have stated as much yourself; so no surprises here.
Nach wrote:
I don't use either of those.
I have BSD Utils, BusyBox, and tcsh, as well as a shell I designed myself.
You have a system that Stallman himself wouldn't call "GNU/Linux"; why does this matter for all the other OSes that should?
Nach wrote:
I don't have glibc either. Although perhaps you may want to cite that I have a forked glibc...
So, you think that the hard work of the FSF is erased because someone forked it and added some things of their own?
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Johannes wrote:
FSF wrote:
Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible — just enough to cover the cost.
Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.
Yes, and please explain to me a working business model that is easy to pull off with their system?
Every company which I've seen that makes money off of "free software" does so by selling support, or allowing the use of the software in a non free environment, or really selling the hardware it comes on.
Their model basically means you really can't have a sustainable business solely off the software you create. You can show me all the papers you write that may suggest that it should be possible, but in practice, it isn't, and their ideals are more communist.
Johannes wrote:
FSF wrote:
The word “free” has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either to freedom or to price. When we speak of “free software”, we're talking about freedom, not price. (Think of “free speech”, not “free beer”.) Specifically, it means that a user is free to run the program, change the program, and redistribute the program with or without changes.
Free programs are sometimes distributed gratis, and sometimes for a substantial price. Often the same program is available in both ways from different places. The program is free regardless of the price, because users have freedom in using it.
Non-free programs are usually sold for a high price, but sometimes a store will give you a copy at no charge. That doesn't make it free software, though. Price or no price, the program is non-free because users don't have freedom.
I don't know why you're bringing down this redefinition lingo for. You want to fight about that too? Or start discussing all the FSF hypocritical papers?
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
No, the only way they saw to kill it was make their own desktop environment. If they wanted to safeguard it they would have reimplemented the same library. Plans to do so were scrapped, in favor of killing it,
Ah, so this is why no one has ever heard of, or uses, KDE nowadays: because the FSF "killed" it.
Actually Trolltech the designer of the toolkit was not really profiting off their setup as good as it was, and had to sell out to Nokia.
The idea isn't limited to KDE either. I may ask you though where did all the old paid office suits went to. Or why companies are afraid to port business applications to Linux.
marzojr wrote:
Neither GNOME nor FSF had anything to do with scrapping Harmony. I further submit that, contrary to your statement, GNOME was the best thing that ever happened to KDE: competition. Both ended up doing their best to be better than the other, making things better for all end users.
I fully disagree with you. KDE 4 has had the goal to redesign much of the user interface to copy the brain dead dumbed down simplicity of GNOME, making it much more annoying to use. KDE is now worse for users like me.
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
just like the rest of the communist FSF's goals.
So, this is the real reason for your issue with the FSF: you disagree with them in a political and/or ideological level -- apparently stemming from a misunderstanding of what the GPL actually does, as Johannes pointed out. With this in mind, it is no surprise that you -- by your own admission -- intentionally downplay their accomplishments.
No, I disagree with them in that they are hypocritical, decide they have to go around redefining common usage of the English language to fit their needs, and minimize the accomplishments of others while exaggerating their own.
I do not misunderstand what the GPL does, I understand it quite well, despite what I'm saying may suggest to you otherwise.
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
Funny isn't it that glibc is mostly from Red Hat then?
Man, you should really get your facts straight... (more below)
You disagree that the majority of glibc as it is today comes from Red Hat?
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
That doesn't at all justify RMS saying he invented a whole OS minus the actual OS part.
While I do agree that Stallman downplays the role of the kernel, I think you are being guilty of overestimating its role and underestimating the role of everything else needed for an operating system. But then, again, you have stated as much yourself; so no surprises here.
I don't see how exactly you can overestimate the underpinnings which keeps your entire OS running.
I "underestimate" the rest in your opinion, because I myself have personally implemented most of the C library, and the basic shell utilities and a shell myself. None of it was hard or difficult, or that time consuming. Therefore I find a group which believes doing these things deserves credit on an OS level to be a gross exaggeration. Creating a Kernel which works really well is not easy, my own OS designs never got very far. Here we have Linux which is one of the most advanced OS Kernels on the planet. Everything GNU has been doing in that area is a total joke, or based off of work by outsiders. I believe in giving credit where credit is due, and at the same time not giving it where it's not deserved. I don't believe the FSF or GNU should be given credit for designing an OS, especially not something based off of Linux.
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
I don't use either of those.
I have BSD Utils, BusyBox, and tcsh, as well as a shell I designed myself.
You have a system that Stallman himself wouldn't call "GNU/Linux"; why does this matter for all the other OSes that should?
Because Linux can run fine for the most part without anything from Stallman. I also don't need to be attacked when I say I run Linux with "nuh uh, it's GNU/Linux".
As Linux has so many flavors of running it, call it Linux which is the common denominator, or list all the major components involved, not just one of them.
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
I don't have glibc either. Although perhaps you may want to cite that I have a forked glibc...
So, you think that the hard work of the FSF is erased because someone forked it and added some things of their own?
