846
Firefox is fine. The people running it are not (www.theregister.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
200 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 16 points 1 year ago (21 children)

let's ignore XP as a more glossy consumer version of 2000

That feels like a dangerous argument;

  • 2000 = NT 5.0
  • XP = NT 5.1
  • XP x64 = NT 5.2
  • Vista = NT 6.0
  • 7 = NT 6.1
  • 8 = NT 6.2
  • 8.1 = NT 6.3
  • 10 = NT 6.4 (Later NT 10.0 then 1507 for July 2015 when they made the switch to ‘agile’.)

Unless you are prepared to argue that everything since has just been an updated version of Vista.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (17 children)

    Hot take. Under semantic versioning everything after vista has been in essence a new version of vista.

    Going from NT 5.x to 6.x was a major jump.

    The reason why Vista had no/terrible drivers was because they went from an insecure one driver bug crashed the whole system model to more secure isolated drivers that don’t crash the whole system model. Developers had to learn how to write new drivers and none of the XP drivers worked.

    They went from a single user OS with a multi user skin on top, to a full role based access control user system.

    They went from global admin/non-admin permissions to scoped UAC permissions for apps.

    Remember on Vista when apps constantly had that “asking for permissions” popup? That was the apps not using the 6.x UAC APIs.

    Given the underlying architectural situation everything since Vista has been vista with polish added (or removed depending on how you look at it)

    Things will go beyond vista when a new major release with new mandatory APIs shows up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (16 children)

    Under semantic versioning everything after vista has been in essence a new version of vista.

    okay but using that logic everything running linux kernel v5 is the same… fedora, ubuntu, rhel are in essence just a reskin of slackware

    an OS is not semantically versioned as a whole because an OS is more than just the kernel

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (15 children)

    I mean they are all literally the same operating system yah! They all use the same kernel APIs.

    The logical conclusion is that from an operating system they are all basicly the same.

    The main difference is the user space. The package management and defaults.

    Look at Debian GNU/kFreeBSD it’s a whole different operating system with the Debian user space. It’s cool stuff and really highlights the difference between operating system and user space.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (14 children)

    an operating system is far more than just the kernel

    there are few people who would say that android is the same operating system as ubuntu

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (13 children)

    But it literally is the same. The only difference is the user space. Debian GNU/kFreeBSD shows this. Different operating system same user space.

    Take a look at Wikipedia for more info.

    An operating system (OS) is system software that manages computer hardware and software resources, and provides common services for computer programs. Time-sharing operating systems schedule tasks for efficient use of the system and may also include accounting software for cost allocation of processor time, mass storage, peripherals, and other resources.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (12 children)

    an operating system is comprised of the kernel, as well as system libraries and system utilities… user space is irrelevant to the classification of what is and isn’t an operating system: the concept of user space doesn’t even exist in some operating systems

    the concept of a kernel isn’t even useful to define operating systems… look at things like ROS for example

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (11 children)

    If you define it that way you are right. Yah. But the common understanding is a bit different than yours.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system

    Really great read.

    I urge you to take a look at https://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/ It’s the exact same utilities and everything but a completely different kernel. It really highlights the difference here. How would your definition account for this?

    Would Debian GNU/kFreeBSD be 50% Linux, 50% FreeBSD under your definition even though it has no Linux code? It has all the system libraries and system utilities that you associate with Linux.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (10 children)

    But the common understanding is a bit different than yours.

    the common understanding is that android is a different operating system to ubuntu, and macos is a different operating system to openbsd

    Would Debian GNU/kFreeBSD be 50% Linux, 50% FreeBSD under your definition even though it has no Linux code?

    it is what it is: a completely different thing… BSD system tools with a linux kernel

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (9 children)

    You’re gunna do you and use your own definitions and I respect that. But the first line from the page is

    Debian GNU/kFreeBSD is a port that consists of GNU userland using the GNU C library on top of FreeBSD's kernel, coupled with the regular Debian package set.

    It is literally GNU userland using the GNU C library on top of FreeBSD's kernel, coupled with the regular Debian package set

    You can say Debian GNU/kFreeBSD is BSD system tools with a Linux kernel but you would be evidently and clearly wrong.

    Anyways. I wish you well. Best of luck.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (8 children)

    okay, sorry i got the kernel and system tools mixed up in my head after reading it. that proves nothing other than the fact that you’re looking for a gotcha rather than a serious discussion

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

    That’s ok! I was just trying to help you see the difference. You do now. It’s a win/win. There was a reason why I kept on brining up Debian GNU/kFreeBSD. It really highlights the difference.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (6 children)

    and my point is that these things aren’t definitions that have particularly concrete categories… an operating system is not a single thing: it can be many different things which include things like GUIs even… as much as we try to fit the world into neat little boxes, that’s just not how things work

    even the categories of operating systems is messy: take single user vs multi user… macos is single user, but openbsd is multi user… in the beginning, the kernel was largely the same but due to the system tools and configuration, macos became a different classification of operating system

    it’s all super messy, and saying that windows vista and windows 11 are the same operating system is extremely reductive

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    But we can agree that there are upper and lower limits though. And I believe that we can now agree that system utilities and system libraries are outside of that limit. Just because the edge are fuzzy, don’t mean we can’t come to any conclusions at all.

    Any now stepping way way back. I think we can now agree that Fedora, Ubuntu and other distros run the same operating system. That operating system being Linux.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (4 children)

    i certainly don’t agree that system utilities and libraries are outside of that limit and said as much when i commented on Debian GNU/kFreeBSD: its its own thing… its neither debian, nor freebsd. it is however based on both

    the gui is definitively part of the operating system - confirmed by that wikipedia page that you linked (though i’d say only in the case where the gui is heavily tied to the default configuration of the OS like windows, macos, android, etc), and that’s nowhere near the kernel

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Ok. I have one question then. I think we can come to a clear resolution with it.

    Debian GNU/kFreeBSD, what percentage is it Linux?

    It includes 100% the apps, system tools, GUIs, and libraries that you associate with Linux. It also has 0 lines of Linux code in it.

    If you can justify that it is above >0% Linux I will use your definition of operating system going forward.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    i don’t think percentage is a useful distinction… how do you measure that? by lines of code? by behavioural traits? my point throughout this discussion is that it’s not as clean as any of that

    as i said: its its own thing… it is neither linux, debian, nor is it freebsd… in the same way that android is an operating system distinct from other flavours of linux

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    The point is, that the answer is 0% by any reasonable metric. I don't think any more is to be gained here given the question dodge.

    So I will say good bye and best of luck again.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    i didn’t dodge the question… i’m saying the question is rooted firmly in your definition and is therefore not something that i think is valid…. and your use of “reasonable” is just saying you think anyone that disagrees with you is unreasonable… charged end emotive: not intended to discuss, but to persuade regardless of truth

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent