Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian
-
I've been told by a doctor that anyone who uses adverbs instead of just using adjectives for everything incorrectly is elitist - that even elementary school educations are elitist to people with doctorates.
-
To the average person, they will call anything a "shirt" even if it's technically a henley or a polo or an oxford or a tank top, etc.
Who is harmed by it?
The McDonalds worker will want to clarify with someone asking for a Whopper, but what if they simply ask for a "hamburger"? Well, perhaps technically what makes something a hamburger is the "kernel" of a patty of beef. But if they ask for a hamburger, you simply clarify what kind of hamburger, what kind of stuff do they want on top of the kernel?
My point is simply that we still require common language, that's all. If people cannot refer to "Linux" as "that OS which is not Windows or Mac", then what do they have left?
We can teach people to say "Linux distro", sure. But that will always simply be cut back to "Linux" just to shorten the phrase. Because that's how language evolves it seems, people shortcut and abbreviate things.
It's like people who refer to a "truck" when they really need to say "pickup truck". They just drop one word and you still get the drift. Yet other people refer to their SUVs as trucks, because they can pull things.
I don't know, I just think it's common language is all. No other words have emerged that are better suited. If we dropped "Linux" and just said "distro", well who is to say the distro is built on Linux?
The common thing is not that it's just a distro, or that it's just an OS, but that it's built on Linux, hence people just call various OSes "Linux". -
@scottalanmiller said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
@guyinpv said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
If my grandpa says to me "I'd like you install Linux on my computer" (which he has), I'm not going to give him a blank stare and act like, "what, he wants a kernel or something?"
Of course not, it means he wants me to install Mint or Ubuntu probably. And trying to correct his language not only makes me look like a cyborg, but also a douche.But just installing Ubuntu when he wanted ChromeOS is not useful either.
This is the power of marketing.
ChromeOS is a brand, a standalone "thing". We all know a BigMac or a Whopper, everything else is just a "burger".Ubuntu, while certainly is marketed well, has still done so on the back of being a "Linux thing", and so the two are inextricably linked and therefore interchangeable. Like "pickup truck" versus "truck".
-
This is one thing I actually don't screw up since this was clarified for me
-
But we still have to function in the real world.
I saw this list at the bottom of some website:
Here they are, referencing "in Linux" like it's an operating system itself.
Don't forget how the internet works, with search engines, and how websites design content around SEO, which is tied to how search engines work.
If someone wants to learn how to use the
findcommand, they aren't going to search for "how to use find in a linux distro". They probably won't even search for "how to search for files when I have bash" or whatever.The fact is, most all the content on the web uses the single word "Linux" to generally represent everything. I certainly do it. I search for "how do I do X in linux". Well "in linux" makes it sound like linux is a standalone operating system. Just like how I'd search for "how to do X in Windows". I don't mention the version, or the kernel structure.
Nobody is going to search for "how to do X in [insert one particular distro only] with linux kernel" because that will likely reduce the number of valid results they might get, and literally makes little sense grammatically.The world will continue to say "linux" to represent any operating system running linux kernel which is found on a desktop.
And speaking of marketing, nobody is going to search for "how to do x in linux cell phones". The branding of Android has separated it from its kernel. "How to do x in android", much more likely.
When we go from "Ubuntu, the cool Linux operating system", to "Ubuntu, a cool operating system", then we can make progress. Stop saying "Bubbagoo, a new Linux operating system distro thingy", and instead just say "Bubbagoo, a new cool operating system".
It's the marketing that matters. Stop presenting the distros as a set of core underlying technologies, and simply market it as a new thing period. Put the tech stack in some footer link somewhere for nerds to find if they want.
-
@guyinpv There are base Linux commands (a lot of which are from Unix) and then specific commands for the package managers and packages that come with your distros etc.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
@guyinpv There are base Linux commands and then specific commands for the package managers and packages etc.
Right. But still the average person doesn't search for "how do I do X in bash with Debian-based linux kernel operating system distros using Aptitude".
My point is that the general public who toys with drop-in OSes like Mint, will either search for "how do I do x in Mint", or "how do I do x in linux" (hoping to get Mint-compatible answers).
Either we have to speak to people using their vernacular, or we have to teach them to understand ours. And one of those two options is a lot easier than the other!
-
@guyinpv said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
@wirestyle22 said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
@guyinpv There are base Linux commands and then specific commands for the package managers and packages etc.
Right. But still the average person doesn't search for "how do I do X in bash with Debian-based linux kernel operating system distros using Aptitude".
My point is that the general public who toys with drop-in OSes like Mint, will either search for "how do I do x in Mint", or "how do I do x in linux" (hoping to get Mint-compatible answers).
Either we have to speak to people using their vernacular, or we have to teach them to understand ours. And one of those two options is a lot easier than the other!