No, but I disagree with the hard work aspect of it.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
KDE 4 has had the goal to redesign much of the user interface to copy the brain dead dumbed down simplicity of GNOME, making it much more annoying to use. KDE is now worse for users like me.
That's why I don't use a DE. Both KDE and GNOME strictly adhere to the "simple on the surface, tangled mess inside" philosophy. Plain Openbox with tint2 ftw :) In Openbox, everything is controlled by editing 3 files: rc.xml (WM behavior, theme, fonts, workspaces, key binds and mouse binds), menu.xml (right click menu) and autostart.sh. Also, there are easy GUI tools for most of it: obconf, obmenu, obkey and obtheme.
Also, zsh is my shell of choice. Anyone still meanding through bash land should give it a shot.
I use Windows XP. Been using it for 3 years here with no major problems, no reinstalls, and a total of 2 bluescreens (even with about 90% uptime over those years).
No bizarre slowdown or other crap, and I run a ton of shit all the time. Maybe you're doing it wrong?
Linux is nothing but a massive headache of trying to get part X to work with part Y and having to remember a billion different commands for fixing something that is a menu option in Windows. Better hope that your compiler is working properly and that you don't have a catch-22 dependency issue, since nobody fucking provides binaries!
I'll stick to Windows, thanks. This whole "free software" movement is frustrating and aggravating because 99% of the time the utilities are some weird weird mashup that doesn't even goddamn work for anybody but the author, or requires you to self-compile and download 27 different components to work.
Your counter-arguments will fall on deaf ears. This is just by my experience. Using Linux as a webserver machine? Fine. Any other use? Fuck that.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Xkeeper wrote:
I use Windows XP. Been using it for 3 years here with no major problems, no reinstalls, and a total of 2 bluescreens (even with about 90% uptime over those years).
No bizarre slowdown or other crap, and I run a ton of shit all the time. Maybe you're doing it wrong?
Which part was done wrong? Installing Windows XP off the CD?
Xkeeper wrote:
Linux is nothing but a massive headache of trying to get part X to work with part Y and having to remember a billion different commands for fixing something that is a menu option in Windows.
Not if everything works fine right after the install, which is usually the case nowadays, at least on the last 5 installs I did.
Xkeeper wrote:
Better hope that your compiler is working properly and that you don't have a catch-22 dependency issue, since nobody fucking provides binaries!
I as a rule don't compile anyone's software but my own. Haven't had a problem yet. What were you testing? Gentoo?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
I used XP for a couple years without reinstalling, or having any noticeable problems. I also spent a lot of time exploring (and grooming) Windows' internals using Sysinternals, IceSword, and three or four registry cleaners. Maybe a coincidence, maybe not.
As for Windows vs Linux, here's my take: Linux is full of surprises for a passive user from Windows-land, but persistence pays off, and it doesn't take long to develop a sense of how things work. Learn C, the shell tools, a good editor, and skim the Autotools and GCC docs. Builds may fail, but you'll know why. Segfaults happen, but you have GDB.
I could go through a litany of cases where doing something on Linux was easier, or less expensive, or less intractable than on Windows, but that would be like comparing two houses, room by room, and noting all the minor differences without noticing that one of the houses is on fire.
Linux is open. Windows isn't. Linux does what you tell it; Windows tells you what to do. I get why Windows is more appealing to people who don't need a lot of control, but I wish I'd switched sooner.
Linux is nothing but a massive headache of trying to get part X to work with part Y and having to remember a billion different commands for fixing something that is a menu option in Windows. Better hope that your compiler is working properly and that you don't have a catch-22 dependency issue, since nobody fucking provides binaries!
Ooh, you're so objective. Ever heard of a package manager, btw?
having to remember a billion different commands for fixing something that is a menu option in Windows.
I see you have a sense of humor.
Windows is not configurable and has laughably limited support for anything.
For instance, did you know that NTFS and the Windows kernel support hard and soft links? Show me where, in a standard Windows installation, you can create them.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
For instance, did you know that NTFS and the Windows kernel support hard and soft links? Show me where, in a standard Windows installation, you can create them.
Did you know that FAT supports hard links and that all the standard partition integrity scanners will delete them because that shouldn't happen?
You can also IIRC create the hard and soft links using rundll with some obscure parameters.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
No, hard links are not defined in the FAT specification. Although you can have two directory entries pointing to the same starting cluster, it won't work properly. If the size of one of the files changes, the other file's size won't match the number of clusters and the file will become invalid. And if the first cluster of one of the files is moved to a different location, the other file will also become invalid. The only exceptions are the . and .. entries of a directory, which are automatically updated if the directory is moved (for example, when running a defragmentation program).
On an NTFS volume, hard and soft links can be created using the CreateHardLink and CreateSymbolicLink functions.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
HHS wrote:
No, hard links are not defined in the FAT specification.
Yes, but it's still supported. Not to say the support is any good ;)
As for those functions, it needs NT 6+. However it is still possible to do it on older versions.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
You have an interesting definition of the word "support". I guess going by that I could say that human organism supports ingesting 50 kg of uranium every day.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Maybe I should have said "possible".
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
