| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
spork_kitty
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 05 Jul 2019
Posts: 124
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:28 pm Post subject: What do you feel defines "modern [GNU/]Linux"? |
 |
|
Sometimes you'll see someone in a thread mention "modern Linux", and it carries a lot of unsaid assumptions that the reader is expected to follow along with.
What do you think makes a Linux-powered system modern? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 55353
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
spork_kitty,
That's a loaded question if ever there was one. :)
A "Modern Linux" has all the autoblackmagic installed and operating so that the user/syadmin does not need to understand how the system works.
It follows that they can't fix it when it breaks as they don't understand how it used to work, if it ever did.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChrisJumper
Advocate
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 2406
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No Neddy,
for me a modern Linux teach you how to use it and where to read about the programm, and how you understand Code! Because if you read and understand the code and its easy to debug its good for every one.
Chris |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spork_kitty
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 05 Jul 2019
Posts: 124
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2019 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | spork_kitty,
That's a loaded question if ever there was one. 
A "Modern Linux" has all the autoblackmagic installed and operating so that the user/syadmin does not need to understand how the system works.
It follows that they can't fix it when it breaks as they don't understand how it used to work, if it ever did. |
Indeed, it is! It's somewhat of a dogwhistle term though, so I wanted to see what others think of when they see the phrase.
I see modern Linux as a mostly corporate-controlled beast allocating developers where businesses need stuff written, consequences for the greater community be damned. I see it as what's peddled as "the future": systemd, wayland, kubernetes, containers, etc. It's not what I consider the future, though.
A progressive Linux future I feel would give the user junctions in decision-making from the very beginning to craft a system exactly to their own taste, with supporting facts, references, and links to relevant documentation. Then you'd have the pre-builts available for those who want to hit the ground running (your major DEs, and some lightweight options) Gentoo's Handbook is similar to that on its own, but I'm thinking of a guided interactive installation that doubles as a handbook. A LiveCD and a script could accomplish this, so it's nothing special, but putting it together requires a ton of research and copy drafting. Linux From Scratch is pretty similar too, also using a book as the medium instead. I feel it doesn't go far enough in explaining the rationale for the inclusion for certain packages, but it's nice to see that sort of attempt at transparency. More distros or projects should do the same.
We're entering a time where corporations have come at free software from the supply side via paid labor and the political side via the media. We'll need more social tools to root out profit motives from honest projects, and the best "battleground" for that is in the dependency tree. I'm thinking ways to map the affiliations of projects, be they financial or human. The idea would be to shine light on their attempts to insert themselves to the dependency tree of as many systems as possible, by giving people a high level view of the spread of these projects and the companies that fund or otherwise maintain them. An extreme idea, but I think it would give us a lot of insightful information to help people route around this stuff, and maybe write alternatives in cases where companies dominate the current options.
Is it a little too extreme, or a suitable answer to their activity? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fitzcarraldo
Advocate
Joined: 30 Aug 2008
Posts: 2057
Location: United Kingdom
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2019 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| spork_kitty wrote: | | What do you feel defines "modern [GNU/]Linux"? |
freedesktop.org
Perhaps the question should have been 'Who defines modern Linux'. 
_________________
Clevo W230SS: amd64, VIDEO_CARDS="intel modesetting nvidia".
Compal NBLB2: ~amd64, xf86-video-ati. Dual boot Win 7 Pro 64-bit.
OpenRC systemd-utils[udev] elogind KDE on both.
My blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krinn
Watchman
Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 7475
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2019 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| spork_kitty wrote: | | so I wanted to see what others think of when they see the phrase. |
i see systemd bullshit, no more, no less. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
erm67
l33t
Joined: 01 Nov 2005
Posts: 653
Location: EU
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's a loaded question if ever there was one.
A "Modern Linux" has all the autoblackmagic installed and operating so that bad user/syadmin does not need to understand how the system works.
It follows that they can't fix it when it breaks as they don't understand how it used to work, if they ever did understand it.
clearly if they can't fix modern they cannot also fix obsolete
_________________
Ok boomer
True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it.
