Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It
-
If you dump calling things by the kernel, you'll also fix the FreeBSD, OSX, (now) Windows problems too. Linux isn't a thing that people care about, but listing 10 OSes that you can install your software on makes it easy to know that it will work on your system, as long as it's on that list.
For years Windows products listed the Windows versions that were supported. Now personally, I'm guessing that the need to put this list out there was because as a paid product, the company wanted to limit what OSes they offered included support on. In free stuff, you generally don't care as you'll have your one or two that you're programming for, and assuming the code is open sourced, then make the user worry about it if they want it elsewhere. With open source, support purchased stuff, it's critical to indicate what OSes you support for the reasons listed above. -
I've never understood the desire to lump things together under Linux. I'm always unclear when "CentOS, Suse and Ubuntu" ever matter as a "block" of things. Maybe it is because someone wants to know that one of them works, and any will do? But if so, wouldn't FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD or Dragonfly be okay too? If not, why not?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
I've never understood the desire to lump things together under Linux. I'm always unclear when "CentOS, Suse and Ubuntu" ever matter as a "block" of things. Maybe it is because someone wants to know that one of them works, and any will do? But if so, wouldn't FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD or Dragonfly be okay too? If not, why not?
I think since they share a a lot of similar things, it makes it easy to do.
For example, if you know how to do some basic stuff in CentOS, it probably also works for the most part in Ubuntu. That's not the same moving between other platforms.
-
@BRRABill said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
I've never understood the desire to lump things together under Linux. I'm always unclear when "CentOS, Suse and Ubuntu" ever matter as a "block" of things. Maybe it is because someone wants to know that one of them works, and any will do? But if so, wouldn't FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD or Dragonfly be okay too? If not, why not?
I think since they share a a lot of similar things, it makes it easy to do.
Yeah BUT... which things do you want them to have in common? When does it make it easier? What things in common are important universally?
-
@BRRABill said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
For example, if you know how to do some basic stuff in CentOS, it probably also works for the most part in Ubuntu. That's not the same moving between other platforms.
But in some cases that is correct and some not. Which "things" are those? Network settings, GUI tools, software installation locations, package managers, and such are not the same between them. But Ubuntu Linux and Ubuntu Windows share those things. See the complication?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@BRRABill said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
For example, if you know how to do some basic stuff in CentOS, it probably also works for the most part in Ubuntu. That's not the same moving between other platforms.
But in some cases that is correct and some not. Which "things" are those? Network settings, GUI tools, software installation locations, package managers, and such are not the same between them. But Ubuntu Linux and Ubuntu Windows share those things. See the complication?
Commands.
You know how people say the use "ls" instead of "dir" on Windows system? That kind of stuff.
If you know CentOS, you can probably work with Ubuntu.
The same cannot be true for Windows -> Mac -< Linux
-
@BRRABill said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@BRRABill said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
For example, if you know how to do some basic stuff in CentOS, it probably also works for the most part in Ubuntu. That's not the same moving between other platforms.
But in some cases that is correct and some not. Which "things" are those? Network settings, GUI tools, software installation locations, package managers, and such are not the same between them. But Ubuntu Linux and Ubuntu Windows share those things. See the complication?
Commands.
You know how people say the use "ls" instead of "dir" on Windows system? That kind of stuff.
But you have those same commands on Windows, VMware, BSD, Solaris.... everything, really. So do you want Windows, Mac and HP-UX lumped in there as "Linux". Or, another way.... since literally every OS supports that command set today, what isn't Linux?
-
@BRRABill said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
The same cannot be true for Windows -> Mac -< Linux
But it can, and it is. We always say that Mac and Linux share commands natively and that Windows can use them optionally. And that knowing Linux, you can pretty much run anything, including Mac and Windows.
The idea that the only thing that matters is the superficial is, I think, the most dangerous. The reality is, no amount of knowing shared commands makes knowing Linux make you useful on VMware ESXi. The stuff that matters isn't the superficial stuff.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
I've never understood the desire to lump things together under Linux. I'm always unclear when "CentOS, Suse and Ubuntu" ever matter as a "block" of things. Maybe it is because someone wants to know that one of them works, and any will do? But if so, wouldn't FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD or Dragonfly be okay too? If not, why not?
Wait what? now you're arguing for dumping any general clumping term? What about ...
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@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.)
OK, OK, you said people want to talk about groups of things - don't let them! Shut down every time you see it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@BRRABill said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@BRRABill said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
For example, if you know how to do some basic stuff in CentOS, it probably also works for the most part in Ubuntu. That's not the same moving between other platforms.
But in some cases that is correct and some not. Which "things" are those? Network settings, GUI tools, software installation locations, package managers, and such are not the same between them. But Ubuntu Linux and Ubuntu Windows share those things. See the complication?
Commands.
You know how people say the use "ls" instead of "dir" on Windows system? That kind of stuff.
But you have those same commands on Windows, VMware, BSD, Solaris.... everything, really. So do you want Windows, Mac and HP-UX lumped in there as "Linux". Or, another way.... since literally every OS supports that command set today, what isn't Linux?
Right - what Scott is saying is that those commands aren't what make something Linux. and Scott previous mentioned several things that are not the same between Linux OSes.
Network settings, GUI tools, software installation locations, package managers, and such are not the same between them.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@BRRABill said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
The same cannot be true for Windows -> Mac -< Linux
But it can, and it is. We always say that Mac and Linux share commands natively and that Windows can use them optionally. And that knowing Linux, you can pretty much run anything, including Mac and Windows.
The idea that the only thing that matters is the superficial is, I think, the most dangerous. The reality is, no amount of knowing shared commands makes knowing Linux make you useful on VMware ESXi. The stuff that matters isn't the superficial stuff.
Boy - nothing proves that to me more than working on XenServer. Sure XS runs inside CentOS, but all the commands we really care about are all xen- commands and have nothing to do with CentOS.
The same can be said for VMWare. Sure some of the basic commands are the same, LS, RM, etc.. but these are things in the shell, not the OS.
-
@Dashrender said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@BRRABill said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
The same cannot be true for Windows -> Mac -< Linux
But it can, and it is. We always say that Mac and Linux share commands natively and that Windows can use them optionally. And that knowing Linux, you can pretty much run anything, including Mac and Windows.
The idea that the only thing that matters is the superficial is, I think, the most dangerous. The reality is, no amount of knowing shared commands makes knowing Linux make you useful on VMware ESXi. The stuff that matters isn't the superficial stuff.
Boy - nothing proves that to me more than working on XenServer. Sure XS runs inside CentOS, but all the commands we really care about are all xen- commands and have nothing to do with CentOS.
The same can be said for VMWare. Sure some of the basic commands are the same, LS, RM, etc.. but these are things in the shell, not the OS.
I'd venture to say a Linux admin would have a far easier time with XS than a Windows admin.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@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.)
I don't think putting enterprise in front of linux changes the situation that much. We would need to assume that they know what the enterprise is just as much as linux at that point.
-
@BRRABill said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
I'd venture to say a Linux admin would have a far easier time with XS than a Windows admin.
Yes but not because they know Linux, because the average Windows Admin's level of knowledge isn't enough on that platform to equal what is required to be socially acceptable as a Linux Admin on Linux. This is a HUGE factor. Why can 99% of Linux Admins run Windows but only 50% of Windows Admins run Linux? Because Linux is harder? No, because Linux Admins are commonly held to higher standards.
If the average Windows Admin learned Linud to the same level that they know Windows, then tried to interview for a Linux Admin position they'd be thrown out for lying about being a qualified Linux Admin. What's normal in the Windows world falls below what is acceptable in the UNIX one. That's not to say that the best Windows Admins aren't just as good as the best Linux ones... it's about averages. This is why there are so many more Windows Admins, almost anyone that can use a mouse is considered a Windows expert.
So sure, Linux Admins can use XS more easily than their Windows counterparts. But they can also use Hyper-V and, dare I say it, Windows more easily than their Windows counterparts. Even on Wall St. I've seen $200K Windows Admins turning to the Linux teams for assistance because the "casual" Windows knowledge there was more than the dedicated Windows knowledge from its own team.
