Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It
-
So people love to discuss Linux as if it is a thing worth discussing, but the reality is, unless you are a kernel developer or a distro maintainer, no one anywhere actually cares about Linux. What people care about are distros built on top of Linux. Someone told me today that he liked to use Linux as a reference to all things built on it because they shared libraries, tools, look and feel and things like that - but none of that is true.
In reality, we all know what we mean when we say "Linux desktop" or "Linux server." But it is never Linux that makes those things seem alike. In the real world, most people will get upset if you point out that Android is Linux, too. And most people think that anything that has a command line Bourne shell must be Linux which leads to FreeBSD, Solaris and even VMware getting mistaken for Linux. A FreeBSD desktop can look exactly like a Linux one, while Android looks nothing like it. ChromeOS is just as much Linux as the rest but has no desktop at all.
So clearly what we are talking about is not Linux at all, as it applies equally to things that are not Linux in any way, like FreeBSD. And it's not all Linux because things like Android aren't part of it.
So, clearly, nomenclature is wrong. Talking of a universal "Linux" has no meaning to normal IT or end users. Unix, likewise, means even less still. Even saying Linux Desktop means nothing, as Android has desktop options.
Obviously, to be like any other OS (Windows, Mac OSX) we'd have to talk about a specific distro: Linux Mint, Ubuntu, Fedora, Zorin, Korora, etc. But there are legitimately times that we want to lump some of these together in groups, although I'm not sure exactly when outside of very high level discussions or ones around licensing. Maybe the real issue is that talking about "Linux" or groups of Linux distros just shouldn't happen. Maybe we should just stick to talking about actual OSes. While we talk about Unix in a generic sense, we do so very rarely and never like we do with Linux.
So what groupings make sense? What names make sense? What conventions of certain high profile distros (Debian, Ubuntu, CentOS, Fedora, OpenSuse, Suse, Arch, Slack, etc.) make these worthy of grouping together as a single "thing" and others like ChromeOS and Android not? What makes these make sense to lump together while excluding their interface-identical siblings from other OS families like Solaris and FreeBSD?
-
Or you can realize that no one else actually cares and that this is not something that will change. The OS is Linux as far as the masses are concerned..
-
@JaredBusch said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
Or you can realize that no one else actually cares and that this is not something that will change. The OS is Linux as far as the masses are concerned..
Right, but for IT pros who need language to discuss things. Like the discussion right now on SW, the people saying "Linux does X or Y" can't figure out that they aren't talking about Linux at all and can't figure out what they are talking about.
Everyone cares about this, just most, for some reason, are passionate about not having the necessary terminology to convey their meaning.
-
Linux to the masses is anything that isn't Windows. It's the generic term used. Rather than saying "We're using Debian 8 . . . . "
"We're using Linux" is a lot faster for people to determine what platform is in play. Sure it's not the exact distro, but anyone worth their salt will be able to work past it.
-
I agree, if people said specifically said what OS version and distro was being used, it would help to alleviate some of the issues with posts / conversations.
But does it really matter if they say linux, or CentOS?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
Linux to the masses is anything that isn't Windows. It's the generic term used. Rather than saying "We're using Debian 8 . . . . "
"We're using Linux" is a lot faster for people to determine what platform is in play. Sure it's not the exact distro, but anyone worth their salt will be able to work past it.
Probably is, it's often not Linux at all but BSD, VMware, Solaris, Mac OSX, etc. In some cases, even Windows gets called Linux, I've heard that many times.
Then we have the problem that people claim that all Linux are the same, but only because they claim that anything that they don't think "looks like" Linux, isn't Linux, even when it is just as much Linux as anything else.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
But does it really matter if they say linux, or CentOS?
