80% of computers sold last year were SOCs (mobiles). Another x% were servers. So the desktop market is maybe 15% of the market. More Linux systems were sold last year than Windows systems and the trend is increasing each year.
With that said, who said Linux doesn't matter on the desktop? It matters on MY desktop, and has for 15 years. For most of the last 15 years, I worked for an information security company, so Microsoft software was not allowed on the company network. All desktops and laptops were Linux, no as were some firewalls, load balancers, most servers, etc.
Parent
twitter
facebook
You may be of the opinion that the OS doesn't matter but after billions and billions of dollars MS spent on development and marketing, they don't buy phones with Windows on them.
> or Android could have easily been BSD based.
And every Dell, HP, and Compaq desktop could have easily be running Mac, had Apple chosen to allow that. Mitt Romney could have president. That's not what happened.
... how exactly does someone run the latest and greated Linux kernel? My trusty Ubuntu 14.04 shows kernel 3.16. Some work I'm doing in Yocto on a Freescale ARM board shows something like 3.19 for the kernel version. Is there some mysterious bleeding edge distro to be had somewhere that is always up to date on everything, or at least the kernel? Or do I roll my own, install on Ubuntu 14.04 (for example) and hope it all works?
Enquiring minds want to know!
Yes. I want to say that I apologize on behalf of any Linux advocate that turns his nose up at a sincere question like yours. To be fair, there are so many anti-Linux trolls here these days it is easy to get confused who is legitimately asking a question and who is doing so subversively. That being said, it is very unfortunate that Linux and FOSS in general have such a bad reputation for user support of newbies. It is somewhat deserved to be sure, but again, you have to look at the big picture and see th
and PCLinuxOS
:P seriously I'm expecting for the new kernel to be in testing really soon, and I'll test it on my machines (17 of em) and do my remaster if it doesn't throw up any show stoppers, I do expect Nvidia and Ati closed source drivers to bork until patches are available and I am looking forward to the new features such as 3D in VMs. No need to compile if your old kernel is working well, just wait until it hits the repository of your favourite distribution and simply apt -get, whatever package manage
You CAN use a bleeding-edge distro but you don't need to if you just want a new kernel. Unlike Windows, you can use a new kernel with an older userland or vice-versa. You can update the kernel without updating the "operating system". (Modulo fucking systemd.)
Your bootloader will let you choose the kernel when you boot, and you can set it to fallback to a known-good kernel, so there is little to no risk in trying different ones. I tend to keep the last three kernels I used, just because there is no reas
I guess I'm just an old fart that happened to adapt to SMF early on. All the complaints were the same, now every last Solaris holdout will shove SMF in your face if you try to do a comparison to Linux.
Honestly, the SMF manifests are somewhat easier to understand, but systemd is more powerful. And systemd is only going to get better, as they have motivated ppl. behind the project, unlike Mr. Ellision that can't wait until Solaris meets the deuce.
Sadly, I don't think systemd is going away anytime soon. The biggest voice behind it (Red Hat) effectively controls the "GNU/Linux" world. The kernel is on a completely different level - it is the base that everything else (including systemd) builds around, and non-GNU Linux versions (like Android) will receive these features.
Like doing the work of actually supporting the alternatives yourself. I have a regular day job. I spend nights and weekends packaging software for a popular GNU/Linux distribution. I'm not alone. I have better things to do than to make sure that everything works with every possible combination of systemd or non-systemd just because a few people have something against it. If you think it's so important to not use systemd then you better step up and do the work yourself.
Just for completeness, another option is a BSD. I'm a longtime (15 years, literally) Debian user. It's been an amazing high quality ride until the last year became unbearable with systemd fuckups. I've reluctantly switched to FreeBSD and I'm rather impressed. Packages work easily, documentation is better than Debian, and the quality of networking is better.
It used to be that Linux was dependable for cool stuff, but the BSDs are just dependable, that's my first impression.
To be honest, and Unix implement is an alternative. I have systems at home running Solaris (8-10), IRIX (6.5.29), and OS X (10.4 and 10.5 on PPC, 10.6 and 10.7 on Intel); I used to use HP-UX and AIX, and I've got a bit of FreeBSD experience at this point too. It's the Linux crowd that really likes to piss off its users.
systemd works great for millions of people. I am sure most of them did not even notice the change (unless their distro was previously using sysvinit and their boot got much faster). So either you only tried systemd on a really buggy distro, maybe a development release, or you did had some complicated set of custom boot scripts that broke, or you have a really odd hardware setup. Most distros still write the old ascii log files, so i don't see how debugging could be harder.
As a person who just installed CentOS 7 for the first time the other day, I have to say that installation and configuration for my purposes takes much less time with CentOS 7 compared to Windows 7.
Add in all the spying shit you have to turn off (or attempt to turn off) in Windows 10, and it's clear that Linux is the option that will cost you less time.
Then don't use a linux that has systemd
:) simple
:D seriously there are a few out there from PCLinuxOS to Slackware to Duvian (sp) etc no reason to use what you don't want
:)
Comments pointing out problems with systemd often get this treatment, especially when they're perfectly relevant comments, like the GP's comment is.
This is an article about the linux kernel. Random systemd complaints like the one you champion so are
offtopic
and
very annoying
. While systemd affects the greater GNU/Linux ecosystem, it has squat-all to do with the kernel.
I don't have mod points right now, and so didn't have to spend my mod points on -1-offtopic'ing the shrill anti-systemd crowd that try
You can't expect the anti-systemd crowd to know that systemd is not a relevant topic in the discussion of the kernel. They literally have no idea how Linux works. They constantly make absurd and baseless claims like "
Any time I've tried using Linux lately on my computers I've experienced problems with systemd."
. In order to believe that you would have to believe that the majority of users experience problems with systemd. It's like the
"Don't trust SSDs!"
crowd. They latch on to a technology that had a
What the hell are you talking about? Do you even know? I certainly didn't make any
"baseless insults"
. Indeed there wasn't a single insult in the post, let alone a baseless one. You seem to think that calling an incompetent moron like yourself an incompetent moron is baseless. On the contrary, while it
is
an insult, it certainly isn't baseless.
Look at the subject for fuck sake, anybody with any clue about this knows that this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with systemd. What do you expect the kernel developers are supposed to do about systemd? Do you understand what systemd is? Obviously not. Do you understand what Linux is? Again obviously not. Part of the reason the genuine criticism of systemd was ignored is because it was drowned out by nitwits like you who don't have a clue what you're talking about and just want so desperately to f
by
KGIII
( 973947 )
writes:
