vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:

>Seems like there isn't much Linux advocacy going on.[*]
>
>Maybe that's because, Linux just works, so much so that
>it's even a bit boring.

My advocacy is pretty simple: there isn't another option. You have
macOS and Windows, neither of which are worth shit, or you have pure
Unix of some kind, and Linux is the leader in that.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Le 23-09-2024, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> a écrit :
> vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
>
>>Seems like there isn't much Linux advocacy going on.[*]
>>
>>Maybe that's because, Linux just works, so much so that
>>it's even a bit boring.
>
> My advocacy is pretty simple: there isn't another option.

Redox, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, QubesOS and Hurd for example. OK, for Hurd it's
not yet ready. It will be. Soon. I hear it since thirty years it's
almost ready. So, one day it'll become true. Maybe. But if Redox is not
yet fully ready, it's far younger. QubesOS, FreeBSD and OpenBSD are well
proven ready.

> You have macOS and Windows, neither of which are worth shit, or you
> have pure Unix of some kind, and Linux is the leader in that.

So, what? If the only choice is the leader, then the leader is Windows
and the only choice. Your argument is plain wrong because you are using
exactly what Windows users are using against Linux. You can't say the
argument is good towards Linux and wrong toward Windows. You have to
chose. And the only possibility is to refuse it.

The only argument is to don't care about what others are doing or whose
the leader is or whatever only followers unable to know what they want
can use. You chose what suits you best. And Linux is not the only
choice.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On 28 Sep 2024 09:38:01 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> If the only choice is the leader, then the leader is Windows
> and the only choice.

Windows accounts for maybe only 25% of the computing market now. Most of
the rest is Linux.

Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:

>> My advocacy is pretty simple: there isn't another option.
>
>Redox, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, QubesOS and Hurd for example. OK, for Hurd it's
>not yet ready. It will be. Soon. I hear it since thirty years it's
>almost ready. So, one day it'll become true. Maybe. But if Redox is not
>yet fully ready, it's far younger. QubesOS, FreeBSD and OpenBSD are well
>proven ready.
>
>> You have macOS and Windows, neither of which are worth shit, or you
>> have pure Unix of some kind, and Linux is the leader in that.
>
>So, what? If the only choice is the leader, then the leader is Windows
>and the only choice. Your argument is plain wrong because you are using
>exactly what Windows users are using against Linux. You can't say the
>argument is good towards Linux and wrong toward Windows. You have to
>chose. And the only possibility is to refuse it.
>
>The only argument is to don't care about what others are doing or whose
>the leader is or whatever only followers unable to know what they want
>can use. You chose what suits you best. And Linux is not the only
>choice.

I'm suggesting that BSD isn't really that distinct from Linux.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 10/4/2024 6:55 PM, Joel wrote:
> Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
>
>>> My advocacy is pretty simple: there isn't another option.
>>
>> Redox, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, QubesOS and Hurd for example. OK, for Hurd it's
>> not yet ready. It will be. Soon. I hear it since thirty years it's
>> almost ready. So, one day it'll become true. Maybe. But if Redox is not
>> yet fully ready, it's far younger. QubesOS, FreeBSD and OpenBSD are well
>> proven ready.
>>
>>> You have macOS and Windows, neither of which are worth shit, or you
>>> have pure Unix of some kind, and Linux is the leader in that.
>>
>> So, what? If the only choice is the leader, then the leader is Windows
>> and the only choice. Your argument is plain wrong because you are using
>> exactly what Windows users are using against Linux. You can't say the
>> argument is good towards Linux and wrong toward Windows. You have to
>> chose. And the only possibility is to refuse it.
>>
>> The only argument is to don't care about what others are doing or whose
>> the leader is or whatever only followers unable to know what they want
>> can use. You chose what suits you best. And Linux is not the only
>> choice.
>
>
> I'm suggesting that BSD isn't really that distinct from Linux.

The code base is hugely different, but to users I would expect they are
very very similar.

A fairly unbiased discussion here:
https://docs.freebsd.org/en/articles/explaining-bsd/

Section 4.7. Which should I use, BSD or Linux? is handy.

BSD has a hugely better license I think.

BSD doesn't have a point-click installer, as far as I know. It looks
tedious to do a BSD install the first time.

On Fri, 04 Oct 2024 18:55:13 -0400, Joel wrote:

> I'm suggesting that BSD isn't really that distinct from Linux.

It’s distinct enough that they need to add a Linux-compatibility layer to
try to get Linux binaries to run.

To make it worse, the BSDs are about as distinct from each other as they
are from Linux. This even though they cover a smaller range of uses.