Linux

Whats is linux, exactly? Is it good/bad? Why cant it run most programs(?) Compared to windows, which is better? What are it's features? And finally, what type should I get?

Attached: 1200px-Tux.svg.png (1200x1414, 259K)

Other urls found in this thread:

kernel.org/
gnu.org/software/software.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Lurk moar

I will. Tell me your experience with it first.

>Whats is linux, exactly?
It's a libre kernel, that's about it
>Is it good/bad?
Depends on your use cases
>Why cant it run most programs(?)
>Why can't a mere kernel run all the programs of a full fledged OS?
>Compared to windows, which is better?
Depends on your use cases
>What are it's features?
Uhh... Lurk moar & install Gentoo
>And finally, what type should I get?
Build it yourself from scratch faggot

Linux is technically an operating system kernel, but colloquially it is a name for a full OS containing that kernel and the GNU userland. It is very good, and probably the most sane OS that managed to get popular. It can actually run lots of programs, but the reason why certain ones are not available is due to the fact that people wrote them for Windows and are too lazy to go through the porting effort. From a design perspective though, it is much better than Windows. Its features are many-fold, although here's some. High reliabiility: There's a reason why so many servers and literally every supercomputer and a majority of smartphones use this. Performance: Linux can be pretty fast in certain configurations. It's not the most intuitive OS, but power-users will certainly find a lot of potential here. Lightweight/scalable: It's a feather-light OS at its core, so some more lightweight distributions are great choices for getting more use out of that old laptop you might have lying around. It can also be set up in a more intensive way, which does provide all the fancy desktop effects and compositing found on other desktop OSes.

If you're new to it and want to try it, I would recommend Linux Mint or Ubuntu. They're solid desktop/laptop systems that are well liked by newbies. If you're planning on using for servers, you can't go wrong with CentOS or Debian netinstall.

OP here, I appreciate your response! Really informative. One more question: I've heard that Linux OS' can be "editable", like from its source, is this true? If it is, isn't it an Open Source OS?

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.

>I've heard that Linux OS' can be "editable", like from its source, is this true?
Oh boy, if only you knew
If it is, isn't it an Open Source OS?
It goes even further than that, it's libre software

this, read up on copyleft to understand the implications of the licensing of the linux kernel and the gnu subsystems

linux is the kernel

Hello Gill Bates.

Attached: b8t.jpg (625x626, 33K)

I'll leave that to when I delve further into the subject. Any book/article recommendations by any chance?

That user here, no problem! Yes, Linux has fully editable and available source code. The licensing even states that no edited version of it can be made closed source. The guy who made the license is the same guy who ran the userland development project, and he thinks proprietary stuff is evil, so he added that bit to the license terms. But as long as you give the source code when/if you release your changes, you can do whatever you want with it.

The source code for the kernel is here
kernel.org/
The GNU project is here. There's a lot of software, most of which is just stuff they make that isn't a core part of what makes the OS function. Most relevant ones imo are coreutils, gcc, some others ending in utils, and gnome.
gnu.org/software/software.html
They also have some software philosophy articles on this site, preaching the virtues of the Free Software movement.

Of course there's a ton of other software that your system would have if you ran a distribution of this OS. All of that is open source too.

Ranty youtubers

Attached: 1567711306935.jpg (1200x1200, 177K)

Almost all Linux users are slaves to repositories meanwhile Windows users can download an .exe file and get the latest version, bleeding edge beta version, or an ancient version of whatever software then want if they have the .exe .

We literally have made habit of frequently changing OS's just to get software we find effective. Solutions have been offered such as distro agnostic pack managers like flatpak and snap, and tools like appimage. However they are primarily ignored in favor of ancient tools like apt-get and .deb.

In Debian/Ubuntu's case apt-get should continue to exist for people who want it and how it saves a lot of space. But developers should be encouraged to take advantage of flatpak and appimage and even tar.gz bundles to prevent software from being chained to particular distros.

I N S U R A N C E

F R A U D

>he doesn't know how to compile a program

Attached: th.jpg (474x266, 8K)

Installing self compiled software on debian like systems is one hell of a mess.

Literally the most "I've been on Jow Forums for almost two weeks now. I'm a expert" post

Never used Debian.

>just recompile over 9000 dependencies bro

A kernel.
It's good.
It can.
Linux.
Too many to list.
Whatever fits your use case/interest.

>Whats is linux
a state of mind

>Whats is linux, exactly?
It's an operating system (kernel)
>Is it good/bad?
it's good, though that doesn't necessarily mean you'd be better off with it
>Why cant it run most programs(?) Compared to windows,
because most programs are made only for windows, linux is not windows
>which is better?
there's no straightforward answer to that. for some use-cases, linux is clearly better, for others not so much
>What are it's features?
far too many to count, there's damn near nothing is /can't/ do, really
>And finally, what type should I get?
what distro? depends on what you plan on using it for
desktop? fedora or debian testing are fine choices, server? debian stable or centos, router? openwrt, recovery usb drive? systemrescuecd, etc

note that while it can often be used in place of windows, it's not a "drop-in" replacement, since it does not natively run windows programs. there is a tool called Wine which can be used to run some windows programs, but it's not flawless, you will need to find native versions of things you want for the most part

>Why cant it run most programs(?)
Different programs are made for different systems. If you see software being supported on multiple platforms then the developers weren't lazy and bothered to port the software. Running Windows-only software on anything but Windows should be impossible, but thanks to WINE there's at least a chance that it will run. It's not perfect but you want a native version anyway, as soon as one exists.