Systemd-Homed Merged As A Fundamental Change To Linux Home Directories

[cybertraveler]

No, we are indifferent or hate it for the attempts of "vendor-lock". "Linux's popularity" is completely irrelevant.

A lot of the confusion about this stems from a simple confusion over terms.

Linux = kernel

Android = a non UNIX-like OS framework which uses the Linux kernel. End users get an Android distribution (e.g. the Samsung Android distro).

GNU + Linux = a UNIX-like OS framework which has a good degree of compatibility with POSIX and the BSDs. It's built and managed by the GNU project and all the other developers that fit into the large GNU + Linux ecosystem. End users get an GNU + Linux distribution (e.g. Gentoo).

Systemd + Linux = Another UNIX like OS framework being designed, built and managed by Red Hat and Lenart. The non-kernel components are being far more centrally planned and managed than the GNU + Linux OS framework. End users get a Systemd + Linux distribution (e.g. Debian). Note: the fact there are many GNU components in a typical Systemd + Linux distro is irrelevant, as it's quite clear that the Systemd project will happily replace them whenever they feel the need and the design of Systemd is such that distros of it are encouraged to follow their lead (IE the "vendor-lock" you referred to).

As soon as I accepted the above, it became much more conceptually easy to think about the Systemd project and what it is doing.

Currently I used a mix of Systemd+Linux & GNU+Linux systems. They have a very different feel to them. The GNU+Linux ones feel familiar and more unixy. The Systemd + Linux ones feel a bit more like Windows & Mac OS X (when it comes to developing / administrating them). There's pros and cons to both OS frameworks.

[ssokolow]

A lot of the confusion about this stems from a simple confusion over terms.

Linux = kernel

Android = a non UNIX-like OS framework which uses the Linux kernel. End users get an Android distribution (e.g. the Samsung Android distro).

GNU + Linux = a UNIX-like OS framework which has a good degree of compatibility with POSIX and the BSDs. It's built and managed by the GNU project and all the other developers that fit into the large GNU + Linux ecosystem. End users get an GNU + Linux distribution (e.g. Gentoo).

Systemd + Linux = Another UNIX like OS framework being designed, built and managed by Red Hat and Lenart. The non-kernel components are being far more centrally planned and managed than the GNU + Linux OS framework. End users get a Systemd + Linux distribution (e.g. Debian). Note: the fact there are many GNU components in a typical Systemd + Linux distro is irrelevant, as it's quite clear that the Systemd project will happily replace them whenever they feel the need and the design of Systemd is such that distros of it are encouraged to follow their lead (IE the "vendor-lock" you referred to).

As soon as I accepted the above, it became much more conceptually easy to think about the Systemd project and what it is doing.

Currently I used a mix of Systemd+Linux & GNU+Linux systems. They have a very different feel to them. The GNU+Linux ones feel familiar and more unixy. The Systemd + Linux ones feel a bit more like Windows & Mac OS X (when it comes to developing / administrating them). There's pros and cons to both OS frameworks.

Saying GNU+Linux is accepting Stallman's tortured logic for why "GNU" should be in the name. First, he defines an OS as "What you need to develop it using console emacs", which means that the GNU line count is artificially padded by GCC and X11 (which has more lines than all the non-GCC GNU stuff) is excluded despite it being laughable to consider a GUI API to not be part of the OS when you're talking about non-server, non-embedded uses. (Network support isn't needed by a lot of embedded systems, but you don't consider that "not part of the OS".)

If you're going by ABI (as most people intuitively do), it's glibc+Linux or X11+glibc+Linux.

Besides, there's a ton of stuff that isn't GNU-provided that's in a "Linux" desktop. Debian's sysvinit package, for example, is not a GNU project. Nor are tools like syslog-ng or rsyslogd or vixie-cron that get replaced by various systemd components.

[skeevy420]

Saying GNU+Linux is accepting Stallman's tortured logic for why "GNU" should be in the name. First, he defines an OS as "What you need to develop it using console emacs", which means that the GNU line count is artificially padded by GCC and X11 (which has more lines than all the non-GCC GNU stuff) is excluded despite it being laughable to consider a GUI API to not be part of the OS when you're talking about non-server, non-embedded uses. (Network support isn't needed by a lot of embedded systems, but you don't consider that "not part of the OS".)

If you're going by ABI (as most people intuitively do), it's glibc+Linux or X11+glibc+Linux.

Besides, there's a ton of stuff that isn't GNU-provided that's in a "Linux" desktop. Debian's sysvinit package, for example, is not a GNU project. Nor are tools like syslog-ng or rsyslogd or vixie-cron that get replaced by various systemd components.

I have a GNU+systemd+KDE+QT+GTK+C+Perl+Python+Rust+C+++LLVM +Xorg+Mesa+Wine+Linux system.

[cybertraveler]

Saying GNU+Linux is accepting Stallman's tortured logic for why "GNU" should be in the name. First, he defines an OS as "What you need to develop it using console emacs", which means that the GNU line count is artificially padded by GCC and X11 (which has more lines than all the non-GCC GNU stuff) is excluded despite it being laughable to consider a GUI API to not be part of the OS when you're talking about non-server, non-embedded uses. (Network support isn't needed by a lot of embedded systems, but you don't consider that "not part of the OS".)

If you're going by ABI (as most people intuitively do), it's glibc+Linux or X11+glibc+Linux.

Besides, there's a ton of stuff that isn't GNU-provided that's in a "Linux" desktop. Debian's sysvinit package, for example, is not a GNU project. Nor are tools like syslog-ng or rsyslogd or vixie-cron that get replaced by various systemd components.

