Subj : Re: Windows vs Linux
To   : tenser
From : boraxman
Date : Thu Apr 21 2022 22:58:17

 te> This is just wrong.
 te> 
 te> The value of Linux is that it's a highly configurable kernel
 te> that can run just about everywhere and drive just about any
 te> hardware you may care to throw at it.  It's used everywhere
 te> from the world's fastest supercomputers to cell phones and
 te> thermostats.  It presents a highly capable kernel interface
 te> that provides useful services to user-space programs; it can
 te> be parameterized with a number of filesystems, schedulers,
 te> memory management policies, etc.  In other words, it is a
 te> flexible toolkit for building useful things.
 te> 
 te> People lose sight of the idea that computers are tools.  For
 te> most people that means using them to do useful work.  When
 te> those tools are overly complex, users are inhibited from doing
 te> what they really want with the computer.  Scientists working on
 te> climate models aren't dumb; they just aren't interested in the
 te> minutia of futzing with the computer.  They'd rather just get
 te> their HPC jobs running.  And most of them could care less about
 te> window managers and shells and garbage like that; they want to
 te> visualize the results and not sweat the small stuff.  Those use
 te> cases are important, and claiming that efforts to make systems
 te> more user-friendly are "dumbing down" computing are misguided at
 te> best and frankly facile and reek of elitist snobbery.
 te> 

Lets say "GNU/Linux" then.  Technically Linux is just the kernel, but when it is referenced, it is in almost all contexts, references as the OS, the Kernel, the GNU tools, X and other supporting software.

For people using a smartphone, it is irrelevant to them whether the kernel is Linux or not.  Thats for the millions of millions of "Linux" users, who could very will have the kernel swapped out for something else, and not notice a difference.  It is also irrelevent to people using other "appliances".  Maybe my router runs Linux, who knows.  I don't care, why would I?

For people who make a choice to use Linux for computing, they are not choosing the kernel, they are choosing the entire OS.  They are choosing a different GUI (or choice of GUI), package management, software repos, price.  The kernel usually plays a small role (ability to use btrfs, stability).

If Linux was just Windows with a different kernel, I wouldn't have bothered.

Scientists (I studied science) just want to use their tools.  Fortran is still used for climate modelling, many will use python, used for astronomy.  Linux doesn't need futzing around.  I just installed Fedora for my wife on a Thinkpad, and everything really does "just work".

 te> Ferrari makes money on the margins; the others make it on volume.
 te> The nifty thing about Linux is that it does both, though it's
 te> imperfect.

Linux needs to remain viable, in that it needs to be used enough to justify investment.  The investment is paid by usability moreso than sales.

 te> Mom's have been using Linux on cell phones for a decade perfectly
 te> capably, similarly with kids using Chromebooks and people who just
 te> want to set the temperature in their home or watch a movie on an
 te> airplane.  Linux developers understand this very well.
 te> 
 te> They also understand that Linux actually runs on a small fraction
 te> of the overall computer and that almost no one has the "freedom"
 te> to actually see into the rest.
 te> 

They aren't aware they are using Linux, and they have no freedom, really.  Free software is about autonomy, the ability to mould and use the software as you see fit, to create your own solutions, decide to make things as you see fit.  Freedom doesn't come from a license, it comes from how the software is engineered, the documentation, its configurability.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/24 (Linux/64)
 * Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)

.