• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

The EADD Linux Technical Gibberings Thread

StoneHappyMonday said:
OS to me, means Ordnance Survey. Oh, you mean operating system? What's that? What system am I operating and why is it deficient to Linux? Apart from Linux having an X in it.

I'm a communist btw. Anarcho-communist when in knocks company.

I also have a lock on my toilet door. Does this mean I don't need Linux for porn?

I'm relying on good answers here. I hate feeling left out.
Click to expand...

Quick summary:

Operating System. OS.

Windows is an OS. Mac OS X is an OS.

Linux is an OS. More accurately, it's a small, but very important, part of an OS, the kernel. It mediates between the hardware and the software which makes the system do useful things.

So some people prefer to call it GNU/Linux, because usually the Linux kernel comes with more operating system stuff from the GNU project.

What's GNU? GNU is Not UNIX. UNIX is a family of operating systems. GNU is Not UNIX, but it's very like UNIX.

A major difference between Windows and GNU/Linux is that the Windows source code* is secret, whereas the GNU/Linux source code is not secret. By mandate. That's why some people think it's an OS for communists. It's built by the people, for the people. If you have the skills, you can modify GNU/Linux. You can fix bugs and add features. This is sometimes acknowledged by the term "Free Software". It gives you freedom. But some people mistake Free for No Cost, so another term is in use, Open Source.

The only entity which has control over the Windows source code is Microsoft. With GNU/Linux, everyone has control.

Now, there are people who think that this Freedom stuff is nothing to do with communism, because they associate communism with the Soviet Union and other State Capitalist entities. Whatever, they still care about freedom. And so they also like Free Software, because it gives freedom.

And some people just think that open access to source code is a fucking good way to get software written. They tend to use the term "Open Source".

One other thing; when you get a copy of GNU/Linux you get it in the form of a "distribution" or "distro". That is, you get more than just an operating system. You get Linux, the kernel, you get the GNU operating system stuff, and you get lots of application software like word processors, web servers, programming languages, web browsers and so on. These distros have names like Debian, Red Hat, Arch, Gentoo, CentOS, and many more.



*source code: When computer code is written, it's usually done using a programming language which is easily read and modified by human being. Computers prefer a more concise language, called assembly language, or machine code. A process called compilation converts human readable/modifiable source code into machine code. Source code is like the blueprint for the programs that run on your computer. When you buy Windows, usually preinstalled on a computer, you buy the machine code. You don't get to see or modify the source code. If you buy GNU/Linux you get the machine code, but you are also legally entitled to get the source code, and you are legally entitled to pass it on freely. You may also, if you wish, modify it. But you are obliged to offer the changes you make to the source code available to those who you pass your modified version on to. This is by virtue of the licence under which the code is made available. There are many Free Software licences, but the archetype is the GNU General Public License. Linux, the operating system kernel, is released under the GPL (version 2).
 
Last edited:
s/everyone/basement dwelling hobbyist tossers who contribute more and more aids to whatever distro is the flavour of the moment.

You're entirely at the mercy of amateurs basically, at least with proprietary operating systems people are being paid to write and maintain them.

This is why linux windowmanagers largely look like shit, and why there is no serious productivity software for linux like adobe CS.
 
Ceres said:
s/everyone/basement dwelling hobbyist tossers who contribute more and more aids to whatever distro is the flavour of the moment.

You're entirely at the mercy of amateurs basically, at least with proprietary operating systems people are being paid to write and maintain them.

This is why linux windowmanagers largely look like shit, and why there is no serious productivity software for linux like adobe CS.
Click to expand...

And that's a matter of opinion.

In fact, it's not a matter of opinion, it's just wrong.

The majority of the code that goes into a Linux distro is written by professionals. Companies like Red Hat, Canonical, IBM.

They are not basement dwelling hobbyists, they are usually highly skilled software engineers.

What you could have said, and I would have agreed with, is that the openness of the system allows hobbyists to make available unpolished software. There is a lot of software for Linux, and a lot of it is unpolished, but much of it is industry standard, cutting edge. Apache, Firefox, Chrome, LibreOffice. These are not substandard.

Linux window managers do not look like shit, Gnome 3 is in fact quite beautiful, much more attractive than any version of Windows. Cinnamon is also very pleasing to the eye.