Ab esse ad posse valet, a posse ad esse non valet consequentia
My fediverse account: @erm67@erm67.dynu.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony0945
Watchman
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| erm67 wrote: | | clearly if they can't fix modern they cannot also fix obsolete |
No problem. Just rewrite it to be like Windows. Better yet, just start hacking away with a vague idea, preferably using the latest language du jour.
Get rid of shell script and write it in Rust and be sure to require dbus and systemd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
Veteran
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 1052
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For me, having a distro which recognizes the hardware with very little to no effort. This has more to do, specifically, with the kernel than anything else. As for look and feel, most "modern" distros seem centered around some flavor of Gnome and Systemd (unfortunately). I suppose I'm a bit old fashioned in that I just use a WM and mostly console programs, even with robust systems.
wrt the hallmarks of the marketing :
ease of use
automagic package manager
simplified configurations (for the user)
quite a bit of hand holding
a decent level of security
a user experience closer to macos/windows. (it's rare to find a distro running something like i3 by default)
In the end, "modern Linux" just sounds like a marketing buzzword. It's entirely too subjective.
_________________
"You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think" ~ Dorothy Parker
2021 is the year of the Linux Desktop! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony0945
Watchman
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| So RH 5.2 is a "modern Linux?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
Veteran
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 1052
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tony0945 wrote: | | So RH 5.2 is a "modern Linux?" |
The hardware detection and drivers were pretty lackluster in RH 5.2
_________________
"You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think" ~ Dorothy Parker
2021 is the year of the Linux Desktop!
Last edited by Muso on Tue Oct 22, 2019 7:11 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sitquietly
Apprentice
Joined: 23 Oct 2010
Posts: 153
Location: On the Wolf River, Tennessee
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 6:07 pm Post subject: Re: What do you feel defines "modern [GNU/]Linux"? |
|
|
| spork_kitty wrote: | Sometimes you'll see someone in a thread mention "modern Linux", and it carries a lot of unsaid assumptions that the reader is expected to follow along with.
What do you think makes a Linux-powered system modern? |
To me, just considering the contexts in which I've seen folks refer to "modern" linux, it refers to the new ways of making the system auto-configuring. I would date modern linux from 2003 (first udev release) or 2009 (first HAL release) or 2010 (first systemd). I'll choose 2008 as the turning moment (also the year of the last great economic crash). So that we could date events in the linux culture as BM (Before Modern) and AM (After Modern), we are now approaching the Year of Linux 12 AM.
Every Big Thing I've noticed in the Linux Culture in the past several years has been either a revolution in the Look and Feel (prettier icons, big icons, moved the menus to the top, to the hamburger menu, to a full screen overview...) or in the automation of hardware and network detection, configuration, and activation (e.g. systemd).
On the downside there has been no integration of the best features of Linux BM features and a lot of knowledge has been lost. For example, I love the look and feel of gnome3, after I put the dash-to-dock on the right of the screen with the application button on top (it throws up a screenful of dynamically-identified often-used applications and completely throws away the need for 1984-style pull-down menus) and set the dock to show open windows from all desktops (but not favorites). I also have to add shelltile to get nice tiling support which is essential but left out of all modern desktops now.
But as nice as a AM Desktop looks it lacks functionality that I get from BM window managers. Fluxbox (7 BM) is far more functional than anything since and rox-filer (9 BM) or Xfe (6 BM) are much more functional file managers than anything AM. Why do we keep losing the best bits? I guess because it's more important to have a simple, pretty file manager but automatically mount / activate any device that someone sticks in one of my usb ports.
It's an interesing evolution but we're losing the benefit of open-source if we allow some of the most useful knowledge from the past to be lost. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
technotorpedo
Apprentice
Joined: 10 Dec 2019
Posts: 151
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2019 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
+1 NeddySeagoon, at least in terms of it being a loaded question. Also +1'ing Fitzcarraldo, erm67 and sitquietly.
