- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
NSA Scandal Reveals Google is not really like Linux and never was.
Apple choose BSD for their guts instead of Linux simply so they could steal without getting in trouble and or sued. Google is trying to do the same with Linux by "borrowing" lots of code and ideas, tweaking it enough to call it there own and will eventually make it essentially proprietary. Have you seen any Android apps running on your Linux box natively? Didn't think so. |
|
|
Comments (29)
Ubuntu derivatives
I think Ubuntu compatibility is important to a lot of newbies now mostly because of the vast amount of software (newer than Debian versions) in Ubuntu repositories and PPAs.
I have been considering switching to Debian, however seatex said it correctly. Its really the available packages, support and name recognition. Also, long term support is nice and some things you just can't do on debian... like netflix, however ubuntu has a ppa that will install it easily... could you make it work on debian,, ,maybe but its just an example of some of the things that are just naturally available on ubuntu.... and its not about giving up, its about speaking up before you have to give it up, and i'm speaking up.
an addendum,,, I also wouldn't consider Linux Mint its absolute own OS, cinnamon was unnecessary they could have done the exact same thing with simple scripts in gnome 3, they instead decided to fork which created a massive amount of work that was unneeded, at least this is the opinion of bryan lunduke and i agree. Outside of cinnamon, Mint is Ubuntu with a couple different packages, if it wasn't you couldn't install entire "Ubuntu" desktops like Lubuntu Desktop, without issue. Just as you would in Ubuntu.
@buntfu
Umm no. The Mint people could not have replaced the Gnome 3 Shell with a few simple scripts. They had to do something like Cinnamon. You cannot access a whole C/C++ toolbox with just scripts. I am still using MATE since Cinnamon is not yet mature. Clem and his people are going in the right direction though.
Umm no. The Mint people could not have replaced the Gnome 3 Shell with a few simple scripts. They had to do something like Cinnamon. You cannot access a whole C/C++ toolbox with just scripts. I am still using MATE since Cinnamon is not yet mature. Clem and his people are going in the right direction though.
Quoting:some things you just can't do on debian... like netflix, however ubuntu has a ppa that will install it easily... could you make it work on debian
I have used the Ubuntu PPA for netflix-desktop successfully in Debian Wheezy. The CrunchBang forums are very helpful.
nice, was there any tweaking to get it going?
I was speaking of replacing gnome 3 i was saying that since gnome 3 is entirely script based, they could have used a few to alter the interface, as they needed. I'm not an expert on the subject but what lunduke was suggesting did make sense, however he could be wrong i suppose.
errr. "wasn't speaking of",,, sorry for the typo
Basically the only "gotchas" for using the Ubuntu PPA for installing Netflix-desktop in Wheezy are:
1. You have to replace the name of the version of the distribution "wheezy" in your repositories listing with the name of an appropriate version of Ubuntu; "quantal" seems to work fine.
2. If you are on 64-bit, then you have to install the i386 libraries/dependencies for wine. You can do this by running:
as root (or with sudo). You probably would end up doing this to run wine if you want it anyway.
1. You have to replace the name of the version of the distribution "wheezy" in your repositories listing with the name of an appropriate version of Ubuntu; "quantal" seems to work fine.
2. If you are on 64-bit, then you have to install the i386 libraries/dependencies for wine. You can do this by running:
dpkg --add-architecture i386 apt-get update apt-get install wine-bin:i386
Thanks @CFWhitman
And you also, in my case anyway, need to add a package to get sound working in a 64-bit environment:
Here's a link to an Ubuntu Forums post on the sound issue: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2084592&page=16&p=1...
And here's the CrunchBang forum thread, which I found very helpful:
http://crunchbang.org/forums/viewtopic.php?id=23958
And you also, in my case anyway, need to add a package to get sound working in a 64-bit environment:
# apt-get install libasound2-plugins:i386
Here's a link to an Ubuntu Forums post on the sound issue: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2084592&page=16&p=1...
And here's the CrunchBang forum thread, which I found very helpful:
http://crunchbang.org/forums/viewtopic.php?id=23958
It's not really biting the hand that feeds you, but why rely on Ubuntu's infrastructure if you disagree with Ubuntu so much that you create a derivative?
