Linux Applications

Why do I only ever see you Jow Forumsuys talk about Linux as a desktop? I've been using it for decades in production, even if I'm using Win or Mac at the home or office all my production servers are CentOS.
When will you stop talking about the Linux desktop experience like it's relevant to the OS's strengths?

Attached: dedicated-hosting-server.png (461x347, 46K)

Because normies only care about an OS as far as how it works for a desktop. And while that's not a strength of the platform, if it got strong support it could be far better than Windows. But that's unlikely to ever happen.

>Why do I only ever see you Jow Forumsuys talk about Linux as a desktop?
Because you have not noticed the home server generals yet.

because only a small fraction of anons have or administrate servers, but everybody has
a desktop or a laptop

Linux looks very interesting, even if some of the screen colours and menu options appear to be a little out of the ordinary.

But you are missing a vital point, a point which takes some experience and depth of knowledge in the field of computers. You see, when a computer boots up, it needs to load various drivers and then load various services. This happens long before the operating system and other applications are available.

Linux is a marvellous operating system in its own right, and even comes in several different flavours. However, as good as these flavours are, they first need Microsoft Windows to load the services prior to use.

In Linux, the open office might be the default for editing your wordfiles, and you might prefer ubuntu brown over the grassy knoll of the windows desktop, but mark my words young man - without the windows drivers sitting below the visible surface, allowing the linus to talk to the hardware, it is without worth.

And so, by choosing your linux as an alternative to windows on the desktop, you still need a windows licence to run this operating system through the windows drivers to talk to the hardware. Linux is only a code, it cannot perform the low level function.

My point being, young man, that unless you intend to pirate and steal the Windows drivers and services, how is using the linux going to save money ? Well ? It seems that no linux fan can ever provide a straight answer to that question !

May as well just stay legal, run the Windows drivers, and run Office on the desktop instead of the linus.

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.

Attached: 1426382013980.jpg (244x300, 13K)

Just wrong on every level
shut up Stallman, nobody likes you

Because Jow Forums on the whole never develops anything and just likes to tinker and pretend to know shit.

Linux is the low level code. The drivers are part of the kernel. The kernel talks with the hardware.

what new bullshit bait is this?

Are you saying that this linux can run on a computer without Windows underneath it, at all ? As in, without a boot disk, without any drivers, and without any services ?

That sounds preposterous to me.

If it were true (and I doubt it), then companies would be selling computers without a Windows. This clearly is not happening, so there must be some error in your calculations. I hope you realise that Windows is more than just Office ? It's a whole system that runs the computer from start to finish, and that is a very difficult thing to acheive. A lot of people don't realise this.

Microsoft just spent $9 billion and many years to create Vista, so it does not sound reasonable that some new alternative could just snap into existence overnight like that. It would take billions of dollars and a massive effort to achieve. IBM tried, and spent a huge amount of money developing OS/2 but could never keep up with Windows. Apple tried to create their own system for years, but finally gave up recently and moved to Intel and Microsoft.

It's just not possible that a freeware like the Linux could be extended to the point where it runs the entire computer from start to finish, without using some of the more critical parts of Windows. Not possible.

I think you need to re-examine your assumptions.

it's not new, it's some old b8 from 2007

You have no earthly clue what you are talking about. This was SORT of true in the mid-90s for winmodems and some sound cards, when you had to initialize them within Windows and then use loadlin to boot Linux.
Other than that, you are completely and 100% empirically wrong and I urge you to leave Jow Forums

>Thinking Drivers and bootdisk are windows
Kek

If you've ever built a rig before you know it doesn't come with Windows on it. You choose to install it, Linux, BSD, or whatever OS you want.

You may be thinking of a BIOS. A system must have a BIOS, but that is not Windows. It is agnostic from the OS.

>loadlin
howdy, fellow OG!

Linux is a kernel.

Thanks for the obviously pedantic argument, but often people use it to mean GNU/Linux as an overall package despite it being just a kernel.

>falling for 11yo pasta

I've been here for several years now, first time seeing that particular dish
weird

Same here.
Been running RedHat and/or CentOS in my job for over a decade.
It's THE ONLY fucking option.
I like when cucks here talk about ''''''''''Ubuntu servers.''''''''''' Give me a fucking break, it really shows the median age-group of Jow Forums.
>Keep rocking that CentOS 7, you glorious boomer!

I have all Windows machines at home and use Xubuntu when testing/sorting out problems on other people PCs
But in my servers I use xcp-ng (XenServer before the licensing thing) on CentOS base. Never seen something so stable trough time

red hat and centos are the only option for 4x9
only people without jobs are going on about the linux desktop experience

>rhel/centos
>not based aix

Attached: dkhk03t8vxqz.png (1280x720, 533K)

/thread

what about debian user?
it is good for servers

>WAHH STOP TALKING ABOUT LINUX DESKTOP WAHH I'VE BEEN USING IT FOR A DECADE WAHH
This is you.

not him but i think you missed the point

>what about debian user?
>it is good for servers
Not really. Too many version updates compared to RedHat/CentOS. RedHat has 10 years LTS support. Debian doesn't come close.

what are you talking about user?
Debian has a 5 year life cycle, I think that is pretty good

Don't get me wrong, Debian is a fine OS. But 10>5. I've been working in this space for 15 years , and as far as Linux goes, I've never seen anything but CentOS or RedHat for large scale clusters.

Run CentOS at work and Manjaro at home because I like newer software. The only problem with the big-boy server distros is they don't get updates very often.
But OP definitely has a point.

Attached: pacmanb.jpg (720x532, 65K)

the irony in your post is that it is already far better and i use it fulltime

Because not everybody can afford 5000$ for a server which won't even see any real use idiot

Jow Forums can't even install ubuntu

CentOS is free and can be installed on consumer hardware.

There is nobody to convince, not much to discuss for server OS I suppose. You either use Windows because you're locked into their ecosystem or you use Linux. Additionally, you don't generally want to switch distros without a good reason to do so. For Desktops it's another matter entirely, and this is also where Linux is arguably the weakest. Also, a significant portion of Jow Forums uses linux as a daily driver.

There's no point in doing so

Plenty of consumer hardware can be repurposed into single-role servers.
Do you even work or are you larping on Jow Forums?

> if it got strong support it could be far better than Windows. But that's unlikely to ever happen.

But user Its got more support now that it ever has, its implemeted in more things now than the late 80s and early 90s
I can say with confidence that it will continue to be supported and will one day be a fully realized os for consumers,but for now its reserved for auts
Slow but surely, slowly but surely

you're clearly arguing with a guy who once read an article about linux in pc magazine

kek, truth

>I've been using it for decades in production
What do people mean by using things in production?