Thread: Which OS Are You Running ?

Ubuntu 14.04. Been windows free for 6 years now and loving it. Still have to use the ole windoze for work but everything else is as open as I can get it.

Anyone tried the GNU OS with HURD? Or any of the free software foundation's recommended completely free OSs? https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html

Apparently Debian has a Hurd version, I might just blow away my fedora and give it a whirl.

I mean, we have to be pragmatic and use what works, especially professionally. However, I agree with Richard Stallman's stance and the Free Software Foundation.

I always forget to do it because it is so ubiquitous to call it "linux". But technically speaking what we call linux is in actuality the kernel part of the OS. I guess this gets political at some point, but my opinion is these OSs are GNU/Linux.

James.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Anyone tried the GNU OS with HURD? Or any of the free software foundation's recommended completely free OSs? https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html

Apparently Debian has a Hurd version, I might just blow away my fedora and give it a whirl.

I mean, we have to be pragmatic and use what works, especially professionally. However, I agree with Richard Stallman's stance and the Free Software Foundation.

I always forget to do it because it is so ubiquitous to call it "linux". But technically speaking what we call linux is in actuality the kernel part of the OS. I guess this gets political at some point, but my opinion is these OSs are GNU/Linux.

James.

I keep meaning to try Hurd, but haven't got round to it. I don't think anyone uses it as their sole system though, as far as I understand it.

The standard Linux kernel is fully FSF-compliant, though some (read most) distros include components which aren't strictly 'free'. Practically, though this means you won't get things like codecs needed to play various sound/video formats if you don't install those components -- so for me the pragmatic angle wins out (I'm a paid-up member of FSF though).

I half-agree on the nomenclature part, but "Linux" is recognised. I prefer to imagine that calling it "Linux" is just a clipped form of "GNU/Linux" - just like people often say "Windows" rather than "Microsoft Windows", though of course it's really not quite the same thing.

Currently dual boot Win 7 and Puppy Linux. Puppy is my favorite OS. I used Mac from OS 9 through 10.4 but got tired of all the junk they kept adding to it. I get all the functionality that I need from an OS that is under 200 mb and runs in RAM.

Originally Posted by emacsomancer

...
I half-agree on the nomenclature part, but "Linux" is recognised. I prefer to imagine that calling it "Linux" is just a clipped form of "GNU/Linux" - just like people often say "Windows" rather than "Microsoft Windows", though of course it's really not quite the same thing.

I dunno man. Imagine coming up with the idea for a water-powered (free) car, spending 10 years putting bits of it together, then some dude wanders in with an engine, and then having your idea for the water-car forever named after the engine.

I'm an academic, so I know this kind of thing happens all the time. And I don't think it is Torvalds fault - it's just one of those things that can happen when pragmatism collides with idealism that never quite got there. It's interesting to ponder what might have been if a "GNU kernel" had been successfully developed, but maybe that's just me.

In any event, it is nice that we have this choice of OS now. Would we have it without Stallman's idealistic vision and the GNU project's effort? Would we have it without Torvalds' pragmatic genius? I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that words have power. "Linux" is one of those words.

James.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

I dunno man. Imagine coming up with the idea for a water-powered (free) car, spending 10 years putting bits of it together, then some dude wanders in with an engine, and then having your idea for the water-car forever named after the engine.

I'm an academic, so I know this kind of thing happens all the time.

As you say, this sort of thing does happen all the time.

I have seen the argument that in many installations, the GNU component ends up being rather small (in terms of lines of code) compared to other components. But that to me seems beside the point, as it is the concept of the GNU project which is more important than any particular lines of code.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

And I don't think it is Torvalds fault - it's just one of those things that can happen when pragmatism collides with idealism that never quite got there. It's interesting to ponder what might have been if a "GNU kernel" had been successfully developed, but maybe that's just me.

Well, in theory Linux is (a) GNU kernel, which just happens to be called Linux. In practical terms, I'm not sure - I suppose (if we assume that Hurd is the kernel 'which would have been') that it would come down to whatever the difference between microkernels and monolithic kernels is. What lies outside of my realm of knowledge.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

In any event, it is nice that we have this choice of OS now. Would we have it without Stallman's idealistic vision and the GNU project's effort? Would we have it without Torvalds' pragmatic genius? I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that words have power. "Linux" is one of those words.

Those are interesting questions. In theory Torvalds would have developed Linux whether or not there was a GNU project. Of course, there wouldn't have been any userland tools to run with it without GNU -- would the existence of a Linux kernel have prompted the development of these? If Torvalds hadn't developed Linux, would the GNU project have developed a kernel quickly enough? (and what is "quickly enough"?)

Well, I just installed (VMed?) the Debian Hurd in Virtualbox on this Mac. Reminds me of my first linux back in the late 90s. I haven't fiddled around with it much yet, but the network doesn't work (don't think the network card is supported) and it's fairly basic. I can see why they say it is not ready but the windowing system works and you can do some things.

I think I'll try it on an older piece of hardware, and run through some post install stuff. See what there is to see.

Yeah, what ifs abound in with this stuff. But in the end we have what we have. People who know understand Stallman's contribution, as they understand Torvalds'. I guess it's weighting that contribution that sparks the controversy. People who don't know...well, I know some people who don't even realise who Torvalds is, let alone Stallman, and they are completely happy running something like Ubuntu or whatever.

James.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Yeah, what ifs abound in with this stuff. But in the end we have what we have. People who know understand Stallman's contribution, as they understand Torvalds'. I guess it's weighting that contribution that sparks the controversy. People who don't know...well, I know some people who don't even realise who Torvalds is, let alone Stallman, and they are completely happy running something like Ubuntu or whatever.

Well, when I started with Unix (SunOS/3.2 on Sun-3/60) in 1988, there was only Sun's proprietary toolchain. Then, in 1989, I remember first using GNU tools to self-compile, and then compile the X Windowing System -- I used to keep the full GNU toolchain up-to-date for multiple architectures and OSes... and download source code on low-speed dial-up connections. From then on, I never worked anywhere that used vendor tools (OK... two did). I didn't use Linux in an academic setting until 1996, and not in a commercial setting until 1998; haven't used Unix (Solaris) since 1999. History. For me, it's GNU/Linux.

I am glad to say I am back to using Linux, with a single Windows partition only for those games I haven't got running on Linux yet. Woop

Geek

And I'm a little conservative, working on Windows XP. I still like it and happy with everything.