Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Microsoft Confirms Bringing Sudo For Windows, Is Open-Source Too

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #51
    Originally posted by xxx View Post
    Long wall of drivel
    that is as ridiculous as calling an OS that uses the NT kernel with a GNU userland as Windows or an OS that uses the Mach kernel with the GNU userland as Darwin or macOS.

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by darkoverlordofdata View Post

      I'm sorry if my reality doesn't match your expectations. Wander out of the computer lab sometime, and see what the rest of the world is doing.
      There is no perfect OS. Linux is far from perfect, but it's being my main or single daily driver for 17 years. I can't say I've never had a crash with it (I don't remember, but maybe this happened once), but the experience has been very good.

      In other words, for my software development use case, Linux has been the better option when compared to MacOS or Windows.

      No fanboy here of anything. I'm just a developer happy with Linux.
      Last edited by paulocoghi; 08 February 2024, 10:50 AM.

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by darkoverlordofdata View Post
        Microsoft will not turn into linux. They may start using unix-like. But a backbone of their business is their customer relationships based on backward compatibility, and the linux kernel is not backward compatible. I’ve personally experienced this. I’m a non-professional musician. I’ve used Line6 equipment for 20+years. A decade ago, I moved from Windows to Linux, because the drivers were ported over. But kernel changes kept breaking the drivers. Finally, the developer gave up trying to upgrade. I had to switch back to windows. In music, legacy sounds are hot, and Windows backward compatibility supports that. My 20+ year old drivers work excellent on Windows 11. Consumers drive adoption, not developers.

        Not only is it not backwards compatible, the gnu userland it's users are so proud of is notoriously not forwards compatible as well.

        Build something against a new version of libstdc++ or glibc and it breaks on an older release. Sure, they will talk up a huge storm about how this can be addressed with things like glibc symbol versioning, never mind the fact it's utterly tedious and nearly impossible to do or track properly on large projects.

        In the meantime, something built against UCRT, which was introduced with Windows 10, and a recent Win10 SDK , will run in the 13 year old Windows 7, and might even run on the ancient Windows XP with ceveats.
        Last edited by Sonadow; 08 February 2024, 10:59 AM.

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post

          It is not an "implementation detail". It is literally the OPERATING SYSTEM! THE KERNEL!
          It is irrelevant to the API that Google considers the official, supported way to write Android apps.

          Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post
          Young people these days don't realize the GUI or the various libraries are not the OS. They are part of the overall environment, but they are not THE-OS. Used to be that GUIs needed to be purchased separately from the OS... In fact, even in modern times, Xorg was exactly that, a GUI environment you could run on top of your Linux operating system.... Windows began in a similar fashion, early Windows were just like Xorg, they ran on top of the DOS operating system, they were a GUI environment, not an OS. Later Microsoft combined them totally with Windows 95 and replaced DOS altogether with NT.
          As far as "young people" are concerned, for something as variable as Linux, the ABI is the OS. Android and "Linux" or glibc/POSIX/X11 or whatever you want to call it (Changing the word won't change what people intend to communicate) do not present the same ABI.

          Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post
          Android is Linux, anyone who says otherwise is either a troll or seriously badly informed. Or doesn't understand what an OS is. Happens a lot with people who don't have a formal computer science education, lots of script kiddies think they know it all these days.
          Now you're just being obtuse. Let's use manpage-naming syntax. Android is an OS that uses linux(1) as its kernel. Linux(2) is a family of OSes that uses linux(1) as its kernel. Android is not Linux(2). They're taking about Linux(2).

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by Quackdoc View Post

            homer way for me
            Same here.

            Comment


            • #56
              Originally posted by pabloski View Post
              The problem with this assumption is that everyone has it a different way. We could even define Windows as the kernel + userland API + libc + .Net!! And maybe if .Net sucks we will say that Windows sucks. Except this isn't true, because .Net IS NOT Windows!
              There is a bit of "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it" involved ("I know Linux when I see it and Android is not Linux."), but there is a very simple distinction:

              Linux, the family of OSes, uses POSIX as its primary API surface, while Android only contains POSIX as a secondary API surface that application developers are not intended to use.

              At the end of the day, that's the defining difference. "Linux, the application platform" is a POSIX platform. "Android, the application platform" is a non-POSIX platform running on top of a POSIX kernel.

              Originally posted by pabloski View Post
              People should learn to be more precise and starting calling Linux for what it is, a kernel!
              That ship has sailed. There are two homophonic terms. Android and "Linux, the OS family" are both based on "Linux, the kernel". There is no other term that people have managed to find that covers both glibc and musl-based distros, both server and GUI distros, and both X11 and Wayland GUIs.

              In fact, in common use, "Linux" has come to mean "Linux, the OS family" by default, with "Linux, the kernel" being referred to as "the Linux kernel".
              Last edited by ssokolow; 08 February 2024, 11:47 AM.

              Comment


              • #57
                ssokolow Sonadow

                Richard Stallman is shaking his head somewhere...


                But seriously, I agree with this point

                Originally posted by ssokolow View Post

                There are two homophonic terms.
                But disagree with the terms you later defined (and probably see more than two terms/definitions)

                I'd say one important definition of "Linux" that you didn't mention is "the Linux kernel" and would then say Android and ChromeOS both are Linux. This definition is useful, because every time Google has to improve the project responsible for being a kernel for their OS's they have to send patches to Linus.

                Like you said, thought, since android has its own APIs and runtime environment (ART), you can say "Android is not linux" and be correct.

                Now for ChromeOS it gets more complicated, as there is a checkbox that makes it so in a single click ChromeOS "becomes" indistinguishable from a "normal" Linux "desktop". I haven't used it myself and have not read how it's I plemented etc. So I can't say if in my opinion it is "Linux" (1) or (2) or (n). All I know is that it for sure muddies the water/blurs the linus.