-
@BRRABill said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@Dashrender said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@BRRABill said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
The same cannot be true for Windows -> Mac -< Linux
But it can, and it is. We always say that Mac and Linux share commands natively and that Windows can use them optionally. And that knowing Linux, you can pretty much run anything, including Mac and Windows.
The idea that the only thing that matters is the superficial is, I think, the most dangerous. The reality is, no amount of knowing shared commands makes knowing Linux make you useful on VMware ESXi. The stuff that matters isn't the superficial stuff.
Boy - nothing proves that to me more than working on XenServer. Sure XS runs inside CentOS, but all the commands we really care about are all xen- commands and have nothing to do with CentOS.
The same can be said for VMWare. Sure some of the basic commands are the same, LS, RM, etc.. but these are things in the shell, not the OS.
I'd venture to say a Linux admin would have a far easier time with XS than a Windows admin.
I suppose I would agree with this only because they are more accustomed to typing commands at the command line. But I don't expect the Linux Admin (now proving to be a pointless title based on this thread) to know the commands better than anyone else until they have experience with them. So if the Windows Admin can get the stick out of his *** (this includes me), and get used to using a command line, the two would be on an even footing.
Note as a side note - I think Windows admins (really I'm talking more about Windows/IT generalists) don't like the command line because it's just that many more commands they either have to remember or lookkup. With a GUI, we generalists feel like it's easier to find the location of a setting, and see all of the available options in the GUI and again feel like we are less likely to forget something because it's so in our faces. Now, just because we feel this way, doesn't make it correct.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@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.)
I don't think putting enterprise in front of linux changes the situation that much. We would need to assume that they know what the enterprise is just as much as linux at that point.
At least it is a qualifier. Enterprise gives an impression, if nothing else.
-
@Dashrender said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@BRRABill said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@Dashrender said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@BRRABill said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
The same cannot be true for Windows -> Mac -< Linux
But it can, and it is. We always say that Mac and Linux share commands natively and that Windows can use them optionally. And that knowing Linux, you can pretty much run anything, including Mac and Windows.
The idea that the only thing that matters is the superficial is, I think, the most dangerous. The reality is, no amount of knowing shared commands makes knowing Linux make you useful on VMware ESXi. The stuff that matters isn't the superficial stuff.
Boy - nothing proves that to me more than working on XenServer. Sure XS runs inside CentOS, but all the commands we really care about are all xen- commands and have nothing to do with CentOS.
The same can be said for VMWare. Sure some of the basic commands are the same, LS, RM, etc.. but these are things in the shell, not the OS.
I'd venture to say a Linux admin would have a far easier time with XS than a Windows admin.
I suppose I would agree with this only because they are more accustomed to typing commands at the command line.
Not necessarily. A lot of top Windows Admins would be pure command line, too.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@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.)
I don't think putting enterprise in front of linux changes the situation that much. We would need to assume that they know what the enterprise is just as much as linux at that point.
Here here! How is @wrcombs supposed to know what is or is not an Enterprise Linux other than rote memorization? And isn't rote memorization what got us into so much of the trouble we were/are in today with things like RAID 5?
-
@Dashrender said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@wirestyle22 said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@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.)
I don't think putting enterprise in front of linux changes the situation that much. We would need to assume that they know what the enterprise is just as much as linux at that point.
Here here! How is @wrcombs supposed to know what is or is not an Enterprise Linux other than rote memorization? And isn't rote memorization what got us into so much of the trouble we were/are in today with things like RAID 5?
Why would memorization be necessary? Goal and support is all that is needed. Very basic, obvious things. Same that goes for any business decision.
What makes a Red Rider wagon not an enterprise business cargo device? It's but built for that, and it is not supported as such. What makes a Volvo eighteen wheeler different? Intent and support.
-
@Dashrender said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@wirestyle22 said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@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.)
I don't think putting enterprise in front of linux changes the situation that much. We would need to assume that they know what the enterprise is just as much as linux at that point.
Here here! How is @wrcombs supposed to know what is or is not an Enterprise Linux other than rote memorization? And isn't rote memorization what got us into so much of the trouble we were/are in today with things like RAID 5?
IMO RAID is just conceptual learning