That was Ikey Doherty's dilemma when he decided to take the other fork in the road. No pun intended...
SolusOS was based on Debian and between upstream battles with them and the Gnome folks, Doherty took a deep breath and did what he really wanted to do all along.
He started from the ground up, decided on the PiSi package manager and began writing his own Linux Operating System. Yeah it's a lot of work but Ikey Doherty has both the brains and the tenacity to get it done. I am lucky enough to be on the inside of this development and all I can really tell you is...well, just friggin' wow. He never ceases to amaze me at how brilliant he is.
There will be a lot of Debian purists who walk away, but then again, they were never Debian purists if they used SolusOS anyway. The Debian package management system is probably the most well-known and stable of all of them, and that is admittedly hard to walk away from. Many people just won't be able to.
But for those who like to see what's ahead, I think SolusOS 2.0 is going to open a lot of eyes. He is also doing a custom build of 2.0 for our reglue efforts and we'll be calling it "Quantum of Solus".
Yeah, I know...pretty bad huh? But it's going to work for us. Having already alpha tested some of the inner-workings of SolusOS 2, I have to admit I am impressed. Here's what you will ultimately get...
A desktop that perfectly mimics Gnome 2 but built completely on Gnome 3/GTK3, with full backward compatibility to GTK2.
He has put hundreds and hundreds of hours into this and I think over time, people will be impressed.
So another fork? Yeah...
A lot of people grumble over the fragmentation of the Linux desktop and blame it at least partially for the failure of Linux on the Desktop. I'm not going to argue that point....it's probably partially true. The fact is, Linux is never going to become mainstream on the desktop, not in it's present form. Chromebooks are The New Linux and they are selling amazingly well.
So for those that grumble about Yet Another Fork....well, if you don't want to use it, fine...but don't try to shout down a man that's trying to make something better than what we have now. Most of the grumbling from the solus ranks have been from people still clutching to Apt-get. That's understandable, but it's also valuable to know when it's time to move on. For Doherty, that time is now.
That was Ikey Doherty's dilemma when he decided to take the other fork in the road. No pun intended...
SolusOS was based on Debian and between upstream battles with them and the Gnome folks, Doherty took a deep breath and did what he really wanted to do all along.
He started from the ground up, decided on the PiSi package manager and began writing his own Linux Operating System. Yeah it's a lot of work but Ikey Doherty has both the brains and the tenacity to get it done. I am lucky enough to be on the inside of this development and all I can really tell you is...well, just friggin' wow. He never ceases to amaze me at how brilliant he is.
There will be a lot of Debian purists who walk away, but then again, they were never Debian purists if they used SolusOS anyway. The Debian package management system is probably the most well-known and stable of all of them, and that is admittedly hard to walk away from. Many people just won't be able to.
But for those who like to see what's ahead, I think SolusOS 2.0 is going to open a lot of eyes. He is also doing a custom build of 2.0 for our reglue efforts and we'll be calling it "Quantum of Solus".
Yeah, I know...pretty bad huh? But it's going to work for us. Having already alpha tested some of the inner-workings of SolusOS 2, I have to admit I am impressed. Here's what you will ultimately get...
A desktop that perfectly mimics Gnome 2 but built completely on Gnome 3/GTK3, with full backward compatibility to GTK2.
He has put hundreds and hundreds of hours into this and I think over time, people will be impressed.
So another fork? Yeah...
A lot of people grumble over the fragmentation of the Linux desktop and blame it at least partially for the failure of Linux on the Desktop. I'm not going to argue that point....it's probably partially true. The fact is, Linux is never going to become mainstream on the desktop, not in it's present form. Chromebooks are The New Linux and they are selling amazingly well.
So for those that grumble about Yet Another Fork....well, if you don't want to use it, fine...but don't try to shout down a man that's trying to make something better than what we have now. Most of the grumbling from the solus ranks have been from people still clutching to Apt-get. That's understandable, but it's also valuable to know when it's time to move on. For Doherty, that time is now.
Well said, helios.
