UI snappiness on Windows just blows everything else out of the water. It is so much better there is no competition. Linux and MacOS just feel slower.
@sun imo windows is the best OS that is only dragged down by microsoft's insistence on adding stupid shit to it. but when you know how to disable the stupid shit i don't think there is a reason to not use it besides personal preference.
@beardalaxy @sun the thing with windows is games and shit just work, there aren't 4000 API attempts competing, and the people behind it aren't using the internet as a warzone.
That and if you use Linux you either inevitably run into it, or you complain why shit doesn't work not knowing why.
That and if you use Linux you either inevitably run into it, or you complain why shit doesn't work not knowing why.
@PurpCat @beardalaxy @sun I feel like things would've been different if GNU or Linux were complete OSes with everything developed in house instead of just being a userland and a kernel respectively and distro maintainers just duct-taping different programs with different philosophies on top of it.
@xianc78 @PurpCat @beardalaxy @sun Linux is only a kernel.
GNU is a complete OS, although it has the option of several kernels, with a few not developed or managed by GNU.
You can install complete GNU distros like Trisquel GNU/Linux-libre or Guix GNU/Linux-libre and they always work well.
GNU is a complete OS, although it has the option of several kernels, with a few not developed or managed by GNU.
You can install complete GNU distros like Trisquel GNU/Linux-libre or Guix GNU/Linux-libre and they always work well.
@Suiseiseki @PurpCat @beardalaxy @sun I know, but both Linus and RMS had intentions of creating their own OSes.
I could see an alternate timeline where the GNU/Hurd was actually completed and Linux ended up being some minimalist Unix-like operating system unrelated to GNU.
@xianc78 @PurpCat @beardalaxy @sun In 1983, rms announced the GNU OS and then did it - starting by improving the Church of Emacs, writing GCC and other free software, finding existing free software that would do, or could be cleaned up and finding programmers to assist him and write other GNU packages. In early 1989, it was evident that the last piece needed was a free kernel, so GNU developers looked around and found Mach and asked the University that developed it to free it. Finally in early 1991 the University freed mach and GNU developers started working on it (it used a experimental microkernel design, so it took until 1993 before it could be reliably booted and used).
In late 1991, Linus announced his intention to write an OS, except "not big an professional like GNU" and he started writing a kernel with the help of GNU software, using a quick and dirty monolithic design like Unix kernel's used. He only ever got around to writing a kernel - he and the other Linux developers didn't write the remaining needed parts of an OS, as everything else needed was already there - as GNU had already written it - "what good fortune" those developers thought and proceeded to think `I'll name the whole system "Linux" and I'll consider myself a "Linux user", even though I know that Linux is only a kernel` (the ultimate cognitive dissonance).
Development didn't go very well from 1991 to early 1992, as GNU developers has no interest in supporting a proprietary kernel - but Linus finally released Linux as free software under a free license under the GPLv2-ambigious mid 1992, earning the goodwill of GNU developers and so GNU developers assisted Linux developers, doing the difficult job of porting glibc and many other GNU libraries to work with Linux - forming the GNU/Linux system and accelerating development.
Unfortunately, many Linux developers proceeded to shit on that goodwill with malice - calling the whole system as "Linux", adding proprietary software into Linux in 1996 (making Linux proprietary software again) and as in yet another insult, Linus announced that the license was GPLv2-only and not GPLv2-or-later (as he didn't like how the GPLv3 effectively defended the users freedom) and that he wouldn't enforce his license for freedom (so far he has only ever enforced his license against freedom by denying compatibility with GPLv3+ software).
GNU/Hurd was "completed" years ago - you can boot right up into the Church of Emacs.
In late 1991, Linus announced his intention to write an OS, except "not big an professional like GNU" and he started writing a kernel with the help of GNU software, using a quick and dirty monolithic design like Unix kernel's used. He only ever got around to writing a kernel - he and the other Linux developers didn't write the remaining needed parts of an OS, as everything else needed was already there - as GNU had already written it - "what good fortune" those developers thought and proceeded to think `I'll name the whole system "Linux" and I'll consider myself a "Linux user", even though I know that Linux is only a kernel` (the ultimate cognitive dissonance).
