Why Linux Sucks- 2020 Version

On 04/01/2020 18.39, nospam wrote:
In article , Jonathan N. Little
wrote:


from google i/o a while back:
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/android-dev/android_not_linux.png


No mater how often you say it don't make it true. Even in the age of
"alternate facts". The Linux kernel is the kernel. My servers don't have
a windows manager but they are still Linux, glibc is not the kernel but
GNU C library, and the utilities are part of the shell not the kernel.
It modular, whatever you wrap around the kernel doesn't nullify that it
is Linux.

i'm not the one saying it.

*google* states that android is not linux.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2009...o-google-andro
id-for-developers/
Although Android is built on top of the Linux kernel, the platform
has very little in common with the conventional desktop Linux stack.
In fact, during a presentation at the Google IO conference, Google
engineer Patrick Brady stated unambiguously that Android is not Linux.

why don't you tell google that they're wrong.

They are entitled to their opinion. Just that :-P



--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 18:53:05 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 04/01/2020 18.39, nospam wrote:
In article , Jonathan N. Little
wrote:


from google i/o a while back:
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/android-dev/android_not_linux.png


No mater how often you say it don't make it true. Even in the age of
"alternate facts". The Linux kernel is the kernel. My servers don't have
a windows manager but they are still Linux, glibc is not the kernel but
GNU C library, and the utilities are part of the shell not the kernel.
It modular, whatever you wrap around the kernel doesn't nullify that it
is Linux.

i'm not the one saying it.

*google* states that android is not linux.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2009...o-google-andro
id-for-developers/
Although Android is built on top of the Linux kernel, the platform
has very little in common with the conventional desktop Linux stack.
In fact, during a presentation at the Google IO conference, Google
engineer Patrick Brady stated unambiguously that Android is not Linux.

why don't you tell google that they're wrong.

They are entitled to their opinion. Just that :-P

What does Linus Torvalds have to say about Linux vs Android?

On 2020-01-04, nospam wrote:
In article , Jonathan N. Little
wrote:


from google i/o a while back:
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/android-dev/android_not_linux.png


No mater how often you say it don't make it true. Even in the age of
"alternate facts". The Linux kernel is the kernel. My servers don't have
a windows manager but they are still Linux, glibc is not the kernel but
GNU C library, and the utilities are part of the shell not the kernel.
It modular, whatever you wrap around the kernel doesn't nullify that it
is Linux.

i'm not the one saying it.

*google* states that android is not linux.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2009...o-google-andro
id-for-developers/
Although Android is built on top of the Linux kernel, the platform
has very little in common with the conventional desktop Linux stack.
In fact, during a presentation at the Google IO conference, Google
engineer Patrick Brady stated unambiguously that Android is not Linux.

why don't you tell google that they're wrong.

let us know how that works out.

Probably about as well as telling Trump that he is wrong. That still
does not change the facts.
Brady is refering to the whole OS, nospam is refering to the kernel
(which Brady admits is Linux).
That the "platform" differs from the "conventional Linux stack" does not
differ from many man uses of linux. The platform in my router differs
from the conventional Linux stack as well. That does not mean my router
does not run Linux.

nospam wrote:
In article , William Poaster
wrote:

Linux environment, the basics are still there. ... Android is a Linux
operating system because, at it's base, it uses the standard Linux kernel
and basic operating system.

only the base. the rest of android is not.


Reply after reply after reply, you still don't get it - even though
it's been explained clearly to you. Linux *IS JUST THE* kernel of
"desktop Linux" which is properly called GNU/Linux. Android and
Chrome OS are just as much what is correctly called "Linux" as Ubuntu/
etc. are. Linux was never imagined to be a complete implementation of
Unix, that's where "GNU" and other components come in. So, you could
say that Android isn't Unix, but not that it isn't Linux.

--
Joel Crump

On Sat, 04 Jan 2020 14:23:52 -0500, Joel wrote:

nospam wrote:
In article , William Poaster
wrote:

Linux environment, the basics are still there. ... Android is a Linux
operating system because, at it's base, it uses the standard Linux kernel
and basic operating system.

only the base. the rest of android is not.


Reply after reply after reply, you still don't get it - even though
it's been explained clearly to you. Linux *IS JUST THE* kernel of
"desktop Linux" which is properly called GNU/Linux. Android and
Chrome OS are just as much what is correctly called "Linux" as Ubuntu/
etc. are. Linux was never imagined to be a complete implementation of
Unix, that's where "GNU" and other components come in. So, you could
say that Android isn't Unix, but not that it isn't Linux.