Kinda catchy, really. Little bit of flair, little bit of air. ;^)
Not me. I'm not going to shout him down. His skills are better than mine and more power to him. I have no problem with 4,879 active Linux distros. Choice is good. I was just questioning staying with the ever-changing direction(s) of Canonical's code base and rules of etiquette. Or, is it netiquette?
Quoting:He is also doing a custom build of 2.0 for our reglue efforts and we'll be calling it "Quantum of Solus".
Yeah, I know...pretty bad huh?
Kinda catchy, really. Little bit of flair, little bit of air. ;^)
Quoting:So for those that grumble about Yet Another Fork....well, if you don't want to use it, fine...but don't try to shout down a man that's trying to make something better than what we have now.
Not me. I'm not going to shout him down. His skills are better than mine and more power to him. I have no problem with 4,879 active Linux distros. Choice is good. I was just questioning staying with the ever-changing direction(s) of Canonical's code base and rules of etiquette. Or, is it netiquette?
Android apps running on your Linux box
Quoting:Have you seen any Android apps running on your Linux box natively? Didn't think so.
Gawh!
This being the reason not to call Android "Linux"? Because its google-ified?
Android apps don't run natively on "Linux" because 1: Android apps rely heavily on Android's Java-like frontend/Java-like virtual machine backend bullshit, and 2: because Android doesn't use GNU. It is possible, with relative ease, to run Android apps on a GNU/Linux box, you just got to have the right libraries and environment setup. And Google's Apps are often (or at least on occasion) released under the Apache License, so porting them to "Linux" is also entirely possible.
I also hate how the author equates Open Source with Linux. As if Linux, the kernel, doesn't itself contain and rely heavily on proprietary software, or as if "open source" software for other (proprietary) operating systems doesn't exist.
ya know, I'm no code guy, so don't know if the kernel contains proprietary code or not, but it seems to me SCO already played that card and lost. And how would you know it contains said code were it not open source? Certainly the linux landscape is not without a few potholes. Most distros have been cowed into not including any decss features for fear of incurring the wrath of the copyright cartels, but for the most part, I feel a whole lot more in control on my linux box than I ever did on my M$ box. Apple? I won't even recognize that buncha fascist goons.
I also don't use plus+ or android or chrome or skype or the cloud or a jillion other questionable offerings cuz I know the goal of their endgame is less than honorable and I'm jes not that stupid. WTF would I put android on my desktop!? So I can pay $$ for and app to tell me my shoelaces are untied?
Is our govt tracking us? No one could be that stupid. Oh wait..... they not only can be, they are!! I can't stop our out-of-control govt, but I can damn sure make it harder for 'em. I like this author. His voice is as strident and paranoid as mine. Am I paranoid? Not nearly enough.
I also don't use plus+ or android or chrome or skype or the cloud or a jillion other questionable offerings cuz I know the goal of their endgame is less than honorable and I'm jes not that stupid. WTF would I put android on my desktop!? So I can pay $$ for and app to tell me my shoelaces are untied?
Is our govt tracking us? No one could be that stupid. Oh wait..... they not only can be, they are!! I can't stop our out-of-control govt, but I can damn sure make it harder for 'em. I like this author. His voice is as strident and paranoid as mine. Am I paranoid? Not nearly enough.
"Good News! You're not paranoid." - John Oliver
The kernel itself does not contain proprietary code. That's even true of Android kernels. However, binary firmware needed to get devices working is included with most distros (loaded onto the hardware when the OS is loaded, and run on the piece of hardware it was intended for). On Android, there are services run on top of the kernel that DO use proprietary code (like the frame buffer graphics layer). Why there haven't been more attempts to port Android aops/services to standard distros largely escapes me,... But there's nothing (that I know of) to prevent it from either a technical or legal basis. Granted, it would take some engineering to make everything work (might be easier in Wayland than on an X server, and might require Xen and some emulation for Arm specific code), but there are no truly REAL bars to doing it.
The Linux kernel certainly doesn't "contain" proprietary software. Whether it relies on any proprietary software depends on what hardware you're running. If you are going to call proprietary firmware "proprietary software," then most hardware setups require proprietary software, even if it's only contained in a ROM chip on your hardware. There are certainly many setups that can avoid putting it on your hard disk, though.
