this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2025
149 points (89.0% liked)

Linux

49380 readers
1028 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
nooter692@lemmy.ml
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz
149
Why Linux is Better Than Windows 11 (www.youtube.com)
submitted 2 days ago by _carmin@lemm.ee to c/linux@lemmy.ml
72 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] golden_zealot@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Off only the top of my head.

-Potentially faster installation

-Free

-More control

-Many distributions from LinuxFromScratch to Mint, making it meet the interests of nearly every demographic

-Wonderful sense of community

-No spying

-No bloatware depending on distro

-No ads

-Many window managers supporting different workflows

-Incredible command line power

-Easy installation of software with package managers

-Less malware

-Fully customizeable ux/ui

-Can uninstall anything you don't want

-Will help you learn how a computer works at a deeper level if you want to

[–] God_Damn@sh.itjust.works 2 points 18 hours ago

-Potentially faster installation

Installed CachyOs yesterday that must have been the longest install I have been through. I'm liking it so far though.

[–] tux0r@feddit.org 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

-No spying

depending on the distro

-No ads

depending on the distro

-Can uninstall anything you don’t want

How can you uninstall systemd?

[–] golden_zealot@lemmy.ml 7 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

It will differ by distro, but generally for debian, you begin uninstalling systemd by installing something else like SysV init:

apt install sysvinit-core sysvinit-utils
cp /usr/share/sysvinit/inittab /etc/inittab

Then you will need to configure grub by editing /etc/default/grub changing:

GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT="init=/bin/systemd console=hvc0 console=ttyS0"

to

GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT="init=/lib/sysvinit/init console=hvc0 console=ttyS0"

and then executing update-grub as root.

Then you can reboot so that the system boots off of sysvinit instead and then purge systemd with apt-get remove --purge --auto-remove systemd. This also removes packages that depend on systemd.

Then you pin systemd packages to prevent apt from installing systemd or systemd-like packages in the future.

echo -e 'Package: systemd\nPin: release *\nPin-Priority: -1' > /etc/apt/preferences.d/systemd
echo -e '\n\nPackage: *systemd*\nPin: release *\nPin-Priority: -1' >> /etc/apt/preferences.d/systemd

Depending on if the distro is multiarch, you might also need:

echo -e '\nPackage: systemd:amd64\nPin: release *\nPin-Priority: -1' >> /etc/apt/preferences.d/systemd
echo -e '\nPackage: systemd:i386\nPin: release *\nPin-Priority: -1' >> /etc/apt/preferences.d/systemd

This information was sourced from this wiki dedicated specifically to removing systemd on multiple distributions and replacing it with something else:

https://without-systemd.org/wiki/index_php/Main_Page/

[–] tux0r@feddit.org 5 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Wow. Honestly, thank you! I had entirely forgot that this wiki even exists. I’ve bookmarked your reply. :-)

[–] golden_zealot@lemmy.ml 4 points 16 hours ago

Of course, no worries. I seemed to recall there was something out there for this because I read some article a while back that was discussing the scope-creep in systemd, and the problems that result from it. I think I found this wiki originally at that time.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

~~Potentially~~ faster installation

Particularly when you're flashing the ISO you downloaded from MS to USB and it doesn't work unless you use MS's magic tool. Thus dropping you into the bootstrap paradox.

Especially because it gets partway through the install before failing to load NVMe drivers complaining there is no installation media to load them from.

It turns out it's faster to install Ubuntu and download one of MS's windows VM's and use that to download and flash a USB than actually install Windows 11.

[–] T4V0@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago

While installing Linux is faster you can use the Windows ISO directly with Ventoy instead of the Microsoft tool. At least, that's how I do it.

[–] slacktoid@lemmy.ml 31 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No ads in operating system. Simple.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

nervous Ubuntu noises

[–] VinesNFluff@pawb.social 34 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Let's be honest here

I like Linux as much as the next guy

...... But a violent kick to the 'nards is still more pleasant than Windows 11, so this is a "Luigi Wins By Doing Absolutely Nothing" scenario.

[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

I like Windows 11. It has the best HDR support of any OS, bar none. AutoHDR is a godsend.

My only complaint is about the taskbar, which I fixed by installing StartAllBack.

[–] lengau@midwest.social 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yep, which also explains why a distro that comes with Cinnamon won...

[–] VinesNFluff@pawb.social 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Now, now. Cinnamon is a perfectly competent DE. Gets out of the way. Does what it's supposed to.

Let us not treat it like it is Gnome.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] meliante@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Why is my T440s so much slower on fedora than w11? 😔

[–] swab148@lemm.ee 35 points 2 days ago

Kowalski! Analysis!

[–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 21 points 2 days ago (7 children)

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linux,” and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use.

Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

-- Richard Stallman

[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

No, Richard, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.

Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.

One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you?

(An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.

Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.

You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument.

Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD?

If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this:

Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag.

Thanks for listening.

  • Linus Torvalds
[–] CHKMRK@programming.dev 9 points 1 day ago

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, systemd/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, systemd plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning systemd system made useful by the systemd corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the systemd system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of systemd which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the systemd system, developed by the systemd developers. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the systemd operating system: the whole system is basically systemd with Linux added, or systemd/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of systemd/Linux.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›