Development didn't go very well from 1991 to early 1992, as GNU developers has no interest in supporting a proprietary kernel - but Linus finally released Linux as free software under a free license under the GPLv2-ambigious mid 1992, earning the goodwill of GNU developers and so GNU developers assisted Linux developers, doing the difficult job of porting glibc and many other GNU libraries to work with Linux - forming the GNU/Linux system and accelerating development.
Unfortunately, many Linux developers proceeded to shit on that goodwill with malice - calling the whole system as "Linux", adding proprietary software into Linux in 1996 (making Linux proprietary software again) and as in yet another insult, Linus announced that the license was GPLv2-only and not GPLv2-or-later (as he didn't like how the GPLv3 effectively defended the users freedom) and that he wouldn't enforce his license for freedom (so far he has only ever enforced his license against freedom by denying compatibility with GPLv3+ software).
GNU/Hurd was "completed" years ago - you can boot right up into the Church of Emacs.
@xianc78 @PurpCat @beardalaxy @sun >Linux ended up being some minimalist Unix-like operating system unrelated to GNU.
Linux without GNU would have failed and would be dead in the water.
If GNU didn't exist, Linux could not have been written, as you cannot compile a kernel without a compiler (previously there were only proprietary C compilers with heavily restricted usages, that also cost a fortune), you cannot write a makefile without make software (before GNU make, all usable make software was proprietary) and you cannot write a nice looking menuconfig interface without a curses library (like GNU ncurses) and also many other things like a binutils etc.
Writing a complete OS and supporting libraries is a big job, bigger than writing a kernel and I doubt the Linux developers could have pulled it off and even if they did, it would have been a mostly proprietary OS that didn't serve the user.
If GNU developers didn't ask BSD developers to consider making the BSDs free software, the BSD's would have stayed totally proprietary (now they're mostly free, but the developers can't help but to put convenient proprietary software in and ignore unlicensed files).
All roads in software freedom come from GNU.
Linux without GNU would have failed and would be dead in the water.
If GNU didn't exist, Linux could not have been written, as you cannot compile a kernel without a compiler (previously there were only proprietary C compilers with heavily restricted usages, that also cost a fortune), you cannot write a makefile without make software (before GNU make, all usable make software was proprietary) and you cannot write a nice looking menuconfig interface without a curses library (like GNU ncurses) and also many other things like a binutils etc.
Writing a complete OS and supporting libraries is a big job, bigger than writing a kernel and I doubt the Linux developers could have pulled it off and even if they did, it would have been a mostly proprietary OS that didn't serve the user.
If GNU developers didn't ask BSD developers to consider making the BSDs free software, the BSD's would have stayed totally proprietary (now they're mostly free, but the developers can't help but to put convenient proprietary software in and ignore unlicensed files).
All roads in software freedom come from GNU.
Follow
@Suiseiseki @PurpCat @beardalaxy @sun
>If GNU didn't exist, Linux could not have been written
I didn't say that if GNU didn't exist. I said if GNU/Hurd was usable back then. Linus had goals of his own. He may have been inspired by GNU but he didn't intend to create a kernel for them.
He didn't even have a chance of writing a functional kernel without GNU.
In 1992 he determined that if his project was going to get anywhere, he needed to integrate it with GNU and he deemed the only way he could get the GNU developers to trust him not to make things proprietary and so do most of the work for him, was to adopt a free GNU license and so he did so, deeming that he'll use it as "tit-for-tat license", rather than a license that defends the users freedom.
Of course he burnt that trust in 1996, by allowing the first of many proprietary software programs into his kernel, but by that stage the GNU/Linux system was pretty much ready for general usage, thus support for Linux was not dropped and when the proprietary finally compounded to a ridiculous level in 2008, Jeff released a free version of Linux; https://web.archive.org/web/20140203134408/http://lists.autistici.org/message/20080221.002845.467ba592.en.html resulting in GNU/Linux-libre (later maintained by lxo and jxself to make GNU/GNU Linux-libre.