Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It
-
@DustinB3403 said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
but his entire theory is predicated on believing that there is an app shortfall caused by VB6 type developers not being on Linux. If anything, I'd argue that that is one of Linux' strengths.But you argue this because you understand the languages used. Many people don't. I have some basic understanding of it, but compared to you, I'm a simpleton.
I believe his idea is to have some simple "learn VB6" and you can create awesome applications that will run on distro ______.
Which already exist, yes, but its a matter of declaring it to the newbie "linux" developer. Hey you can use the same programming languages you've always used. Here is notepad++, go to town.
But newbie developers, and VB6, don't make apps that drive people to platforms, hence why Microsoft has been doing everything that they can to distance themselves from them since... VB6. VB6 made Windows look ridiculous and they got rid of it for a reason. And now, while late to the party, they've joined the rest of the world in modern app design.
The point being... no amount of a VB6 like ecosystem is going to make any platform more used, it might actually make it hated. VB6 developers are a big piece of why Windows was so awful for so long. It wasn't their fault entirely, the tool set encouraged it, the era was one of transition, the OS wasn't that mature yet, etc. But the move to .NET didn't make anything worse, it improved everything. What VB6 taught us was that unskilled developers are no more useful than unskilled IT pros. They do more harm than good.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@DustinB3403 said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
but his entire theory is predicated on believing that there is an app shortfall caused by VB6 type developers not being on Linux. If anything, I'd argue that that is one of Linux' strengths.But you argue this because you understand the languages used. Many people don't. I have some basic understanding of it, but compared to you, I'm a simpleton.
I believe his idea is to have some simple "learn VB6" and you can create awesome applications that will run on distro ______.
Which already exist, yes, but its a matter of declaring it to the newbie "linux" developer. Hey you can use the same programming languages you've always used. Here is notepad++, go to town.
But newbie developers, and VB6, don't make apps that drive people to platforms, hence why Microsoft has been doing everything that they can to distance themselves from them since... VB6. VB6 made Windows look ridiculous and they got rid of it for a reason. And now, while late to the party, they've joined the rest of the world in modern app design.
The point being... no amount of a VB6 like ecosystem is going to make any platform more used, it might actually make it hated. VB6 developers are a big piece of why Windows was so awful for so long. It wasn't their fault entirely, the tool set encouraged it, the era was one of transition, the OS wasn't that mature yet, etc. But the move to .NET didn't make anything worse, it improved everything. What VB6 taught us was that unskilled developers are no more useful than unskilled IT pros. They do more harm than good.
A bit offtopic:
Actually, VB.NET has nothing to do with Visual Basic. It's a full featured languages including quite some modern concepts like tuples (in the next release). VB.NET has access to the whole .NET eco system, which makes it very powerful. Yes, C# is ahead of it and MS recently stated that they won't implement much more features into VB.There are just two things that are common to both languages: The name and the basic syntax. But that's also the case for other languages: C/C++/C#/Java or any LISP style language for example.
Anyway, SAM is right, VB led many developers to build bad apps - and they had next to no choice in doing so.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
The point being... no amount of a VB6 like ecosystem is going to make any platform more used, it might actually make it hated. VB6 developers are a big piece of why Windows was so awful for so long. It wasn't their fault entirely, the tool set encouraged it, the era was one of transition, the OS wasn't that mature yet, etc. But the move to .NET didn't make anything worse, it improved everything. What VB6 taught us was that unskilled developers are no more useful than unskilled IT pros. They do more harm than good.
There are already quite a few good choices for cross platform development: C#, Java, C++, Python, Perl, ... It basically boils down to having an either a compiler for the target platform or an interpreted languages and a "runtime" of some sort. Next, for GUI applications, you need a UI framework (like GTK for example) which is available on all platforms (and better pray that it behaves the same on all platforms) and so on.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
Eh I found such a thing..
Maybe this will help to address the naming issues between "linux" and everything else.
This is the .. erm ... more detailed Linux only version:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_distribution#/media/File:Linux_Distribution_Timeline.svghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Linux_Distribution_Timeline.svg
-
And a small overview from Unix to Linux:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix#/media/File:Unix_history-simple.svg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Unix_history-simple.svg -
So Linux is the kernel, obviously. Everything around would be a distro, a flavor.
I like to call them by their name and give a hint about the origin. Like "I'm going to install Fedora, which is a Red Hat based distribution."
-
@thwr said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
So Linux is the kernel, obviously. Everything around would be a distro, a flavor.
I like to call them by their name and give a hint about the origin. Like "I'm going to install Fedora, which is a Red Hat based distribution."
Actually, Red Hat is a Fedora-based distro
-
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@thwr said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
So Linux is the kernel, obviously. Everything around would be a distro, a flavor.
I like to call them by their name and give a hint about the origin. Like "I'm going to install Fedora, which is a Red Hat based distribution."
Actually, Red Hat is a Fedora-based distro
Yeah, sponsored by Red Hat, to be more precise
Like "I'm going to install Ubuntu, which is a Debian based distribution."
-
@thwr said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@thwr said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
So Linux is the kernel, obviously. Everything around would be a distro, a flavor.
I like to call them by their name and give a hint about the origin. Like "I'm going to install Fedora, which is a Red Hat based distribution."
Actually, Red Hat is a Fedora-based distro
Yeah, sponsored by Red Hat, to be more precise
Like "I'm going to install Ubuntu, which is a Debian based distribution."
Right, Fedora, sponsored by Red Hat. Or RHEL, a Fedora-based distro.
Or, Ubuntu, sponsored by Canonical. Ubuntu, a Debian-based distro.
Fedora and Debian are roots, RHEL, CentOS and Ubuntu are derivatives.
-
Hmm, what if you take the Linux out of Ubuntu or Android. What are you left with? Maybe that is a question worth answering. What if you took the MSDOS out of Win98? What are you left with?
Will you still have a functional system? Nope. But are you left with so much it is still almost a complete system?
If you take the wheels off a car, or take out the engine, is it still a car?
Food for thought. I can see either direction, but I still lean towards SAMs take.
-
@Tim_G said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
Hmm, what if you take the Linux out of Ubuntu or Android. What are you left with?
Ubuntu exists without Linux. Ubuntu on the Windows Kernel was a big deal in 2016.
-
@Tim_G said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
What if you took the MSDOS out of Win98? What are you left with?
Windows 98 is a "windowing environment" for DOS. That was the name used at the time. DOS was the OS, Windows 98 is an environment, comparable to KDE, Gnome, XFCE, Cinnamon or similar.
-
@Tim_G said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
Will you still have a functional system? Nope. But are you left with so much it is still almost a complete system?
Depends. Windows 98 without DOS is... nothing. But KDE without Linux will still run on FreeBSD or Windows. Ubuntu without Linux can run on Windows. Debian has been ported to other kernels as well. FreeBSD was ported to the Mach kernel, that, along with tons of other work, was the foundation of Mac OSX.
The kernel, the operating system itself and the windowing environments are usually quite separate things. In the Windows world it is licensing that makes this seem less the case. In the Linux and BSD worlds where licensing makes things a lot more flexible we regularly see all of these components move around pretty freely.
Like the underlying OS of FreeBSD, but like the look of KDE? Just install KDE on FreeNAS.
Like BASH syntax but don't want to run Linux, you can put BASH on pretty much anything, including Windows (although that particular one is a big pain.) But a commercial CSH port is available that runs very smoothly.
-
@Tim_G said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
If you take the wheels off a car, or take out the engine, is it still a car?
That's not quite the right example, though. If you take the engine (Linux) out of the car (Ubuntu), you don't have a working car. But you can put a different engine (Windows NTKernel) in its place and now you have a working car again that to end users works exactly like it did before, but to a trained high performance driver they will be able to tell that different operations are faster or slower at different times, reboots are more frequent, load handling is different, etc.
It's what happens when you keep switching pieces. If the Nissan 3.5L goes into ten different production vehicles, we don't think of them as all being one car. To the average driver, it being a Quest minivan or a Maxima sedan is all that matters and which engine is under the hood, while maybe interesting, isn't very important. Linux is under the hood and normal users, even normal admins, don't interact with it.
-
I'd say you just pretty much cleared it up perfectly. Looks like some good reference posts in future cases.
-
Lol
I mentioned this exact problem weeks ago.... And now Scott has a thread about it..
I think the media might be a big part of the general problem. Where ever it/they started talking about it... They just lumped them all together....All, I think, because someone told them that they all used the same kernal so someone assumed they must be the same and it stuck - I kinda relate this to Scott's believed reasoning for the "wrong" to him use of pizza box.
All that being said, right or wrong as might be, I do agree that the name Linux really needs to be dumped from the media and most IT people... As said by Scott, most never deal with the kernel, they deal with the OS.
If we moved to only talking about distros I feel that much of the confusion around Linux distros would melt away.
For example you know if you're trying to install Exchange 2016, you know it only runs on Windows server. Now you need to know what versions support it.
If your that the unifi controller can be installed in Linux... Now you have to figure out what distro works and what version... This is an extra layer the Windows side doesn't have.
A question I have....Why do Linux distros need a grouped name....
Just start talking only about distros!
-
@Dashrender only talking about one distro would sometimes work. So often it is "it runs on these 20" though. People very often want to talk about Linux in groups of things. Or they only care that something runs on "one of several." You'll notice that I often use the term "enterprise Linux" myself as a short hand for the properly supported server focused distros (basically CentOS / RHEL, Suse and Ubuntu.)
-
That's doable for long time pros, but much less so for noobs like myself.
-
For the general masses (including IT Pros), Fedora, RHEL, Ubuntu, Debian, OpenSUSE...are all linux. Makes communication a lot easier for them to convey, not withstanding that it is the kernel not the OS itself.
For those in the knowledge, kernel is not OS..and for the rest, myself included, Linux was the OS..and the distros/flavors are just some sort of things.
Now, thanks to SAM, it's a bit clearer. I was wondering why, if distros are just how the OS is presented, theres yum, deb...and there's Gnome, KDE, Unity, etc.
To answer...But What to Call It?
My 2-cents for simplicity's sake, Linux will do for now (and perhaps for all eternity until everyone gets it)...and we all understand what we mean. It will be easier to adjust to a question (by newbie or IT fellows) than educate them with 5 paragraph or more explaining what has been explained above.
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
For the general masses (including IT Pros), Fedora, RHEL, Ubuntu, Debian, OpenSUSE...are all linux. Makes communication a lot easier for them to convey, not withstanding that it is the kernel not the OS itself.
Except it doesn't. Attempting to do this consistently causes confusion and huge discussions about what they mean because no two people use the "slang" term Linux in the same way or even consistently themselves. This very question came up because of a thread where no one could communicate for exactly this reason.
So it doesn't make things easier, it makes it way harder and often, wrong. And as we know, accuracy and semantics (really those two are the same thing) are the cornerstones of all technical fields.
