"Microsoft, in 1983, made a toy operating system for toy computers and I hardly paid any attention to it..."

Redpilled post.

HAPPENING!
cnn.com/2019/07/03/united-states/terror-bombing-of-Microsoft-HQ.html
>(CNN BREAKING) - The man who allegedly detonated several explosive devices at the Microsoft Redmond campus in Washington was apprehended today.
>66-year-old Richard Stallman, President of the Free Software Foundation and the cult "Church of Emacs" was apprehended by Federal agents approximately 26-minutes after the explosions. Initial reports confirmed several fatalities, but no confirmation as to who the victims are and why they were targeted at this time. It has been speculated with the cult-like nature of Stallman's organizations that the attack could have been politically motivated by his hatred of Microsoft, which he falsely believes spys on him.

Attached: 1558648803053.png (800x600, 748K)

>its here, the new found information gives us a glimpse about the matter at hand, all the victims were collaborators of a certain software project and it is believed that they were on the verge of implementing org-mode plus a lot of qol features along with it in vim that would ultimately make using emacs entirely usless. for now we don't exactly know what all this means, what is vim, what is emacs is it all bogus or is it all related to some cyberwar in which these socalled vim and emacs are some big leaders or some fictitious gods.
I am ben.
and we gonna take a commercial break from going deeper into the investigation.
be right with us

kek

And then they made Windows 3 and later 95 and by then, their "toy OS" had lapped around what GNU would ever be.
Painfully optimized assembly code optimized for every last drop of performance > shitty abstract C spaghetti with bloated protocols like X11.

Windows has never taken hold outside of "general purpose computing". It is too useless for anything specialised.

Only too expensive. Unless you're talking about realtime shit, Windows works well for any workload.

No it doesn't. It's a mess. All it is capable of is office work and web browsing. Everything else should be left to real operating systems.

Man, are you from an even weirder clown world universe than we?

I'm from the real world. You see, a world exists outside of video games.

>still dodging
Does GNU manage hardware or not?
If the answer is "no", GNU is not an operating system. Period.

>Does GNU manage hardware or not?
You keep changing your question. GNU does, yes. But you asked about the GNU coreutils before. I can't read your mind, so try to express yourself more clearly.

>You keep changing your question
How the actual fuck is this changing the question? I've been asking the same shit since the beginning of the thread, you're pathetic.
What GNU package included in most popular distributions manages hardware?

Real operating systems died in the year 2000, when the last business Multics installation was removed.

Define GNU package. That isn't a standard term. See, this is how you change the question. You may not realise it, because you're still a novice, but words have meaning.

No one uses Windows for actually heavy workloads (the kind that runs on HPC clusters with millions of CPU cores or server mainframes) because it's always better to run code that you compile with specific optimizations for your use case. There's a reason why every single supercomputer in the Top 500 list runs GNU/Linux.

I've honestly never seen such blatant intellectual dishonesty in my life.
Point out exactly what GNU software, which you can find in most popular distributions, manages hardware.
It's not a hard question. Yet you keep dodging it.

Depends which kernel you use, GNU can use many.

You really don't know what you're talking about. You need to gain a clearer understanding of this before you post. You interpret my genuine questioning as dodging because you think you're being clear. But you aren't. You are all over the place and making little sense.

In a standard GNU/Linux installation, in most popular distributions, what specific GNU software manages hardware?
And beware, this is not, as your rotten mind believes, "changing the question". This is merely making it more specific, hoping you won't keep dodging it. This is a sad measure that is required with clear intellectual frauds such as you.

You said it yourself. You said GNU/Linux, which is GNU using Linux. Linux is one kernel GNU can run.
But still, what does "GNU software" mean to you? It could mean at least 6 things to me.

Hurd and Linux libre are both GNU projects, so yeah it manages hardware.

Linux is not GNU software. It's not developed by the GNU project.
I know you have a million snowflake definitions of GNU software up your sleeve to keep dodging like a balerina, but to a sane person, that's what it is.
GNU software doesn't manage hardware. Linux does.
And no, "GNU" doesn't run Linux. Linux runs on top of GNU.
I'll take your lack of answer as answering "none" and an admittance of defeat.
Good riddance.

What popular distributions come with them?

Doesn't matter, GNU is still an OS by your definition.

Debian runs on gnu hurd

Funny; I remember when General Motors literally trashed all the SGI machines for winboxes for all the drafting and FEA modeling. In 2000.
Windows is so useless.

>Linux is not GNU software. It's not developed by the GNU project.
So that is what you mean by GNU software? I never said it needs to be written under the GNU project. I explicitly stated that ages ago.
>GNU software doesn't manage hardware. Linux does.
Any kernel can. Not just Linux. GNU can use many kernels. This is the nature of free software, something you clearly are not familiar with.
>Linux runs on top of GNU.
This doesn't mean what you think it means.

Anyway, it was always clear that your point was to get an "epic win" over the GNU project by stating that GNU runs with a kernel not written by someone under the banner of the GNU project. But that really doesn't matter to anyone. As long as the kernel is free it is welcome to be used in GNU. Even non-free kernels have been used in GNU. We began with Mach, remember. So maybe gain a little understanding of what you're speaking about, son. "GNU software" is a nothing term. It could refer to anything running on GNU, it could mean software written for GNU, it could mean the GNU coreutils, it could be software licensed under the GPL, it could be a GNU project, it could be a GNU pipe dream. It is such a broad, useless statement. You really are the stupidest person on this board.

>General Motors
Wow, so important and not superficial at all...

Attached: laurie.jpg (515x589, 37K)

>all software is gnu software
Holy shit kill yourself.

It could mean a lot of things. You see, child, it isn't standard terminology.

GNUtards on suicide watch.