Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux Web Usage Almost Doubled, Now At ~2%?

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

  • ssokolow
    replied
    Originally posted by dee. View Post
    You do realize that glibc stands for GNU C library, right?
    And not only is GCC+glibc+coreutils+binutils+etc. no bigger than X11 (if you're counting by percentage of code contributed), it's also easier to swap out than X11 if you want to patch some other libc into compatibility (if you're counting by importance to the ABI's identity).

    Hence, "GNU/Linux" still loses out to "X11/Linux" by any metric other than Stallman's "A GUI isn't part of the OS because you don't need it to run Emacs and get work done. Therefore, X11 is automatically excluded from consideration." opinion.

    Leave a comment:


  • caligula
    replied
    Originally posted by dee. View Post
    They don't need to because the GPLv2 has no "you must use the software's name on any derived software" clause.
    Exactly. I'm not saying it's a nice thing to do to not give credit, but it's a disaster from marketing point of view to include all the names. Most Linux apps are also compatible if you use Ubuntu, Debian, Gentoo, Arch. With Sailfish / Android it's not 100% sure. Android has limited libc support and different graphics & sound stack. How would that be compatible with say KDE's Kdevelop?

    Leave a comment:


  • Luke
    replied
    Chromebooks are also cheap hardware for a REAL Linux install

    Originally posted by Cann View Post
    That could possibly be a reason as well if these numbers are correct.


    For some consumers, the only thing they are using a computer for is to surf around the web. Considering the price of Chromebooks are below the price of an average tablet and that many of these find computers troublesome, they may find these advantageous, despite the tracking and the money Google earns from them.
    I don't trust Google and even block them in all non-Tor applications, but Chromebooks don't pay Windows tax and do have keyboards. I've seen them for under $200. An x86 Chromebook can usually run vanilla Coreboot from what I've heard, allowing normal booting of Linux distros once set up. This removes the delay for booting "developer mode" to bypass ChromeOS's semi-locked bootloader. I would not want an ARM laptop as it could not share the same packages and OS snapshots as my big workstations. As for tablets, typing on glass would quickly damage my fingers as I learned to type on typewriters and hit keys hard.

    An x86 ex-chromebook with Linux Mint (using MATE) on it is therefore my recommendation for a cheap laptop from currently sold hardware. Avoid PowerVR graphics for the usual reasons, though I would actually take that over ARM-at a steep discount for the associated driver hassles. Fortunately, Intel just bailed on PowerVR, but watch for older models that may use PowerVR. Real best choice may be a first or second generation netbook purchased used over Ebay, with the disk wiped and your favorite distro installed in a light version.

    Buying small laptops is not like it was in 2009! There are now many more pitfalls. In 2009 there were no Windows 8 locked ARM devices, no x86 PowerVR graphics, and no hard to unlock x86 bootloaders to avoid. ARM was still commonly locked on things like iPhones, but people knew about those and didn't buy them for Linux use. All you had to worry about where buggy network cards (which could be changed) and BIOS issues that could screw with battery monitors, webcams, and that sort of thing. The core hardware always worked if you used anything newer than Ubuntu Hardy. Now buying new requires a Startpage search for the exact make and model to ensure the machine can be booted. If you buy a machine that can't boot anything but the OEM OS and don't check before buying, good luck getting the computer store to take it back for that reason.

    Leave a comment:


  • dee.
    replied
    Originally posted by ssokolow View Post
    Stallman wants "GNU/Linux" because it's hacker shorthand for "GNU [running] over/on Linux", like ? is "1 over 2".



    Rational people name it after the ABI that programs are built against. Hence, "Linux" is really "X11/glibc/Linux" since programs typically expect the X11 libraries, the glibc ABI, Linux's flavor of the ELF binary format, and for any platform-specific system calls they use to be Linux ones.
    You do realize that glibc stands for GNU C library, right?

    Leave a comment:


  • dee.
    replied
    Originally posted by TAXI View Post
    But the VM couldn't run without the kernel. I still fail to see why they don't need to give credit to the kernel at all.
    They don't need to because the GPLv2 has no "you must use the software's name on any derived software" clause.

    Leave a comment:


  • GreatEmerald
    replied
    Originally posted by ssokolow View Post
    Rational people name it after the ABI that programs are built against. Hence, "Linux" is really "X11/glibc/Linux" since programs typically expect the X11 libraries, the glibc ABI, Linux's flavor of the ELF binary format, and for any platform-specific system calls they use to be Linux ones.

    That's typically abbreviated to "X11/Linux" or "X11; Linux" in things like browser User Agent strings because it's assumed that no general-purpose desktop will ever build Linux with anything other than glibc or a compatible fork like eglibc. (I'd like to see a distro succeed using LLVM Clang for the compiler, the musl libc, and some non-GNU userland tools so we can finally get RMS and his fans to stop whining about it.

    (X11 also at least matches GNU for the amount of code it contributes to a modern desktop like Ubuntu)

    Average users typically use "X11 is the only relevant GUI system for Linux, so it's not necessary to explicitly specify" to further shorten that to "Linux" if they're knowledgeable or "Ubuntu" if they're not.
    Well, with the advent of Wayland, the X11 part is going to become obsolete. Again, take Sailfish OS as an example ? it already uses Wayland.