                Edit: I see my auto correct changed "lines" to "linus". I'm leaving it be as I found it humourous.
                Last edited by DumbFsck; 08 February 2024, 01:05 PM.

                Comment


                • #58
                  Originally posted by DumbFsck View Post
                  But disagree with the terms you later defined (and probably see more than two terms/definitions)

                  I'd say one important definition of "Linux" that you didn't mention is "the Linux kernel" and would then say Android and ChromeOS both are Linux. This definition is useful, because every time Google has to improve the project responsible for being a kernel for their OS's they have to send patches to Linus.
                  I'm saying that the horse has left the barn. Whether we want it or not, it has become common practice to use "Linux" to mean "Linux, the POSIX-based OS with either no GUI, X11, or Wayland, predominantly based on glibc". It's effectively a de facto genericized trademark like kleenex or scotch tape.​

                  I use "Linux-based" for that, since it's always possible to lock something down and "Linux-based" carries a connotation of "the vendor may consider accessing the Linuxy parts to void your warranty". (eg. a "Windows-based" device may have been Group Policy'd into not running arbitrary applications and Secure Boot'd into not letting you change that.)

                  Whether you think about Android as being "cut-down Linux" or "Linux without the usual userland", it's "missing pieces" that people associate with "Linux" as opposed to "Linux-based" or "the Linux kernel".

                  Originally posted by DumbFsck View Post
                  Like you said, thought, since android has its own APIs and runtime environment (ART), you can say "Android is not linux" and be correct.

                  Now for ChromeOS it gets more complicated, as there is a checkbox that makes it so in a single click ChromeOS "becomes" indistinguishable from a "normal" Linux "desktop". I haven't used it myself and have not read how it's I plemented etc. So I can't say if in my opinion it is "Linux" (1) or (2) or (n). All I know is that it for sure muddies the water/blurs the linus.
                  Again "Linux-based" works well there. It's a customized Linux and, if you don't do your own research, all bets are off on whether it's "Linux enough".

                  For example, I grabbed a new old stock HP thin client that runs on Windows Embedded CE 6.0. Could I use it as a "Windows Embedded CE 6.0 device" before I bought an 8GB ATA disk-on-module and installed Windows 98 SE and the relevant VIA GPU/Audio/NIC/etc. drivers? No. It was sold as a thin client with Windows Embedded CE 6.0 being an implementation detail, so it came with internal storage too small and too full to make it useful for much else.
                  Last edited by ssokolow; 08 February 2024, 01:46 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Originally posted by ssokolow View Post

                    The TL;DR is that, while consumers may prefer Windows GUIs, the developers, developers, developers, developers prefer UNIX interfaces (Not a big surprise. UNIX was designed by and for programmers.) and they're desperate to not lose those developers to UNIX/Unixoid things like Apple Silicon macbooks now that the big focus is webdev and mobile dev.

                    (Especially since an Apple Silicon MacBook can develop for every non-gamedev platform that matters anymore while competitors can't do iOS.)
                    The oxymoron is that developers developers developers prefer open environments and environments that they can control. Apple prefers a walled garden where you do things Apple's way or you go pound sand. It is a highly controlled and restricted environment.

                    Why do you think Linux usage went so quickly from 3% to now 4%?

                    Yes, Windows is losing. But that doesn't necessarily mean Apple defaults. Linux desktops truly are fun. Linux desktops are not just good. Linux desktops are great. Wonderful even. This isn't the days of GTK1/GNOME1 and KDE2 anymore.

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      Originally posted by ssokolow View Post

                      Whether you think about Android as being "cut-down Linux" or "Linux without the usual userland", it's "missing pieces" that people associate with "Linux" as opposed to "Linux-based" or "the Linux kernel".

                      Again "Linux-based" works well there. It's a customized Linux and, if you don't do your own research, all bets are off on whether it's "Linux enough".

                      [...]

                      [your example later about] Windows Embedded CE 6.0.
                      I was just adding that in at least one context you'd be not only correct but also understood when saying "android is Linux". Same goes for Chrome OS.

                      To give an example, the other day a friend of mine who's completely non-techie asked if I though his ps5 controller would work on his son's chromebook. I said that it is just Linux, it should work. It did and although I did not check, I still believe the reason is, like I told him, that it "is just Linux".


                      But I agree with you that in most ways and in lots of circles the meaning of "Linux" does not encompass android and chromeOS.

                      The thing is that the conversation started when Britoid andSonadow said that Linux is not a viable platform for desktop and mobile use. One of them even saying it is nothing but pain. Adding also that android and chromeos don't count.


                      I'd argue that it counts, in some ways (the example above is a nice example, you can count those platforms as linux because there are tangible benefits in hardware support for the end-user, whether they know it's because of Linux or not), and doesn't in other ways (can you pipe an to awk to a new file in chromeos? That goes straight into one of your [ssokolow] definitions, that some people call just linux [like myself] and others would call GNU + Linux).

                      So is using Linux on mobile as desktop, as one of them argued, nothing but pain? The benefits of being linux chromeOS and android enjoy, argue that it isn't. So imo they count as a counterexample.


                      Not to mention that IMO they aren't even needed. Android for mobile is needed, but for desktop use there are LOTS of distributions that are nothing but a joy to use. Of course no single distro covers all use cases, and there are many usecases that no distro at all can support, but that is true to any OS, you can't edit videos with final cut pro neither in windows not linux nor BSDs nor android etc. You can't use your whole OS as an IDE on windows like you can on Mac and Linux. Etc etc.

                      But for many usecases you can use any OS. And for a few Linux even is the superior choice, using anything else being nothing but pain.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X