My experience here has shown me that we (ML) are not interested in doing things the easy way. The only concern is being accurate and doing things the right way. In this instance, Linux is the kernal and Mint is the OS. What other people do is irrelevant.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
@guyinpv said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
@wirestyle22 said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
@guyinpv There are base Linux commands and then specific commands for the package managers and packages etc.
Right. But still the average person doesn't search for "how do I do X in bash with Debian-based linux kernel operating system distros using Aptitude".
My point is that the general public who toys with drop-in OSes like Mint, will either search for "how do I do x in Mint", or "how do I do x in linux" (hoping to get Mint-compatible answers).
Either we have to speak to people using their vernacular, or we have to teach them to understand ours. And one of those two options is a lot easier than the other!
My experience here has shown me that we (ML) are not interested in doing things the easy way. The only concern is being accurate and doing things the right way. In this instance, Linux is the kernal and Mint is the OS.
That's perfectly acceptable as long as there is still general language that can be used. For example Mint is an "operating system", but it's not Windows or Mac, it's specifically a "Linux operating system", but then, "Linux operating system" is not a real thing! So what are we left with? "Mint, the linux-based operating system". hrm
See this is where pedantic language gets in the way and people just ignore it and say Mint is a Linux operating system anyway. Only the cyborgs will say Mint is an "operating system based on the Linux kernal distro Ubuntu". or whatever
The world needs a hero. A hero of few words. It might not be the hero they want, but it's the hero they need.
-
@guyinpv said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
@wirestyle22 said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
@guyinpv said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
@wirestyle22 said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
@guyinpv There are base Linux commands and then specific commands for the package managers and packages etc.
Right. But still the average person doesn't search for "how do I do X in bash with Debian-based linux kernel operating system distros using Aptitude".
My point is that the general public who toys with drop-in OSes like Mint, will either search for "how do I do x in Mint", or "how do I do x in linux" (hoping to get Mint-compatible answers).
Either we have to speak to people using their vernacular, or we have to teach them to understand ours. And one of those two options is a lot easier than the other!
My experience here has shown me that we (ML) are not interested in doing things the easy way. The only concern is being accurate and doing things the right way. In this instance, Linux is the kernal and Mint is the OS.
That's perfectly acceptable as long as there is still general language that can be used. For example Mint is an "operating system", but it's not Windows or Mac, it's specifically a "Linux operating system", but then, "Linux operating system" is not a real thing! So what are we left with? "Mint, the linux-based operating system". hrm
See this is where pedantic language gets in the way and people just ignore it and say Mint is a Linux operating system anyway. Only the cyborgs will say Mint is an "operating system based on the Linux kernal distro Ubuntu". or whatever
The world needs a hero. A hero of few words. It might not be the hero they want, but it's the hero they need.
Actually I'm correcting myself. It would be Ubuntu Linux, Arch Linux, Linux Mint, etc
-
@guyinpv said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
The fact is, most all the content on the web uses the single word "Linux" to generally represent everything. I certainly do it. I search for "how do I do X in linux". Well "in linux" makes it sound like linux is a standalone operating system. Just like how I'd search for "how to do X in Windows". I don't mention the version, or the kernel structure.
Here is where I disagree - I can no longer search how do I do x on Windows - I'll get answers for Windows XP, Win 7, etc. But I want an answer for Win 10 1703. So I either get to sift through tons of irrelevant trash, or be more specific in my search.
And speaking of marketing, nobody is going to search for "how to do x in linux cell phones". The branding of Android has separated it from its kernel. "How to do x in android", much more likely.
And here is where you make my point for me. Android, while sure it runs the Linux kernel, the masses don't know that, or care. They simply know that it's Android.
We need to get the OSes that are commonly using the Linux kernel to do the same. WHO CARES that it's based on the Linux kernel? No one! Hell, the only reason anyone cares today is because it's free. If it wasn't free 20+ years ago, it would have died 20+ years ago (most likely, and if not died, been relegated to some super tiny rarely used corner of the world). The GNU License is the only reason the word Linux is known, but that was a failing of those people making things that use it... i.e. the OSes that use it.
It's critically important to get away from the Linux is an OS thinking because applications don't just run on any OS that uses the Linux Kernel. Applications are written for specific OSes. When we are super lucky, the application can run on any kernel that the OS can run on.
-
@guyinpv said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
@wirestyle22 said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
@guyinpv said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
@wirestyle22 said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
@guyinpv There are base Linux commands and then specific commands for the package managers and packages etc.
Right. But still the average person doesn't search for "how do I do X in bash with Debian-based linux kernel operating system distros using Aptitude".
My point is that the general public who toys with drop-in OSes like Mint, will either search for "how do I do x in Mint", or "how do I do x in linux" (hoping to get Mint-compatible answers).
Either we have to speak to people using their vernacular, or we have to teach them to understand ours. And one of those two options is a lot easier than the other!
My experience here has shown me that we (ML) are not interested in doing things the easy way. The only concern is being accurate and doing things the right way. In this instance, Linux is the kernal and Mint is the OS.
That's perfectly acceptable as long as there is still general language that can be used. For example Mint is an "operating system", but it's not Windows or Mac, it's specifically a "Linux operating system", but then, "Linux operating system" is not a real thing! So what are we left with? "Mint, the linux-based operating system". hrm
See this is where pedantic language gets in the way and people just ignore it and say Mint is a Linux operating system anyway. Only the cyborgs will say Mint is an "operating system based on the Linux kernal distro Ubuntu". or whatever
The world needs a hero. A hero of few words. It might not be the hero they want, but it's the hero they need.
WHY do you care what the kernel is? Please tell me that? Why do you? Why does anyone care? It's not like you can take any software written to be installed and run on Mint and expect it to run on Fedora. Can you make it run there? maybe, maybe not. They both use the Linux kernel, but that's not all there is to making an application work.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
@guyinpv said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
@wirestyle22 said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
@guyinpv said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
@wirestyle22 said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
@guyinpv There are base Linux commands and then specific commands for the package managers and packages etc.
Right. But still the average person doesn't search for "how do I do X in bash with Debian-based linux kernel operating system distros using Aptitude".
My point is that the general public who toys with drop-in OSes like Mint, will either search for "how do I do x in Mint", or "how do I do x in linux" (hoping to get Mint-compatible answers).
Either we have to speak to people using their vernacular, or we have to teach them to understand ours. And one of those two options is a lot easier than the other!
My experience here has shown me that we (ML) are not interested in doing things the easy way. The only concern is being accurate and doing things the right way. In this instance, Linux is the kernal and Mint is the OS.
That's perfectly acceptable as long as there is still general language that can be used. For example Mint is an "operating system", but it's not Windows or Mac, it's specifically a "Linux operating system", but then, "Linux operating system" is not a real thing! So what are we left with? "Mint, the linux-based operating system". hrm
See this is where pedantic language gets in the way and people just ignore it and say Mint is a Linux operating system anyway. Only the cyborgs will say Mint is an "operating system based on the Linux kernal distro Ubuntu". or whatever
The world needs a hero. A hero of few words. It might not be the hero they want, but it's the hero they need.
Actually I'm correcting myself. It would be Ubuntu Linux, Arch Linux, Linux Mint, etc
even this wording make an implication that they are all types of Linux, when they are in fact OSes, all which use the Linux Kernel. The lay person reads that and assumes that an app that runs on Red Hat will run on Ubuntu/Arch/Mint, etc... we know that's not always the case.
-
So I'm trying to think how you have a conversation with a lay person about switching to another OS other than Mac or Windows but leaving the kernel out of the conversation, but outside of Linux, well, you just do.
Hey did you try that new OS called Ubuntu? Nope - why would I? Because it's more stable than Windows. OK that sounds good - can I run my games on it? Well no. (let's assume you can't) Then who cares?Wow - just writing I realize this is a near pointless conversation because users, lay people, just don't give a crap about the OS. They only care if they can get the apps they want to work on the device they have. Furthermore, normals will never install a non MS, non Mac OS on their own if it doesn't come pre-installed from the store. They just won't, and they don't care about it either.
-
@Dashrender said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
So I'm trying to think how you have a conversation with a lay person about switching to another OS other than Mac or Windows but leaving the kernel out of the conversation, but outside of Linux, well, you just do.
Hey did you try that new OS called Ubuntu? Nope - why would I? Because it's more stable than Windows. OK that sounds good - can I run my games on it? Well no. (let's assume you can't) Then who cares?Wow - just writing I realize this is a near pointless conversation because users, lay people, just don't give a crap about the OS. They only care if they can get the apps they want to work on the device they have. Furthermore, normals will never install a non MS, non Mac OS on their own if it doesn't come pre-installed from the store. They just won't, and they don't care about it either.
The issue is developers create their programs for specific operating systems. Once software development drops this bad habit, the the OS becomes irrelevant.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
@Dashrender said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
So I'm trying to think how you have a conversation with a lay person about switching to another OS other than Mac or Windows but leaving the kernel out of the conversation, but outside of Linux, well, you just do.
Hey did you try that new OS called Ubuntu? Nope - why would I? Because it's more stable than Windows. OK that sounds good - can I run my games on it? Well no. (let's assume you can't) Then who cares?Wow - just writing I realize this is a near pointless conversation because users, lay people, just don't give a crap about the OS. They only care if they can get the apps they want to work on the device they have. Furthermore, normals will never install a non MS, non Mac OS on their own if it doesn't come pre-installed from the store. They just won't, and they don't care about it either.