In any case, the proprietary firmware files usually included in most Linux distributions are not part of the kernel even to the extent that they get loaded as modules. They are often referred to as "drivers" by people posting on the Internet, but they are not drivers. They are loaded from the hard drive into a memory chip located on the corresponding device. They are never loaded into the kernel.
There are a few devices that do rely on proprietary driver modules loaded into the Linux kernel. Most of these devices are video cards. Devices like this are much more common on Android devices than on an x86 based computer running a GNU/Linux distribution.
Incidentally, it is possible to run an Android device with purely open source software (besides driver modules and firmware) if you really want to. There are still a lot of applications gaps, but the device is far from useless. You can replace the original firmware with an open source firmware like Cyanogenmod, forgo the Google Play store addition, install the F-Droid store and work from there.
In any case, the proprietary firmware files usually included in most Linux distributions are not part of the kernel even to the extent that they get loaded as modules. They are often referred to as "drivers" by people posting on the Internet, but they are not drivers. They are loaded from the hard drive into a memory chip located on the corresponding device. They are never loaded into the kernel.
There are a few devices that do rely on proprietary driver modules loaded into the Linux kernel. Most of these devices are video cards. Devices like this are much more common on Android devices than on an x86 based computer running a GNU/Linux distribution.
Incidentally, it is possible to run an Android device with purely open source software (besides driver modules and firmware) if you really want to. There are still a lot of applications gaps, but the device is far from useless. You can replace the original firmware with an open source firmware like Cyanogenmod, forgo the Google Play store addition, install the F-Droid store and work from there.
I started my previous comment much earlier this morning, then I had to leave for work related purposes and didn't get back to post it until after JaseP posted his comment, so some of the same material is covered.
Another interesting thing to note is that a virtualbox Android build exists that you can use to run Android applications, but some applications don't work. Edit: Here's a link for that: http://www.keyables.com/2012/05/how-to-run-android-40-in-vir...
Also there is a Dalvik virtual machine to run on various Unix operating systems referenced here: http://wing-linux.sourceforge.net/online-pdk/guide/dalvik.ht... but the page doesn't seem to work correctly in various browsers I have tried from Linux.
Another interesting thing to note is that a virtualbox Android build exists that you can use to run Android applications, but some applications don't work. Edit: Here's a link for that: http://www.keyables.com/2012/05/how-to-run-android-40-in-vir...
Also there is a Dalvik virtual machine to run on various Unix operating systems referenced here: http://wing-linux.sourceforge.net/online-pdk/guide/dalvik.ht... but the page doesn't seem to work correctly in various browsers I have tried from Linux.
I'll view googdroid as a viable Linux distro when I have access to a real shell and can become root. Until that time, goober and goobdroid can go piss up a rope. Jes thought I'd clarify that point. ;)
Your link has an additional comma at the end that might have been included accidentally. Try this and you are right, other than the first page, the link doesn't work using FireFox or Chrome on Linux.
@notbob, I have a rooted phone with shell, a rooted tablet with shell, and an un-rooted phone with non-root shell, all running Android. Your point?
I'm sorry for not testing the link (the comma was meant to be part of the text rather than part of the link). I meant, however, that the page didn't work correctly even with the correct link, as you can see.
I have three Android devices with root and access to a shell. Two of them had root out of the box; the other has Cyanogenmod 7 on it. I do have Google Play available on all of them, though.
I have three Android devices with root and access to a shell. Two of them had root out of the box; the other has Cyanogenmod 7 on it. I do have Google Play available on all of them, though.
@Fettoosh
The links on that page all redirect back to the originating page. Looking at the page's source, there are a lot of href="javascript:nothing()" stanzas. Comparing the appearance of that page to others on SourceForge, it just doesn't look like it belongs. So, I sent a query to SourceForge support.
Quoting:other than the first page, the link doesn't work using FireFox or Chrome on Linux.
The links on that page all redirect back to the originating page. Looking at the page's source, there are a lot of href="javascript:nothing()" stanzas. Comparing the appearance of that page to others on SourceForge, it just doesn't look like it belongs. So, I sent a query to SourceForge support.