What does Linus Torvalds say about Android vs Linux?

roach wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jan 2020 14:23:52 -0500, Joel wrote:
nospam wrote:
In article , William Poaster
wrote:

Linux environment, the basics are still there. ... Android is a Linux
operating system because, at it's base, it uses the standard Linux kernel
and basic operating system.

only the base. the rest of android is not.

Reply after reply after reply, you still don't get it - even though
it's been explained clearly to you. Linux *IS JUST THE* kernel of
"desktop Linux" which is properly called GNU/Linux. Android and
Chrome OS are just as much what is correctly called "Linux" as Ubuntu/
etc. are. Linux was never imagined to be a complete implementation of
Unix, that's where "GNU" and other components come in. So, you could
say that Android isn't Unix, but not that it isn't Linux.

What does Linus Torvalds say about Android vs Linux?


I didn't ask him. I'm quite sure he would acknowledge that Linux is a
kernel, though, since that's what he designed it to be.

--
Joel Crump

Snit wrote:

How about we all just use what we like and speak of the pros and
cons without attacking each other for having a different
preference?

Better yet, how about we all just recognise that I'm RIGHT and everyone
else is WRONG as we've always done? GD&R


--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

On 1/4/2020 5:09 AM, Melzzzzz wrote:
On 2020-01-04, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 02/01/2020 18.34, nospam wrote:
In article , John Wesley Harding
wrote:

And, with mobile phones, Linux has taken over the world.

no it hasn't.

android is not a full linux distro. it's the linux kernel, with android
built on top of it. all apps are written to android apis, not linux.

It is just Linux with a different desktop :-P

Android is not GNU. Then again it is Linux.


There seems to be a division of opinions on all of this.
So, who would be the authority on this topic?
The creators of Android, which is google.
I'd go by what google has to say. I couldn't say it is or it isn't.
It's not my paygrade.

On 1/3/2020 8:54 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , vallor
wrote:


I have built Preamps and power amps of both types and prefer the solid
state ones hands down.

i also did long ago. i never much cared for designing analog circuits.

A good portion of solid state circuits are analog.

a much larger portion of them are digital.


Not in the sense of power amplification. A lot of integrated circuit
designers do the analog work inside the chip that goes out to the power
amps. The power amps are analog and will always be analog.
Just less analog design to do at that point.

On 1/3/2020 10:53 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2020-01-03, Tig Welder wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 00:44:45 +0000, ? Good Guy ?
wrote:

On 03/01/2020 00:01, Jasen Betts wrote:
probably some sort of windows font bug.

Probably it is what psychologists call " Self-fulfilling prophecy " on
your part so I suggest take this crap to your Linux Junk newsgroup as
Windows has what you call some sort of font bug.

Surely, you don't want to hang out with Windows users who have some sort
of bug as you have managed to diagnose them from your basement apartment
window.

The funny part is he is using slrn which is a throwback to the 1970's
and a DEC VT100 terminal.
Every option, including colors, are controlled by a text configuration
file .slrnrc.
So if you want to change the color of the text for example you need to
edit the file and add something like CYAN to it, then save, restart
slrn, rinse and repeat 100 times until you find a combination you
like.

You should know about obsolete technology, I mean you should, but you
don't. after all you're using it.

Agent is stuck in the 90s with no unicode support, and a developer who
seems to have quit 6 years ago after 14+ years of failing to implement
any sort of unicode support. whereas SLRN is still being maintained,

Anyway back to your other mistakes above.

DEC VT100 terminal doesn't do CYAN, that would be a VT200. but I'm not
using that either.

A VT200 doesn't do any color... it is monochrome.
You'd have to use a more expensive DEC product for that.

On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 17:26:23 -0700, AnonLinuxUser
wrote:

On 1/3/2020 10:53 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2020-01-03, Tig Welder wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 00:44:45 +0000, ? Good Guy ?
wrote:

On 03/01/2020 00:01, Jasen Betts wrote:
probably some sort of windows font bug.

Probably it is what psychologists call " Self-fulfilling prophecy " on
your part so I suggest take this crap to your Linux Junk newsgroup as
Windows has what you call some sort of font bug.

Surely, you don't want to hang out with Windows users who have some sort
of bug as you have managed to diagnose them from your basement apartment
window.

The funny part is he is using slrn which is a throwback to the 1970's
and a DEC VT100 terminal.
Every option, including colors, are controlled by a text configuration
file .slrnrc.
So if you want to change the color of the text for example you need to
edit the file and add something like CYAN to it, then save, restart
slrn, rinse and repeat 100 times until you find a combination you
like.

You should know about obsolete technology, I mean you should, but you
don't. after all you're using it.

Agent is stuck in the 90s with no unicode support, and a developer who
seems to have quit 6 years ago after 14+ years of failing to implement
any sort of unicode support. whereas SLRN is still being maintained,

Anyway back to your other mistakes above.