Really don't think it can be defined, modern gnu/Linux would have to mean latest of whatever software has become available. Use of the latest kernels with enhanced support for modules/drivers and hardware. Bugs and regression etc etc all addressed and improvements over older stages vs where things are now. Commercial gnu/Linux, open source for profit was always an integral part of the platform(gnu/Linux)even having a future, it wouldn't without it. Geeks and dev's and etc would not devote the time and energy to any of this, hardware designers, game creators etc endless also wouldn't waste any time with the platform if it consists of 6,024 geeks, if it were/did most of us as endusers would've never bothered with it either.
So yeah, graphical frontends for whatever, from installing/managing software, to file-managers to using whichever other utility = rsync or whatever else, automatic detection/configuration. All of these elements and MANY more are clearly a part of modern gnu/Linux. People who wish it can set things up as they wish(are capable of.) Want to live in command-line, what's stopping x-nixer, compile each and everything from source ? Your call ... Google up a list of all the major components and projects associated with gnu/Linux which Redhat/Google etc contribute to, pay for etc and endless. Then compare that to the contributions of the avg enduser, myself included, how much code, how many fixes, how many even valid bug reports submitted, a dime in actual donation to anything etc etc etc. Quickly becomes clearer for folks. If there hadn't been commercial interest, money to be made, there wouldn't have been a Redhat, a Google Inc likely nor much of anything else worth using. This online forum might well not be here, I'd still be running an uber-tweaked XP OS, or a win8-8.1 one, shrugs. 
As per the above, contribs from XYZ.
Redhat = A LOT.
Google Inc = A LOT.
Avg nixer = Nothing, not a dime, not a bug report/fix, on and on .... For many it's painfully clear their idea of contributing to open source and gnu/Linux is their own personal use and enjoyment(for free)of all it provides. Regardless of whether it'd be considered Modern gnu/nix or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
redblade7
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 11 Jan 2018
Posts: 106
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| krinn wrote: | | spork_kitty wrote: | | so I wanted to see what others think of when they see the phrase. |
i see systemd bullshit, no more, no less. |
When I hear "modern distribution" I think of systemd and GNOME 3.
Which is why I use Gentoo at home and Slackware on a VPS, even if neither are "modern" distributions I like them both |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
389292
Guru
Joined: 26 Mar 2019
Posts: 504
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 14, 2019 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Linux isn't modern by definition. It's an old turd of a dead mammoth (UNIX).
A modern OS should be based on microkernel, be very compartmentalized and virtualized and should have a parametric and reproducible package management. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anon-E-moose
Watchman
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 6304
Location: Dallas area
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 14, 2019 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| etnull wrote: | Linux isn't modern by definition. It's an old turd of a dead mammoth (UNIX).
A modern OS should be based on microkernel, be very compartmentalized and virtualized and should have a parametric and reproducible package management. |
Nothing modern about microkernels, they've been around almost as long as unix.
And it was on the minix (microkernel unix like) that Linus announced the first attempt at what we call the linux kernel.
_________________
UM780, 6.14 zen kernel, gcc 13, openrc, wayland |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
erm67
l33t
Joined: 01 Nov 2005
Posts: 653
Location: EU
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 14, 2019 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| etnull wrote: | | have a parametric and reproducible package management. |
I really hope guix will soon be ripe enough to replace portage as a package manager that recompiles everything from source... actually a gentoo-guix would be even better but considering the current 'everybody else is a nazi' philosophy is probably impossible.
I think I will try again nix or guix soon.
_________________
Ok boomer
True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it.
Ab esse ad posse valet, a posse ad esse non valet consequentia
My fediverse account: @erm67@erm67.dynu.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anon-E-moose
Watchman
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 6304
Location: Dallas area
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 14, 2019 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guix certainly sounds interesting.
Wonder how hard it would be to convert portage ways of doing things to guix!
Edit to add: Just noticed they have nix/guix marked for removal soon.
_________________
UM780, 6.14 zen kernel, gcc 13, openrc, wayland |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Gentoo Chat
