Originally posted by dee.
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Linux Web Usage Almost Doubled, Now At ~2%?
Collapse
X
-
-
Chromebooks are also cheap hardware for a REAL Linux install
Originally posted by Cann View PostThat 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.
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:
-
Originally posted by ssokolow View PostStallman 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ssokolow View PostRational 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.
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:
-
Originally posted by castlefox View PostI think it is from people like me that have some super old Windows XP machine but now they are transitioning to Linux full time.
Originally posted by nll_aDo people somewhere really use that crap? That's odd.Originally posted by Andrecorreia View Posti don t see the point of chrome OS. we cant do nothing there, its chrome nothing more
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by blackiwid View PostBut, 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.
Originally posted by TAXI View PostYou 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?
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 PostIs 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.
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:
-
Originally posted by Andrecorreia View Posti don t see the point of chrome OS. we cant do nothing there, its chrome nothing more
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by caligula View PostThe 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.
Originally posted by GreatEmerald View PostEh, 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).
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:
-
Originally posted by TAXI View PostYou 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?
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: