Including a fool's game, apparently. To claim that Linux is only an OS core, when any distribution of the said Linux often includes not one, but several windowed GUIs, on top of a complete development tool chain, thousands of utilities (including your beloved vi), support for several filesystems, plus whatever else you may summon through yum, is hardly anything else than foolish.
It's a real wonder that, given this wealth of capabilities and multiplicity of persona, Linux is not more popular... or could it be that there is something true to the clichés you so vehemently disapprove of?
Now, who's the idiot? The one who laughs or the one who refuses to see?
"There are over three hundred Linux distributions, all of which are implementations of the Linux operating system."
Your insistence that everybody is stupid enough to compare hardware platforms with an OS core only makes you a Fjeld abe. Or miereneuker. Un enculeur de mouches, perhaps? In any case, a strudelkopf.
I'll let you translate the above for yourself, that way you can claim having made at least one honest intellectual effort in this discussion...
The common distros of Linux don't strictly adhere to the GNU Project's goals/guidelines and are therefore not endorsed by them. It's no great leap to understand why they drop GNU from their name. Only endorsed versions carry the GNU/Linux name, the rest are just Linux.
Personally, I prefer to ignorantly call them all Linux as its shorter.
9 comments:
The clip is comparing an OS kernel (Linux) to two classes of computers (Mac and PC).
Kernels don't "play games" or "edit movies". They perform context switches, serve interrupts and swap pages in and out of virtual memory.
Idiots.
Now look at who's hiding its lack of popularity behind semantics... LOL! ;-)
Semantics is everything.
If you think war is peace and peace is war, like premier Bush does, you will get a different outcome than you would if you got those concepts right.
The point is, Linux runs on both Macs and PCs, as does the rest of the GNU/Linux operating system.
"Semantics is everything"
Including a fool's game, apparently. To claim that Linux is only an OS core, when any distribution of the said Linux often includes not one, but several windowed GUIs, on top of a complete development tool chain, thousands of utilities (including your beloved vi), support for several filesystems, plus whatever else you may summon through yum, is hardly anything else than foolish.
It's a real wonder that, given this wealth of capabilities and multiplicity of persona, Linux is not more popular... or could it be that there is something true to the clichés you so vehemently disapprove of?
Now, who's the idiot? The one who laughs or the one who refuses to see?
Apparently you are completely clueless about the the history of GNU and why people mistakenly refer to it as "Linux".
Me thinks you should pay more attention to semantics, else you get lost in all the misinformation spouted by the old media.
Clueless, really? From the Wikipedia page Linux distribution:
"There are over three hundred Linux distributions, all of which are implementations of the Linux operating system."
Your insistence that everybody is stupid enough to compare hardware platforms with an OS core only makes you a Fjeld abe. Or miereneuker. Un enculeur de mouches, perhaps? In any case, a strudelkopf.
I'll let you translate the above for yourself, that way you can claim having made at least one honest intellectual effort in this discussion...
Wikipedia is wrong. Read the link I provided.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
"Semantics is everything."
Quoting Alfred Korzybski, TTL?
The common distros of Linux don't strictly adhere to the GNU Project's goals/guidelines and are therefore not endorsed by them. It's no great leap to understand why they drop GNU from their name. Only endorsed versions carry the GNU/Linux name, the rest are just Linux.
Personally, I prefer to ignorantly call them all Linux as its shorter.
Post a Comment