The issue is developers create their programs for specific operating systems. Once software development drops this bad habit, the the OS becomes irrelevant.
Is that even completely possible? Maybe it is. Maybe there are enough horsepower at highlevel languages to get work done without relying upon knowing the OS native stuff.
I'm specifically looking at things like video editors, CAD software, etc.
I know these things have been made in HTML 5 versions - Heck MS Office apps are all HTML5 apps, but even those MS isn't/can't run on their own UWP platform. Instead they have to wrap them in Project Centennial. A wrapper that provides a Win32 environment to the apps. - WTH MS? Even you can't spend the money to completely re-write your software to be 100% UWP?
The shit thing about Centennial is that this does not make the applications portable. You still have to have Win32 on the system to run them. This of course limits these apps to MS OSes.
-
@Dashrender said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
@DustinB3403 said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
@Dashrender said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
So I'm trying to think how you have a conversation with a lay person about switching to another OS other than Mac or Windows but leaving the kernel out of the conversation, but outside of Linux, well, you just do.
Hey did you try that new OS called Ubuntu? Nope - why would I? Because it's more stable than Windows. OK that sounds good - can I run my games on it? Well no. (let's assume you can't) Then who cares?Wow - just writing I realize this is a near pointless conversation because users, lay people, just don't give a crap about the OS. They only care if they can get the apps they want to work on the device they have. Furthermore, normals will never install a non MS, non Mac OS on their own if it doesn't come pre-installed from the store. They just won't, and they don't care about it either.
The issue is developers create their programs for specific operating systems. Once software development drops this bad habit, the the OS becomes irrelevant.
Is that even completely possible? Maybe it is. Maybe there are enough horsepower at highlevel languages to get work done without relying upon knowing the OS native stuff.
I'm specifically looking at things like video editors, CAD software, etc.
I know these things have been made in HTML 5 versions - Heck MS Office apps are all HTML5 apps, but even those MS isn't/can't run on their own UWP platform. Instead they have to wrap them in Project Centennial. A wrapper that provides a Win32 environment to the apps. - WTH MS? Even you can't spend the money to completely re-write your software to be 100% UWP?
The shit thing about Centennial is that this does not make the applications portable. You still have to have Win32 on the system to run them. This of course limits these apps to MS OSes.
Right, there are things that are too different because of the kernel.
-
@Dashrender said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
Here is where I disagree - I can no longer search how do I do x on Windows - I'll get answers for Windows XP, Win 7, etc. But I want an answer for Win 10 1703. So I either get to sift through tons of irrelevant trash, or be more specific in my search.
Come to think of it, I'm noticing that too.
Touche
The flip of that for Linux are lots of articles written that don't distinguish shell environments or package managers. You begin following instructions only to find some tool is not installed by default, or any number of other issues, paths aren't the same as their examples, etc.
But again, the qualification is not just a version. I can look for Windows 7 or Windows 10. But most users running a distro won't be looking for specific Linux kernels or package managers or shell environments, or even know to distinguish.
They will still say "I run Linux! That one Linux called Mint!"It would be nice to ignore the kernel, but it's impossible. As it stands, one has to know if it's Debian based or RH or whatever, which shell is used, what package manager, and what window manager is used. And all that just to know if they can install something.
-
@guyinpv said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
But again, the qualification is not just a version. I can look for Windows 7 or Windows 10. But most users running a distro won't be looking for specific Linux kernels or package managers or shell environments, or even know to distinguish.
They will still say "I run Linux! That one Linux called Mint!"What users though? Are you telling me know you a rash of people who don't know anything about supporting their own stuff running Mint? I definitely don't.
It would be nice to ignore the kernel, but it's impossible. As it stands, one has to know if it's Debian based or RH or whatever, which shell is used, what package manager, and what window manager is used. And all that just to know if they can install something.
But those differences you mentioned aren't kernel differences, they are OS differences. Sure there could also be a kernel difference, but the OS difference alone can kill whatever they are trying to do.
This was a lesson (that Linux OSes outside of families, are rarely related) that I didn't fully understand until a few years ago (and was yet again reminded of recently).
I, like the masses, assumed they were all the same under the hood, that basically only the GUI (on a desktop flavor) was really like, like installing a third party GUI on Windows - but that didn't explain why one set of instructions didn't work on a different distro. And now I know why.The masses don't care that the kernel is the same across them, what they care about are the apps, and if the apps won't run, then the OSes might as well be as different as Mac OS is from Windows OS. And calling them Linux, or grouping them into Linux does nothing but serve to confuse things.
-
@guyinpv said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
It would be nice to ignore the kernel, but it's impossible.
Why? I don't know anyone, me included, who doesn't ignore the kernel. Knowing my OS is necessary to do anything. But not my kernel. You can swap the kernel on people and they don't notice at all. If there is one thing you can safely ignore it's the kernel.
