Ubuntu wants to be OSX so bad it's pathetic. Why hasn't Apple sued Canonical off the face of the planet for infringing on their design yet?
>>54758285
They would sue if they could win the case
>>54758285
>Ubuntu wants to be OSX so bad it's pathetic
Except it isn't a walled cuck garden
>>54758446
This.
>>54758285
You're thinking of elementaryOS? Ubuntu barely resembles osx.
>>54758285
t. someone posting an image of a laughing face copyrighted by Apple
>>54758285
u wrote elementary os wrong
>>54758626
>this amount of denial
>>54758285
> Citation needed
>>54758626
eOS is TOTALLY NOT trying to rip off OSX.
You have to download the colored window buttons theme separately. 100% not copycat.
>>54760840
Kek
>>54758285
What is that image, and why does it keep being posted.
which company isnt trying to be apple nowadays? Sume are just more obvious than others.
I think Microsoft is probably the only one.. and look how well they are doing.
>>54760788
OMFG CLOSE BUTTON ON LEFT SIDE
SO MUCH homOSeX-LIKE
UBUNTU IS OSX RIPOFF
>>54758285
You realize that docks have been a thing on Linux for many years, right?
>>54758285
>iOS emoji picture
>shilling OSX superiority
Cuck detected.
>>54758555
>ubuntu
>not a walled garden
Hahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahaha
t. Arch Linux
>>54758285
Because when Xerox sued Apple for doing the same thing back in the 1980s, it didn't work.
Fucking millenials not knowing any computer history.
>>54758285
All these kids falling for your shitty bait. Kill yourself senpai.
I can guarantee Canonical that Ubuntu will never look this good.
>>54765535
Xerox didn't sue Apple because of a look, they sued them because of a technology.
>>54765642
You know you can make Linux look like anything you want, right?
>>54765695
Except as good as OSX.
>>54765695
You can't make a kernel look like anything, you can however copy the look of mac os 10 versions with most desktop environments on gnu/linux.
>>54765726
Yet you won't be able to provide a screenshot
>>54765695
You can't have the same animations for instance
Or a mission control that works the same
I mean sure you can make even XFCE look like OSX, but it's not just a screenshot.
>>54765760
(that's because nobody's actually interested in making their desktop look like OSX)
>>54765760
Why would i go through the effort of installing another de, a new theme, fonts and an icon theme and them modifying it just to prove someone on the internet wrong? I like the looks and functionality i have right now on gnome better than i liked mac os. And i used it for years.
>>54765642
With zero effort,Ubuntu can look reasonbly close.I can't even deal with El Capitan without putting on sunglasses.Too much white.
>>54765791
>>54765813
Can't provide a screenshot from someone else.
>>54765854
Looks absolutely nothing alike.
>>54765726
You mean Systemd/Linux, which offers you a GNU desktop or a nonGNU desktop
>>54765869
>Looks absolutely nothing alike.
Right,if you made everything blindingly white, it would be pretty damned close though.
>>54765869
>Can't provide a screenshot from someone else.
Because then I'd be helping a macfag.
>>54765902
Systemd never wanted to be an os (yet)
linus wanted to make an os but stopped after the kernel
The gnu project wanted to make an os but before their kernel was really started, linux was already usable and used a free license. Gnu and linux are a symbiosis. If you don't like the combination that is fine and you can try to use linux with musl and busybox (you won't get around gcc though) but you will have to specify what you use, because crediting linus alone instead of the hundrets of people who made his kernel and the thousands of people who combined it with differend userlands is ridiculous.
>>54765913
While your shit would look better, the global menu for instance doesn't work the same. So you'll have the title of your focused window hidden behind the first dropdown menus doing a really silly effect (pic related, top left). I wouldn't call that good design if I was paid.
To be fair I'll always like linux better in that aspect in any case, but with how shitty the support for AMD GPUs is, my experience was terrible trying to use a desktop like Unity, Gnome or KDE, the 3 bulky ones.
>>54766029
Amd r9 390 owner here running open amd drivers on debian. which gpu, which kernel version and which drivers gave you problems?
>>54764724
I'll bite, how is ubuntu a walled garden? You don't have to use the repositories that come with ubuntu if you don't want to.
>>54766061
GPU: 280x
Kernel: First time I tried this card was on 4.2 something, then I tried with multiple versions of 4.4
Drivers that gave me problems: both proprietary and open source.
I experience sluggishness with animations on all 3, and with open source drivers even with compton/compiz I have some tearing issues as well with applications like Chromium. This is fixed somehow by using the tearfree option on catalyst control center using proprietary drivers but then animations get even slower.
I have a quick fix which is to switch to a "lighter" DE but I would love to have Gnome 3 or Unity. It also doesn't solve completely the tearing issue because this happens using both Compton and Compiz.
>>54758285
>>>/facebook/
>>54766155
You're full of shit or didn't configure xorg correctly it. Enable DRI 3 using radeon.
Gnome 3 looks better than both anyway
Oh really? Unity is actually quite shit.
Thanks OP, I'll never get OS X then. Must also be shit.
Can I be a OSX rip-off yet?
I really do like the aesthetics of the coloured window controls.
>>54766175
I'll try with that, but just so you know I wouldn't even bother spending a minute answering if I was full of shit.
>>54765854
>I can't even deal with El Capitan without putting on sunglasses.Too much white.
