Why is Linux development centered around fancy UIs and trying to look/feel like MacOS, while the actual underlying system is a mess of 1970s code and bugs? Nerds will argue for hours about which "userland" or desktop environment is better, but scream bloody murder if anyone dares suggest that the core OS should be worked on. "It's open source, if you care that much submit a commit yourself" they bellow. Linux if the literal definition of sprinkling glitter on shit.
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
> Why is Linux development centered around fancy UIs and trying to look/feel like MacOS
idk man, KDE trying to look like windows, XFCE is weird shit, and gnome is the most macos-like DE here. (still different from macos in many ways)
> while the actual underlying system is a mess of 1970s code and bugs?
Try to look at windows kernel
> Nerds will argue for hours about which "userland" or desktop environment is better
ok and
> but scream bloody murder if anyone dares suggest that the core OS should be worked on.
nobody denies that there are problems, even with the concept of open-source itself (see xz backdoor)
> Linux if the literal definition of sprinkling glitter on shit.
define windows haha
>define windows
Sprinkling shit on shit.
>nobody denies that there are problems, even with the concept of open-source itself (see xz backdoor)
Not necessarily a problem with open source as a concept, so much as it's a problem with monolithic and overly complex software enabling unforeseen privilege escalation, not adhering to the Unix philosophy and permitting binary blobs.
Considering that it was caught on unstable versions of Fedora and Debian due to odd behavior before it could become a more serious issue regardless of the inherent weakness of relying a single monolithic init system or the 3 years of extensive work and opsec that went into compromising the project, that just serves to underline the strengths of open source.
Why are you still posting bait threads? No one will ever know, anon
Daily reminder that Linux is a 1970s-era monolithic kernel and Linus Torvalds had an autistic meltdown when the superior intellect Andrew S. Tanenbaum informed him about the objective superiority of microkernels.
microkernels don't run everything
the theoretical advantages don't matter much
why he so smug doe
because he knows gentiles are subhuman
>centered around fancy UIs and trying to look/feel like MacOS,
Only applies to the moronic trannies that use gn*me
>the actual underlying system is a mess of 1970s code and bugs
Still infinitely better than windows and macos
>the core OS should be worked on.
In theory sure but we both know there is a 90% chance that if people try to "work on" it in current year, it will be troony homosexuals that make it worse with every change
>"It's open source, if you care that much submit a commit yourself" they bellow.
Vocal minority homosexuals that ignore the fact that most Linux users do not have the experience required to code such changes
tl;dr OP is, yet again, a homosexual
how am I able to run red dead 2 at 120 fps on a 1970s OS?
proton
macos is a stolen product.
>Spending hours building a os
>Held together by sweat and sticky tape
>Spend 5 minutes installing a spyware linux
>Don't care
MacOS is Unix too, so according to you is a "mess of 1970s code and bugs".
Will the year of the HURD desktop ever come?
more like gnu hurrr
>shitty ripoff of 70s OS (Unix)
😐
>shitty ripoff of 70s OS (VMS)
:O
All me btw
>"1970s code"
>first release 1991
>"1970s code"
Maybe he means original X. There is some code from the 70s in it I think possibly.
I doubt there is much if any code in the kernel that is that old though. Pretty sure it has been rewritten in full since the 90s.
I wouldn't know, I use wayland
if you use wayland, you use x. the opposite, however, does not hold...
linux is conceptually stuck in the 1970s. fortunately, so are all the mainstream operating systems
>"Linux is stuck in the past"
>"NOooooooo Systemd bad"
>"nooooo wayland dumb just use xorg"
systemd is the other kind of 70s OS design
>just make a giant behemoth that does everything lmao what could go wrong
It is a number of separate binaries that address different tasks and have higher integration with one another, making for a more cohesive system manager, where is the behemoth?
Systemd is based off launchd, which was Mac OSX’s replacement for its previous BSD-style omit system. It was first released in 2005. I’m not aware of a similar style of init manager prior to that, although I suppose windows service manager might qualify, I’m not sure on how it works internally.
All me btw
MacOS is based on the same 70s codebase. In fact Linux is more modern because it's from 90s.
moron take
>while the actual underlying system is a mess of 1970s code and bugs
Because the linux ecosystem is very diverse and most people want their software to run on most OSes/systems, they stick to POSIX/UNIX specs (which are based on the 70s stuff youre talking about). If linux were to make breaking changes (breaking backwards compability) for fundamental architecture, it would cause a lot more problems, than it would solve in the short-term and long-term. Linux works as is, and there's no strong need to overhaul the architecture.
If you want something new, take a look at Plan 9/9front (Unix 2.0 so to speak) or Redox OS (GNU/Linux 2.0 in Rust). The thing is just that these two are completely unusable for any productive work.
>while the actual underlying system is a mess of 1970s code and bugs?
source for your claim?