Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian
-
@scottalanmiller said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
@JaredBusch said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
@scottalanmiller but as you said it has been decades now and it is an ingrained understanding even to the uneducated masses.
So as professionals, we have to simply be more specific and know that anyone not being specific is either generalizing on purpose or, more likely, simply has no idea WTF they are talking about.Sadly, it gets brought up because so often people claiming to be experts use the standard misuse of the term and claim it as proof that Linux is an OS. Of course they always get snippy when you ask them to install and run said OS, since it does not exist. But they keep on doing it.
It can be fixed. But it needs to start with IT using it correctly first.
And teachers.
-
@Tim_G said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
@scottalanmiller said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
@JaredBusch said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
@scottalanmiller but as you said it has been decades now and it is an ingrained understanding even to the uneducated masses.
So as professionals, we have to simply be more specific and know that anyone not being specific is either generalizing on purpose or, more likely, simply has no idea WTF they are talking about.Sadly, it gets brought up because so often people claiming to be experts use the standard misuse of the term and claim it as proof that Linux is an OS. Of course they always get snippy when you ask them to install and run said OS, since it does not exist. But they keep on doing it.
It can be fixed. But it needs to start with IT using it correctly first.
And teachers.
Absolutely. IT using it wrong, and especially arguing that we should use it wrongly, will guarantee that it will never be fixed. Sadly, kernels and OSes are actually "too technical" for the average IT pro to fully understand so they actually get lost.
It's not just bad in that we aren't correct, it actively undermines much of the ecosystem. Things like "Linux is X" or "Linux does Y" are rarely true. Like "Linux is free". that's not fully true, it can be or it might not be. Linux runs Gnome. Again, it can, but we don't know that it will.
-
@scottalanmiller very true and very well explained, but still I really doubt it will make any difference in the future. Linux name is established as it is, and even Linus doesn't bother to make any difference
-
I agree with IT using it wrong. I know the difference but still sometimes slip up when using using it.
And it doesn't help when certain distros still use the word Linux has part of the name. Why would a user even need to know that its Linux? -
Here is a guy trolling about this, it might be Curtis under a new profile. He got upset when he was shown to be foolish and took it offline and made it personal when it was really obvious he was caught.
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/1993932-differences-between-linux-and-red-hat-linux
-
To 99% of people using casual language, there are three desktop operating systems; Windows, Mac, and Linux.
This is easy, common language.
If you eliminate using "Linux" as a term for "operating system", then there are no longer three desktop OSes, but untold numbers because now it's Windows, Mac, Ubuntu, FreeBSD, Mint, whatever, hundreds of them. And yet somehow in the back of people's minds the thing that connects all those is something something about Linux something something.
Sure it would be nice to always use perfect accurate language like the good cyborgs we all want to be, but at the end of the day, this is just casual language.
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.Unfortunately, it seems like we are bound to use common vernacular or face looking like a bunch of elitist douches.
-
@guyinpv said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
To 99% of people using casual language, there are three desktop operating systems; Windows, Mac, and Linux.
This is easy, common language.
It's not easy. It's useless. What is a Linux desktop mean? ChromeOS? Android? KDE? Gnome? Linux is not a desktop. If people include Linux, why not iOS?
-
@guyinpv said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
Sure it would be nice to always use perfect
accuratelanguage like the good cyborgs we all want to be, but at the end of the day, this is justcasualuseless language.At the end of the day, it has made the people who use that "casual" language unable to communicate. They've stopped using language and started making sounds mimicking language. Literally, it is like a parrot. We don't say that a parrot uses language, we say that it repeats sounds. At the point that language ceases being a form of communication, it is just people parroting sounds.
-
@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.
-
@guyinpv said in Simple Proofs that Linux Is Not an Operating System with Ubuntu and Debian:
Unfortunately, it seems like we are bound to use common vernacular or face looking like a bunch of elitist douches.
All people every where look like elitist douches to the lowest functional level of society when they attempt to decipher what they mean. If you don't look like an elitist to a lot of people, you are unable to help them. To at least 20% of society, McDonald's cashiers seem like elitist douches for trying to get the details of an order right when people ask for a Whopper there. Just saying "did you mean a Big Mac?" is being an elitist to a lot of people. Yet if they didn't clarify, they'd actually be a douche. In reality, it's far more elitist and douchy to make up words or to parrot ones when you know you don't know what they mean or to mock or hate people for trying to understand you than being the person trying to help.
Accuracy is never elitist. But calling it that is.
-
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