Stallman headed a project to build a completely "free" UNIX like OS. They never finished their kernel but they found Linus was developing Linux so they used that. The GNU+Linux distros I use today are a result of that initial effort by Stallman & the GNU project. The GNU project provided the philosophy, license and initial effort to make these GNU+Linux distros I use. They also provided a huge amount of code and they actively maintain much of that code today.

I don't even care much for the GNU project over any other project. I don't think the [L]GPL is the best licensing system either. I just acknowledge the history of my system and I choose to call it by its proper name.

Linux is a kernel.

GNU is and was a project to make a fully "free" UNIX like OS.

GNU + Linux distros are the result of the two.

[cybertraveler]

A man with a Porsche car (GNU) which has Ford engine (Linux) & Micheline tyres (Xorg) & Brand-X seat covers (vim) doesn't call their car anything but a Porsche.

I have a GNU system. I call it GNU+Linux because novice computer users and the less informed often use the term "Linux" to refer to GNU systems.

I don't care that it's a GNU system just that I don't care that the man above owns a Porsche. It's just what it is. I call "Android" phones "Android" phones. I don't call them Android + Java + Linux + GCC + busybox + whatever systems.

I made my case. You can call it what you want. As shall I.

[ssokolow]

A man with a Porsche car (GNU) which has Ford engine (Linux) & Micheline tyres (Xorg) & Brand-X seat covers (vim) doesn't call their car anything but a Porsche.

I have a GNU system. I call it GNU+Linux because novice computer users and the less informed often use the term "Linux" to refer to GNU systems.

I don't care that it's a GNU system just that I don't care that the man above owns a Porsche. It's just what it is. I call "Android" phones "Android" phones. I don't call them Android + Java + Linux + GCC + busybox + whatever systems.

I made my case. You can call it what you want. As shall I.

Yes, and if you were running a distro made by the GNU project, that would be perfectly fine to call GNU, but the equivalent to "Porsche" is "Ubuntu" or "Fedora" or some other distro name. Suppose, for some reason, Porsche outsourced their engines to BMW and their interior designs to Bradington-Young. You wouldn't call your car a Porsche/BMW/Bradington-Young. You'd call it a Porsche... possibly a "Porsche with a BMW engine"... in other words, "Ubuntu" or "Ubuntu Linux".

On a more technical level, good luck getting people to use more than three syllables per token, and more than "one adjective (Ubuntu) and one noun (Linux)" in the long form.
Ergo, "GNU Linux" must refer to a distro of Linux assembled and offered by the GNU project, just as "Red Hat Linux" intuitively refers to either RHEL or Fedora among people who don't remember the original Red Hat Linux distro.

To expect anything else is about as viable as expecting people to write and pronounce "x86_64-linux-gnu" as their OS's name.

GNU makes the rich Corinthian leather interior of your car which then gets integrated by someone else into the final product, and then Stallman and his fans whine when people don't call it a GNU car.

[aht0]

A lot of the confusion about this stems from a simple confusion over terms.

Linux = kernel

Android = a non UNIX-like OS framework which uses the Linux kernel. End users get an Android distribution (e.g. the Samsung Android distro).

GNU + Linux = a UNIX-like OS framework which has a good degree of compatibility with POSIX and the BSDs. It's built and managed by the GNU project and all the other developers that fit into the large GNU + Linux ecosystem. End users get an GNU + Linux distribution (e.g. Gentoo).

Systemd + Linux = Another UNIX like OS framework being designed, built and managed by Red Hat and Lenart. The non-kernel components are being far more centrally planned and managed than the GNU + Linux OS framework. End users get a Systemd + Linux distribution (e.g. Debian). Note: the fact there are many GNU components in a typical Systemd + Linux distro is irrelevant, as it's quite clear that the Systemd project will happily replace them whenever they feel the need and the design of Systemd is such that distros of it are encouraged to follow their lead (IE the "vendor-lock" you referred to).

As soon as I accepted the above, it became much more conceptually easy to think about the Systemd project and what it is doing.

Currently I used a mix of Systemd+Linux & GNU+Linux systems. They have a very different feel to them. The GNU+Linux ones feel familiar and more unixy. The Systemd + Linux ones feel a bit more like Windows & Mac OS X (when it comes to developing / administrating them). There's pros and cons to both OS frameworks.

Dunno why you quoted me, I have no confusion in my mind at least. And I take Android as an operating system in it's own right, I don't categorize it as "Linux" at all.

For that pal666-troll, term "Linux", as far as I've been able to determine, equals "various Linux distros using systemd". Everything else "should just die" and anyone still using that "anything else" are stupid who should also go die somewhere.. End of his worldview.

[xinorom]

GNU+Linux

Stallman-tier autism intensifies.

[cybertraveler]

Dunno why you quoted me, I have no confusion in my mind at least. And I take Android as an operating system in it's own right, I don't categorize it as "Linux" at all.

I didn't mean to imply that I thought you were confused. I was just sharing my thoughts about this topic. I am able to think clearly about this topic, so I like to share my thoughts publicly to help those who are struggling to conceptualize some of these things. There's a lot of people out there who deliberately mis-use terms or spread confusion in order to further their own hidden agenda or to try and impose their own preferences on others (perhaps out of narcissism). I think the simple act of describing something as it really is, is like shining a light on darkness. It reveals what is truly there.

[cybertraveler]

...

I'm not trying to get people to do anything. I'm just describing things as I see them.

It just so happens I also think it's fair to call Ubuntu 'Ubuntu' and call Gentoo 'Gentoo'. Gentoo (at least) is a GNU distro.

I'm gonna part ways with you in this convo now. Bye.