[clue-talk] Fw: Linux

[Angelo Bertolli]

David L. Willson wrote:
> I am trying to write a definition of "Linux" that is technically accurate and functional
> for many sorts of people, even those who have only limited exposure to Windows and
> MacOS.  This below is my first swing.  Please feel free to make suggestions on better
> phrasing or arrangement.  Please DON'T say that something doesn't work without
> suggesting something better.  The three goals are: simple, short, and accurate.
>
> ---------- Forwarded Message -----------
> From: "David L. Willson" <DLWillson at TheGeek.NU>
> To: "Mattson, George" <George.Mattson at westin.com>
> Cc: dlwillson at TheGeek.NU
> Sent: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:30:00 -0600
> Subject: Linux
>
> George,
>
> You're answer's pretty good, but let me offer what might be a better:
>
> Linux is an operating system, a layer of software that allows other software to get to
> the computer's hardware resources, like the hard drive, RAM, processor, and network
> connection.
>   

More traditionally, Linux refers to the kernel:  an OS is usually 
considered to be at least a little more than a kernel.  (I would say at 
LEAST the kernel + glibc in the case of Linux.)  But in our colloquial 
language, we use the word Linux to mean, "an operating system that uses 
the Linux kernel."  So I would probably either decide on the colloquial 
usage and explain that it's an operating system "like Windows" or 
"alternative to Windows."  I would decide the audience understands 
operating systems and go ahead and explain it.  (I think that it's time 
that everyone accepts that "Linux the operating system" and "Linux the 
project" are two equally valid terms for "Linux" these days.)

> Generally, Linux is consumed as part of a Linux distribution or "distro".  A Linux
> distribution is all the software you need to operate your PC for a wide variety of purposes.
>   

I think this might be a little confusing.  Something like:

Because Linux is freely available and modifiable, people have made many 
different versions that you can try.  The versions are referred to as 
"distrobutions" of Linux.  Some examples are Red Hat, SuSE, and Ubuntu.  
The most noticable difference in these to the desktop user is the way 
the desktop looks.

> Linux is free.  Linux generally costs little or nothing to the average user.
>
> Linux is free.  Anyone is allowed to use Linux for whatever purpose,and they can get
> the "code" (the near-English that software is made of), and they can modify the code,
> creating a new product, and they can use the new product for whatever purpose, and they
> can redistribute their new product, so long as they offer the code to the product and
> allow "down-stream" users to do whatever ~they~ want to with it.
>   

I have a feeling that "code" will still be confusing to some people.  
Maybe throw "orginal programmer's code" in there somewhere.

> Linux is free.  Because of the first two freedoms, there are lots of different versions
> of Linux available and there's a high degree of compatibility between them.  This
> creates a third major freedom for users of Linux, freedom of choice.  Linux is the most
> popular OS where that "freedom to choose" can exist.  Copyright and patent law
> prevent competition in most operating system spaces, because most OS vendors have chosen
> to create closed/proprietary/monopolistic systems and "protect" those systems with
> software patents.  A Windows binary (a program designed for Windows), for example, can
> only run on Microsoft's Windows, because there is no other Windows, and legally, there
> can't be.  Similarly, a Macintosh binary can only run on Apple's MacOS.  The makers of
> free software like Linux use copyright law to protect the open-ness of the software and
> the rights of the user, instead.  So, a Linux binary can run on the Linux distributions
> from many different vendors, and in fact any person or group of people may choose to
> create their own distribution of Linux to run Linux binaries on.
>   

Might be a bit much--not sure what the target audience is, but do you 
need to go into this detail?

> Linux is only command-line centric for the hardcore geeks, these days.  Many others
> (normal users, developers, DBAs, etc...) see the command-line only occasionally,
> spending most of their time in one or more graphical applications, instead.
>   

Hmmm, hmmm... ok this reminds me about another unrelated topic.  But 
there is at least more of a chance you'll have to use the commandline 
for something in Linux.  I haven't really gotten a single person to take 
their existing system and install Linux on it without needing to do SOME 
tweaking.  Usually this is because not all the hardware is supported.  
Which is a big problem.


> OK, I'm tired of writing, but I think that sums up what Linux is and how it differs from
> others in it's class.  Let me know if you can think of improvements to what I've put
> down here, because I'd like to re-use it.
>   

If you're looking for some of the major differences, I would say that 
there's a huge support community for various types of Linux.  That's one 
of the best things about it.

Angelo