Quoting:Comparing the appearance of that page to others on SourceForge, it just doesn't look like it belongs
I did see the same and I was wondering if the page was a spam or contained some kind of intrusive code. Good thing you sent your query because a while back there was such code that was discovered on SourceForge.
gus3 wrote:notbob, I have a rooted phone with shell ... all running Android.
I guess my point is, I'm dumber'n a bag o' hammers. ;)
Honestly, I know zip about anything away from my linux desktop box, not having owned a hand-held since my short-lived Handspring PDA. Oh, I have a Tracfone, but barely know how, or desire, to use it. I was under the impression, mistakenly perhaps, that Androids did not have a shell or are rootable unless they are illegally hacked by ppl smarter than myself. Are your examples hacked or can I buy a stock smart phone or tablet with these shell/root features enabled by default? I haven't heard of such a device since the Nokia N900.
Well, a terminal in Android is just an app that gives you a terminal interface, basically like a GUI based terminal application in a Linux distribution.
As far as rooting goes, yes, you can root a device that doesn't come rooted (I picked a Nook Color for my first Android device because I knew there was nothing stopping you from booting to SD and changing the firmware), and it's usually not considered illegal. However, there are some devices that have an approved procedure to obtain root access (I think at least some of the Asus Transformer series have this), and there are some generic or imported devices that just give you root access by default. My Chinese made Ainol Novo 7 Flame tablet had root access out of the box.
Of course having root and a terminal doesn't transform your device from the Android OS to the more familiar GNU/Linux operating system of the desktop, but it does give you more power over what's happening on your device. Some applications refuse to run on a rooted device (like the Time Warner Cable app), but that just makes me want to not use those services. Netflix works fine on rooted devices, and it doesn't make it so I can record the transmissions on a whim (or make me want to try to record them).
As far as rooting goes, yes, you can root a device that doesn't come rooted (I picked a Nook Color for my first Android device because I knew there was nothing stopping you from booting to SD and changing the firmware), and it's usually not considered illegal. However, there are some devices that have an approved procedure to obtain root access (I think at least some of the Asus Transformer series have this), and there are some generic or imported devices that just give you root access by default. My Chinese made Ainol Novo 7 Flame tablet had root access out of the box.
Of course having root and a terminal doesn't transform your device from the Android OS to the more familiar GNU/Linux operating system of the desktop, but it does give you more power over what's happening on your device. Some applications refuse to run on a rooted device (like the Time Warner Cable app), but that just makes me want to not use those services. Netflix works fine on rooted devices, and it doesn't make it so I can record the transmissions on a whim (or make me want to try to record them).
There's no such thing as "GNU/Linux." Desktop Linux is Linux, Android is Linux, it's all Linux.
You really resurrected a two-month old thread to say that? Really?
Linux is only a kernel. It's not an operating system on its own. The operating system generally referred to as "Linux" is not the same operating system as is referred to as "Android." The only thing they share in common is the kernel, and Android doesn't even run its programs directly on the kernel, but on a virtual machine instead. Only the virtual machine runs directly on the kernel (this is a simplification, but it's the general idea of how it works).
The term "GNU/Linux" is just a term to be more specific and distinguish the conventional Linux operating system from the kernel or other Linux based operating systems like Android or WebOS. These things are most certainly not all the same operating system.
Linux is only a kernel. It's not an operating system on its own. The operating system generally referred to as "Linux" is not the same operating system as is referred to as "Android." The only thing they share in common is the kernel, and Android doesn't even run its programs directly on the kernel, but on a virtual machine instead. Only the virtual machine runs directly on the kernel (this is a simplification, but it's the general idea of how it works).
The term "GNU/Linux" is just a term to be more specific and distinguish the conventional Linux operating system from the kernel or other Linux based operating systems like Android or WebOS. These things are most certainly not all the same operating system.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
In LXLE's case, they're just providing an alternative desktop for Ubuntu's LTS release. I'm thinking more about Clément Lefebvre who has forked an entire desktop environment for Linux Mint users. Is Debian really that stodgy and staid?