    It's rational to have a non-conflicting name for this, no matter the ABI. "GNU/Linux" fits the best at the moment (you can't call it Linux as that conflicts with the kernel, and you can't call it GNU as it conflicts with Hurd). If someone would make a specific, clearly defined term that refers to these desktop-like GNU/Linux distributions on which standard programs can run, then we could use that and no longer have problems when trying to express exactly what we're talking about. After all, terminology exists in order to allow people to understand each other like that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cann
    replied
    Originally posted by castlefox View Post
    I think it is from people like me that have some super old Windows XP machine but now they are transitioning to Linux full time.
    That could possibly be a reason as well if these numbers are correct.
    Originally posted by nll_a
    Do people somewhere really use that crap? That's odd.
    Originally posted by Andrecorreia View Post
    i don t see the point of chrome OS. we cant do nothing there, its chrome nothing more
    For some consumers, the only thing they are using a computer for is to surf around the web. Considering the price of Chromebooks are below the price of an average tablet and that many of these find computers troublesome, they may find these advantageous, despite the tracking and the money Google earns from them.

    Leave a comment:


  • ssokolow
    replied
    Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
    But, the suggestion was never call it Freesoftware Linux, but GNU/Linux what describes that Linux is only one part of GNU, if you really think the GNU userspace is not worth to mention you could call it at least LINUX/gnu or something like that.
    Stallman wants "GNU/Linux" because it's hacker shorthand for "GNU [running] over/on Linux", like ? is "1 over 2".

    Originally posted by TAXI View Post
    You don't need to give credit for the kernel which is the most important and most complex piece of software? Note: There is no such thing as "Linux stuff", that's called GNU (or BSD userland or Android or whatever), Linux is the kernel only.
    So why do we name our OS like the kernel on Desktop but like the userspace on mobile?
    Rational people name it after the ABI that programs are built against. Hence, "Linux" is really "X11/glibc/Linux" since programs typically expect the X11 libraries, the glibc ABI, Linux's flavor of the ELF binary format, and for any platform-specific system calls they use to be Linux ones.

    That's typically abbreviated to "X11/Linux" or "X11; Linux" in things like browser User Agent strings because it's assumed that no general-purpose desktop will ever build Linux with anything other than glibc or a compatible fork like eglibc. (I'd like to see a distro succeed using LLVM Clang for the compiler, the musl libc, and some non-GNU userland tools so we can finally get RMS and his fans to stop whining about it.

    (X11 also at least matches GNU for the amount of code it contributes to a modern desktop like Ubuntu)

    Average users typically use "X11 is the only relevant GUI system for Linux, so it's not necessary to explicitly specify" to further shorten that to "Linux" if they're knowledgeable or "Ubuntu" if they're not.

    Originally posted by sarmad View Post
    Is ChromeOS actually Linux? Yes, it uses the Linux kernel but that's not what people refer to when they say Linux. By Linux they usually mean GNU/Linux and ChromeOS is not a GNU/Linux OS.
    I thought they were using Upstart as their init system. Doesn't that assume more glibc-like properties than non-GNU libc implementations like Bionic currently support? If it's using glibc, then you technically can't say "is not a GNU/Linux OS" since it's running a core GNU component "over" the Linux kernel.

    However, you CAN say that, from the application perspective, it's neither a Linux OS, nor a GNU OS, nor an X11 OS because all of those are private, internal implementation details not accessible to end-user applications.

    Leave a comment:


  • profoundWHALE
    replied
    Originally posted by Andrecorreia View Post
    i don t see the point of chrome OS. we cant do nothing there, its chrome nothing more
    That's the point. I work at a place that repairs computer and other jazz, and 75% of the problems are from people who have no idea what they are doing. They're not going to want to learn, there's often no point in them learning anyways. Just give them stuff that gets them email and google and call it a day.

    Leave a comment:


  • V10lator
    replied
    Originally posted by caligula View Post
    The Android VM is almost like a secondary OS on top of Linux and BSD userland. You target this and not native platform. They also want you to not think about the lower levels.
    But the VM couldn't run without the kernel. I still fail to see why they don't need to give credit to the kernel at all.

    Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    Eh, well... "Sailfish OS" is easy to say, while "Sailfish/Mer/GNU/Linux" is quite a mouthful; albeit the latter is certainly more informative. Though if there are no other flavours, then the distinction is rather useless, because everyone should already be aware what Sailfish OS is supposed to be made of. With the desktop (sort of ? Mer isn't a desktop framework, but I believe that it's important to count Mer users together with desktop users, as you can still run normal desktop distribution programs on Mer) distributions, there is no official name, and "GNU/Linux" is the only real thing we have to differentiate them from others (as "Linux" is just the name of the kernel).
    I see Sailfish OS as a Linux distribution. With distributions we say Gentoo/Arch/Debian/Ubuntu/whatever cause, as you noted, everyone should be aware what it is. Still Sailfish OS gives credit to the kernel, right on their homepage, in the first sentence:
    Sailfish OS : mobile-optimized with the flexibility, ubiquity and stability of the Linux core and a cutting edge user experience built with the renowned Qt? platform.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X