Yes, a lot. Just look at the Golden Opportunity thread on SW. The whole thread is people talking about Linux, but not quite sure what Linux is. Especially the main poster things that there are shared libraries and such, and there are in the distros he's likely meaning to imply, but not on Linux itself.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
Probably is, it's often not Linux at all but BSD, VMware, Solaris, Mac OSX, etc. In some cases, even Windows gets called Linux, I've heard that many times.
Then we have the problem that people claim that all Linux are the same, but only because they claim that anything that they don't think "looks like" Linux, isn't Linux, even when it is just as much Linux as anything else.
Well I get the trouble of people getting the different distro's and family trees mixed up, that is purely on the person posting. If someone says or believe that FreeBSD is the same as CentOS then the issue is with their understanding of the key differences.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@DustinB3403 said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
But does it really matter if they say linux, or CentOS?
Yes, a lot. Just look at the Golden Opportunity thread on SW. The whole thread is people talking about Linux, but not quite sure what Linux is. Especially the main poster things that there are shared libraries and such, and there are in the distros he's likely meaning to imply, but not on Linux itself.
Golden Opportunity thread?
-
I suppose what might be helpful is an actual family tree from Unix to CentOS, FreeBSD, Ubuntu etc...
I wonder if anyone has actually put something together like this before.. . .
-
Eh I found such a thing..
Maybe this will help to address the naming issues between "linux" and everything else.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
Probably is, it's often not Linux at all but BSD, VMware, Solaris, Mac OSX, etc. In some cases, even Windows gets called Linux, I've heard that many times.
Then we have the problem that people claim that all Linux are the same, but only because they claim that anything that they don't think "looks like" Linux, isn't Linux, even when it is just as much Linux as anything else.
Well I get the trouble of people getting the different distro's and family trees mixed up, that is purely on the person posting. If someone says or believe that FreeBSD is the same as CentOS then the issue is with their understanding of the key differences.
Except... the way that we allow people to use the term Linux, FreeBSD falls under what they mean. Hence the problem. The term is being used to mean something specific, but something that isn't even directly connected with Linux.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
I suppose what might be helpful is an actual family tree from Unix to CentOS, FreeBSD, Ubuntu etc...
I wonder if anyone has actually put something together like this before.. . .
This is done constantly. And it helps no one. Because sure, it shows things that they don't understand but shows nothing of what they are trying to discuss.
-
Regarding the "golden opportunity topic" that you spoke of I assume it's this...
Microsoft's attempt to push everyone to using online services for everything. For a constantly monthly fee.
-
That link was referenced in the thread. I'm unclear what the so called opportunity is right now for Linux though.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
That link was referenced in the thread. I'm unclear what the so called opportunity is right now for Linux though.
Reading through the article (and sw topic) the OP of the SW topic is stating that people who develop software for linux, should work to develop an easy to learn software development platform that works across all major distro's of linux.
And the reasoning for this is to spur the business demand (in his eyes) for linux.
Of course what I think the OP there is missing is that just because a lot of software is free, doesn't mean such a tool would be free. Also it wouldn't be an easy undertaking to build a tool such as VB6 for "linux"
-
@DustinB3403 said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
That link was referenced in the thread. I'm unclear what the so called opportunity is right now for Linux though.
Reading through the article (and sw topic) the OP of the SW topic is stating that people who develop software for linux, should work to develop an easy to learn software development platform that works across all major distro's of linux.
And the reasoning for this is to spur the business demand (in his eyes) for linux.
Of course what I think the OP there is missing is that just because a lot of software is free, doesn't mean such a tool would be free. Also it wouldn't be an easy undertaking to build a tool such as VB6 for "linux"
Well and he missed things like "this tool has existed for decades" and "that same tool is doing little to nothing to spur Windows usage" and "the whole initiation of the thread was Microsoft realizing that such a tool is now pointless."
His premise was that if really bad software tools were available on Linux that suddenly there would be all these apps made that people would want. But that tool exists on both Linux and Windows and... no apps that people want. I'm not sure what he thinks that he wants to have created, or what he thinks is missing; 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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