DEC VT100 terminal doesn't do CYAN, that would be a VT200. but I'm not
using that either.

A VT200 doesn't do any color... it is monochrome.
You'd have to use a more expensive DEC product for that.

Correct.
Green or amber.
The DEC 241 did color I believe.
Such memories.

On 1/4/20 5:30 PM, flatfish+++ wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 17:26:23 -0700, AnonLinuxUser
wrote:

On 1/3/2020 10:53 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2020-01-03, Tig Welder wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 00:44:45 +0000, ? Good Guy ?
wrote:

On 03/01/2020 00:01, Jasen Betts wrote:
probably some sort of windows font bug.

Probably it is what psychologists call " Self-fulfilling prophecy " on
your part so I suggest take this crap to your Linux Junk newsgroup as
Windows has what you call some sort of font bug.

Surely, you don't want to hang out with Windows users who have some sort
of bug as you have managed to diagnose them from your basement apartment
window.

The funny part is he is using slrn which is a throwback to the 1970's
and a DEC VT100 terminal.
Every option, including colors, are controlled by a text configuration
file .slrnrc.
So if you want to change the color of the text for example you need to
edit the file and add something like CYAN to it, then save, restart
slrn, rinse and repeat 100 times until you find a combination you
like.

You should know about obsolete technology, I mean you should, but you
don't. after all you're using it.

Agent is stuck in the 90s with no unicode support, and a developer who
seems to have quit 6 years ago after 14+ years of failing to implement
any sort of unicode support. whereas SLRN is still being maintained,

Anyway back to your other mistakes above.

DEC VT100 terminal doesn't do CYAN, that would be a VT200. but I'm not
using that either.

A VT200 doesn't do any color... it is monochrome.
You'd have to use a more expensive DEC product for that.

Correct.
Green or amber.
The DEC 241 did color I believe.
Such memories.


My first intro to UNIX was when working on one of these:

http://www.decadecounter.com/vta/art...w.php?item=134

I think it was the 5.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

nospam wrote:
In article , Jonathan N. Little
wrote:


from google i/o a while back:
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/android-dev/android_not_linux.png


No mater how often you say it don't make it true. Even in the age of
"alternate facts". The Linux kernel is the kernel. My servers don't have
a windows manager but they are still Linux, glibc is not the kernel but
GNU C library, and the utilities are part of the shell not the kernel.
It modular, whatever you wrap around the kernel doesn't nullify that it
is Linux.

i'm not the one saying it.

*google* states that android is not linux.

They're wrong. Not the first time.


https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2009...o-google-andro
id-for-developers/
Although Android is built on top of the Linux kernel, the platform
has very little in common with the conventional desktop Linux stack.
In fact, during a presentation at the Google IO conference, Google
engineer Patrick Brady stated unambiguously that Android is not Linux.

why don't you tell google that they're wrong.

let us know how that works out.


Not my job. You can find results that says the world is flat too, but
still doesn't make it true.



--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

In article , Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

from google i/o a while back:
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/android-dev/android_not_linux.png


No mater how often you say it don't make it true. Even in the age of
"alternate facts". The Linux kernel is the kernel. My servers don't have
a windows manager but they are still Linux, glibc is not the kernel but
GNU C library, and the utilities are part of the shell not the kernel.
It modular, whatever you wrap around the kernel doesn't nullify that it
is Linux.

i'm not the one saying it.

*google* states that android is not linux.

They're wrong. Not the first time.

because you say so?

the engineers who work on android are in a far better position to know
what it is and is not.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2009...o-google-andro
id-for-developers/
Although Android is built on top of the Linux kernel, the platform
has very little in common with the conventional desktop Linux stack.
In fact, during a presentation at the Google IO conference, Google
engineer Patrick Brady stated unambiguously that Android is not Linux.

why don't you tell google that they're wrong.

let us know how that works out.

Not my job. You can find results that says the world is flat too, but
still doesn't make it true.

straw man.

AnonLinuxUser wrote:
On 1/4/2020 5:09 AM, Melzzzzz wrote:
On 2020-01-04, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 02/01/2020 18.34, nospam wrote:
In article , John Wesley Harding
wrote:

And, with mobile phones, Linux has taken over the world.

no it hasn't.

android is not a full linux distro. it's the linux kernel, with android
built on top of it. all apps are written to android apis, not linux.

It is just Linux with a different desktop :-P

Android is not GNU. Then again it is Linux.


There seems to be a division of opinions on all of this.
So, who would be the authority on this topic?
The creators of Android, which is google.
I'd go by what google has to say. I couldn't say it is or it isn't.
It's not my paygrade.


https://www.howtogeek.com/189036/and...oes-that-mean/

Paul