But, some window managers are very basic, like OpenBox or WindowMaker. The point is you have a choice.
 
Last edited:
"A pile of old festering hacks, endlessly copied and pasted by a clueless generation of IT 'professionals' who wouldn't recognise sound IT architecture if you hit them over the head with it,"
Click to expand...

canonical, haha.

In a lengthy post to his FSF blog, the GNU Project creator slams Canonical, the company in charge of Ubuntu, for including a search feature in the latest version that sends packets to Canonical's own servers without alerting the user.
Click to expand...
 
Ceres said:
canonical, haha.
Click to expand...

I agree, Mark Shuttleworth is a knob.

But useful things have come out of Ubuntu, and because we have the freedom to do what we want with the code, we can take the best bits from different places; a relevant example being the installation of the Cinnamon interface onto Ubuntu. Doing so completely bypasses the search feature you refer to. Also, that search feature can simply be removed.

Making effective use of Free Software requires some knowledge and dedication but it can be a lot of fun, the results can be very pleasing, and, for me anyway, it just feels good to know I am in complete control of the software that runs on my computer.
 
Last edited:
It's pretty impossible to hide activity like that in any operating system, closed source or otherwise. Note that they didn't notice it by examining any source code.
 
Ceres said:
It's pretty impossible to hide activity like that in any operating system, closed source or otherwise. Note that they didn't notice it by examining any source code.
Click to expand...

Sure, but with open source the functioning is explicitly clear, whereas with closed source it is not. Source code may be obfuscated, as google do. But by and large, the detailed functioning of a given piece of open source software is easier by an order of magnitude to determine than that of a piece of closed source software.

I've not read in-depth about the Amazon search "feature" and it's implications. I know I don't like it and it doesn't affect me as I'm using Cinnamon. I'm going to read up on it now, though. I thought it was merely about the advertising but there seems to be a privacy issue too.
 
Its easy enough to work out how software works without having access to the source.

About as many ubuntu users look at the source of their software as windows users do, so really users are just as vulnerable because they are still ultimately relying on someone else to tell them if there is a problem, or to reassure them that their isn't a problem, aswell as hoping that the malicious people won't find it before the people who could patch it do ;)

There's nothing more secure about open source.
 
Ceres said:
Its easy enough to work out how software works without having access to the source.

About as many ubuntu users look at the source of their software as windows users do, so really users are just as vulnerable because they are still ultimately relying on someone else to tell them if there is a problem, or to reassure them that their isn't a problem, aswell as hoping that the malicious people won't find it before the people who could patch it do ;)

There's nothing more secure about open source.
Click to expand...

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think it's obvious that having the source code is the optimal way to understand the functioning of the software, provided the software has not been deliberately obfuscated.

It's not important that many ubuntu users do not look at the source code. What's important is that many benevolent developers can and do look at the source code.

Of course people without programming skills rely on those with skills to analyse code. The relevant difference between open and closed source is that in the first case such analysis is usually straightforward.

In my opinion, open source tends to be more secure than closed source. I have my reasons. You disagree, you have your reasons. Whatever. The debate between us is clearly going nowhere.
 
knock said:
We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think it's obvious that having the source code is the optimal way to understand the functioning of the software, provided the software has not been deliberately obfuscated.

It's not important that many ubuntu users do not look at the source code. What's important is that many benevolent developers can and do look at the source code.

Of course people without programming skills rely on those with skills to analyse code. The relevant difference between open and closed source is that in the first case such analysis is usually straightforward.

In my opinion, open source tends to be more secure than closed source. I have my reasons. You disagree, you have your reasons. Whatever. The debate between us is clearly going nowhere.
Click to expand...

^ just not true if you look at the statistics from places like CERT.

Auditing code is a lot more complicated than just looking at the source...

but anyway, does shambles have a discrete video card in his machine or is it using the onboard video?
 
Ceres said:
^ just not true if you look at the statistics from places like CERT.

Auditing code is a lot more complicated than just looking at the source...
Click to expand...

Can we agree there is in fact an ongoing debate on the topic and we are unlikely to resolve it here? ;)

Anyway, security is definitely not my main reason for preferring free software. Freedom is my reason!

but anyway, does shambles have a discrete video card in his machine or is it using the onboard video?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure it's onboard, but if he can give us that lshw output we'll know for sure.

