New To Linux? Learn The Jargon! DistroTube
video description
Date: 2022-03-30
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
Jackson
No, DistroTube, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation. Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ. One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you? (An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.
Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.
You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument. Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD? If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this: Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag. Thanks for listening.
reply
No, DistroTube, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation. Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ. One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you? (An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.
Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.
You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument. Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD? If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this: Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag. Thanks for listening.
reply
Django
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.-
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called -Linux-, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.-
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called -Linux- distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
reply
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.-
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called -Linux-, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.-
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called -Linux- distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
reply
liorean
According to my OS course, the shell is actually much more than just the -command shell- such as bash. They divided the types of software in five main types: firmware which is the software that gets the hardware into an operable state, the OS consisting of mainly privileged kernel providing a hardware-software interface and unprivileged shell providing a software-user interface, drivers which is any hardware-software interface abstraction (or simulation) that can be either part of the OS or not, and then applications, which are the unprivileged programs by which a user (which can be either application or human) interacts with the OS. They especially noted that a graphical display system most definitely is a part of an OS shell, and the term is far older than the interactive terminal command shells, and actually started being used about the switchboards on the outside shell of the room-sized machine by which the programmer entered the program to be loaded very early in the history of computers.
Though to be fair, if you're talking Linux terminology in specific and not OS terminology in general, that hardly is relevant.
reply
According to my OS course, the shell is actually much more than just the -command shell- such as bash. They divided the types of software in five main types: firmware which is the software that gets the hardware into an operable state, the OS consisting of mainly privileged kernel providing a hardware-software interface and unprivileged shell providing a software-user interface, drivers which is any hardware-software interface abstraction (or simulation) that can be either part of the OS or not, and then applications, which are the unprivileged programs by which a user (which can be either application or human) interacts with the OS. They especially noted that a graphical display system most definitely is a part of an OS shell, and the term is far older than the interactive terminal command shells, and actually started being used about the switchboards on the outside shell of the room-sized machine by which the programmer entered the program to be loaded very early in the history of computers.
Though to be fair, if you're talking Linux terminology in specific and not OS terminology in general, that hardly is relevant.
reply
Cameron
Does anyone want to explain to me the push for FREE and open source software? I'm all for the open source, I understand the appeal. But I feel less passionately about it being free. Sure, I like free things. But my main concern is privacy and security, not free software. Is there something I'm missing, is it being free somehow a critical component?
And yes, I know, it can be hard to monetize something that is open source, but I doubt people's passion about it being free is -it'd just be hard so why do it?- Like I'm sure if people are adamant about it, there's something more to it. Not that I'm shaming the following, but is it just people wanting free stuff?
reply
Does anyone want to explain to me the push for FREE and open source software? I'm all for the open source, I understand the appeal. But I feel less passionately about it being free. Sure, I like free things. But my main concern is privacy and security, not free software. Is there something I'm missing, is it being free somehow a critical component?
And yes, I know, it can be hard to monetize something that is open source, but I doubt people's passion about it being free is -it'd just be hard so why do it?- Like I'm sure if people are adamant about it, there's something more to it. Not that I'm shaming the following, but is it just people wanting free stuff?
reply
bluephreakr
That colour-changing test to let you know if you are typing something correctly isn't a default feature in zsh. It's an optional that Manjaro devs had enabled. They even declare it's Fish-like in the config - check your .zshrc. I would imagine you would had confirmed this to some extent before talking about it.
Bash can also have similar features, the issue is Bash requires more hacky workarounds to certain niceties Z Shell has by default, such as right-side prompts for instance.
reply
That colour-changing test to let you know if you are typing something correctly isn't a default feature in zsh. It's an optional that Manjaro devs had enabled. They even declare it's Fish-like in the config - check your .zshrc. I would imagine you would had confirmed this to some extent before talking about it.
Bash can also have similar features, the issue is Bash requires more hacky workarounds to certain niceties Z Shell has by default, such as right-side prompts for instance.
reply
Maruf
The shells on Windows are PowerShell and Command Prompt.
The Desktop Environment on Windows (according to task manager) is Windows Shell Experience.
There was a display server as well but I couldn't find it anymore in the task manager.
My point is that these things are not Linux specific, Windows has them too but on Windows you can't change or configure them so there is no point talking about them.
reply
The shells on Windows are PowerShell and Command Prompt.
The Desktop Environment on Windows (according to task manager) is Windows Shell Experience.
There was a display server as well but I couldn't find it anymore in the task manager.
My point is that these things are not Linux specific, Windows has them too but on Windows you can't change or configure them so there is no point talking about them.
reply
bluephreakr
An isssue I take when discussing command-line things is how we do not delineate between terminal and terminal _emulator._ Terminal emulators are what you use with a display server so you do not need to fall out of X or Wayland to interface via commands. Sometimes, they'll have multiplexing features built into them, similar to if running tmux by itself but using GTK or Qt to do it in a parent window.
reply
An isssue I take when discussing command-line things is how we do not delineate between terminal and terminal _emulator._ Terminal emulators are what you use with a display server so you do not need to fall out of X or Wayland to interface via commands. Sometimes, they'll have multiplexing features built into them, similar to if running tmux by itself but using GTK or Qt to do it in a parent window.
reply
Karla
I've been using Linux on and off over 5 years save 2020 having switched 90% to Linux until my pc at the time malfunctioned. Most of what I wanted to do worked great on Linux but there's so much I didn't know the names of therefore I couldn't efficiently search when issues would arise. Knowing specific terms is very helpful!
Do you plan to make this into a series? Thanks for your time!
reply
I've been using Linux on and off over 5 years save 2020 having switched 90% to Linux until my pc at the time malfunctioned. Most of what I wanted to do worked great on Linux but there's so much I didn't know the names of therefore I couldn't efficiently search when issues would arise. Knowing specific terms is very helpful!
Do you plan to make this into a series? Thanks for your time!
reply
Joscha
Originally I was going to skip this video -after a decade on Linux, the jargon is everyday speech for me.
Then I was explaining why Linux is better to a workmate who is thinking about getting a new Windows laptop. Suddenly it seemed like taking a look at how other, more competent, users explain the very same things might be a good idea.
Standing ovations, Derek.
reply
Originally I was going to skip this video -after a decade on Linux, the jargon is everyday speech for me.
Then I was explaining why Linux is better to a workmate who is thinking about getting a new Windows laptop. Suddenly it seemed like taking a look at how other, more competent, users explain the very same things might be a good idea.
Standing ovations, Derek.
reply
Max
GNU's not Unix. Initially Linux was proprietary. Torvalds changed the license of Linux to the GNU GPL v2. He calls this the best decision in his life. By this license change Linux became a part of GNU. Stallman didn't plan to write the whole operation system himself. So all free software is a part of GNU. That includes the free BS distributions.
reply
GNU's not Unix. Initially Linux was proprietary. Torvalds changed the license of Linux to the GNU GPL v2. He calls this the best decision in his life. By this license change Linux became a part of GNU. Stallman didn't plan to write the whole operation system himself. So all free software is a part of GNU. That includes the free BS distributions.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