EDIT: It's a Dell Vostro 200. I'll find out in a minute from the manual.

It's integrated Intel, but there are obviously PCI slots for an upgrade.
 
Last edited:
As someone with very little idea of what I'm talking about on this topic, I definitely prefer the idea of open source, at the very least.
 
knock said:
Fact remains, Shammy, your machine has a reasonably modern dual core processor and a reasonable video card*. It should cope. I think it's memory restricted.

Can you let us know what the RAM configuration looks like?
Click to expand...

For Knock (and anybody else who likes looking at semi-incomprehensible technobabble) with <3

Code: 
  *-memory
       description: System Memory
       physical id: 24
       slot: System board or motherboard
       size: 1GiB
     *-bank:0
          description: DIMM DDR2 Synchronous 667 MHz (1.5 ns)
          product: NT512T64U88B0BY-3C
          vendor: Nanya Technology
          physical id: 0
          serial: A84AA010
          slot: DIMM1
          size: 512MiB
          width: 64 bits
          clock: 667MHz (1.5ns)
     *-bank:1
          description: DIMM DDR2 Synchronous 667 MHz (1.5 ns)
          product: NT512T64U88B0BY-3C
          vendor: Nanya Technology
          physical id: 1
          serial: 345AA010
          slot: DIMM2
          size: 512MiB
          width: 64 bits
          clock: 667MHz (1.5ns)
     *-bank:2
          description: DIMMProject-Id-Version: lshwReport-Msgid-Bugs-To: FULL NAME <EMAIL@ADDRESS>POT-Creation-Date: 2009-10-08 14:02+0200PO-Revision-Date: 2012-02-05 00:26+0000Last-Translator: Andi Chandler <Unknown>Language-Team: English (United Kingdom) <[email protected]>MIME-Version: 1.0Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bitX-Launchpad-Export-Date: 2012-10-09 11:44+0000X-Generator: Launchpad (build 16112) [empty]
          product: NT512T64U88B0BY-3C
          vendor: Nanya Technology
          physical id: 2
          serial: A84AA010
          slot: DIMM3
     *-bank:3
          description: DIMMProject-Id-Version: lshwReport-Msgid-Bugs-To: FULL NAME <EMAIL@ADDRESS>POT-Creation-Date: 2009-10-08 14:02+0200PO-Revision-Date: 2012-02-05 00:26+0000Last-Translator: Andi Chandler <Unknown>Language-Team: English (United Kingdom) <[email protected]>MIME-Version: 1.0Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bitX-Launchpad-Export-Date: 2012-10-09 11:44+0000X-Generator: Launchpad (build 16112) [empty]
          product: 64T64000EU25FB2
          vendor: Infineon (Siemens)
          physical id: 3
          serial: 0D03C424
          slot: DIMM4
  *-display
       description: VGA compatible controller
       product: 82G33/G31 Express Integrated Graphics Controller
       vendor: Intel Corporation
       physical id: 2
       bus info: pci@0000:00:02.0
       version: 02
       width: 32 bits
       clock: 33MHz
       capabilities: msi pm vga_controller bus_master cap_list rom
       configuration: driver=i915 latency=0
       resources: irq:42 memory:fdf00000-fdf7ffff ioport:ff00(size=8) memory:d0000000-dfffffff memory:fdb00000-fdbfffff

Pee Ess: Am not implying 'tis a pooter more suited to making into a meringue pie, incdentally. Am just surprised at how much slower it is than an older one of similar spec is all. Although thinking about it I think last one had 2gb RAM. Was very old though. And reconditioned when I got it. So unlikely to be even vaguely flash nor speedy.
 
With the Windows/Linux shit it's simple.

Server Owner: Linux

Personal Computer owner that likes everything there, well documented and available provided money isn't an issue: Windows.

Personal Computer owner that just in general likes having a tweak about, customizing and having the freedom to do what they wish (provided they have the knowledge - hence generally quite a computer savvy crowd tend to use it only when not a server): Linux.

Personal Computer owner that likes spoon feeding, enjoys the appearance/value: OS X.

Although from the top of my head I think the original reason OS X is so popular with media production, etc, was to do with how it handles processing/multi-tasking. I think this was addressed for Windows though. Can anyone elaborate on this as I'm unsure if it's true.

Although this is written from someone who has not yet moved onto Windows 8. Personally think it's a load of shit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top