Creautes of the dark can't withstand the celestial light of OS X.
>>54766155
>>54766282 here
I have an 270x using the open source AMD driver 0.4 and it works quite well. Doesn't really feel sluggish, I also don't get any screen tearing in Chromium. When did you get screen tearing? During video playback or scrolling? And where did you experience the sluggishness the most? I wanna try if I experience similar problems.
On the topic of Gnome: Gnome did indeed feel kinda sluggish on my machine, which is why I stuck with MATE on 15.10, but I switched to Unity during the Upgrade to 16.04.
>>54766353
Scrolling. I could not get Chromium to stop tearing without using proprietary + tearfree, but firefox was just fine.
Sluggishness the most specifically with switching desktops, in Gnome while accessing that expose kind of thing.
>>54765955
The main problem for everyone is not the ideology, it's the name. Linux is a short and sexy name, GNU/Linux sounds like aggressive scary cancer. People don't want to say the autism name, they want easy, distinguishable and memorable name. Linux is all that. There should be another word meaning GNU plus Linux which would be as good name as Linux.
There's the problem with Android though, it doesn't use the GNU part and people still call it Linux as well. It might be too late to change the name now, it's already set.
>>54766409
I justed tested the screen tearing in Chrome and I didn't notice any tearing, at least not obvious tearing like I had with the Marco window manager in MATE. Also, switching desktops works well and is really responsive. It is animated, but works instantly apart from that. The same holds for the scale plugin with 9 windows open.
Which distro are you using?
They tried that with Microsoft in the 80s and lost.
>>54765642
the only thing I did was changing dock's transparent theme to matte one
>>54766455
Just GNU sounds nice in my language. Stallman originally said LiGNUX would be good because it also mentions X but people disliked it for some reason. In my opinion GNU/Linux (or Busybox/Linux) should be used in technical discussion or in discussion with people who know about technology and the individual distros name should be used for conversations where it does not matter. And i think Linux is a terrible name, especially because it is just linus name with an x, this makes it look like he made it alone even if he is not nearly the person that contributed most to the kernel.
no need to
eOS is unuseable anyway
>>54766936
i always thought gnu should have some kudos for making linux happen big , but after hearing the word LiGNUX i think stallman is an old faggot cuck jew who tries to jew himself into getting respect for things he does not deserve.
But really though, they should call fsf aprooved distros as LibreOS or something that would imply that the components are free and respect your freedom instead of fighting who did most of the work when its really a community project.
They could then go on and rant about that such os is linux based , using gnu coreutils, etc in its description.
>>54766936
The community chose Linux, so Linux it is. Nobody who uses Linux thinks that Linux is mostly Linus' creation, and the people who do think it is don't matter, because they're just a buncha normies.
Trying to force GNU/Linux is inane, because in a modern operating system, GNU coreutils is only a small part of the operating system, roughly about the same as Linux, and I don't particularly want to start referring to my operating system as Chromium/LibreOffice/WINE/Steam/KDE/Xorg/Nvidia/GNU/Linux.
>>54762787
>I think Microsoft is probably the only one
Every Linux distro tries to be like them. Microsoft is not trying to be anybody.
>>54767132
lol, I remember when people claimed that Vista was ripping off OSX.
>>54758555
neither is os x. os x isn't the same as ios.
>>54767097
Gnu is WAY more than just the coreutils, this is a very common misconception but please look at a list of gnu packages. The fsf doesn't fight about who did most of the work, most people in the deeper depths of the free software and open source world know about who made what, but it is a fact that a lot of people that use a GNU/Linux operating system do not know that they are running a huge part of gnu and that it was made to ensure the users freedom at all times. You will be able to use this software and modify it for as long as computers will exist.
Some people actually think that "linux" was made as a hobby and just for fun and forget about the aspect of the different freedoms they have with it.
And they do call them libre/free distros.
Sorry for ranting.
>>54767107
This is actually adressed as a seperate point in the faq on gnu.org
GNU was the first project, using the second project is fine but only if you add the name of the first one.
Don't you mean elementary "give-us-money-or-you're-a-thief" OS
>>54767394
>GNU was the first project, using the second project is fine but only if you add the name of the first one.
'no.'
>Gnu is WAY more than just the coreutils
If you use GNOME and its' ilk, maybe. I choose not to, because I find it damn horrendous. Although I do use GIMP, because I already know it too damn well, but Krita is becoming quite a mature bit of software, so I may switch.
But the original meaning of GNU/Linux was GNU coreutils and Linux.
>>54767494
Krita is a completely different program, editing images is a pain with it. Trust me, i.use and like both if them.
And no, the original meaning depends on.the user, for the gnu people it meant that they could finally run gnu but they used the linux kernel with it, for the finnish students and european hackers, it meant that they could check this neat little kernel that was made recently and they used gnu to do so. Again, it is a symbiosis, not a competition.
>>54758285
UBUNTU IS FOR BABBIES, WE HACKERS ONLY USE ARCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>54767591
Yes. Krita is a different program. Because it's not GIMP.
I didn't say anything about competition. Trying to push the term 'GNU/Linux' is entirely about competition though, in a way which 'Linux' isn't, because 'Linux' wasn't chosen by Linus, but by the community independently of him.
>>54767665
This is wrong, the term linux is used because the initial media coverage used this term. Red hat contributed to using linux as a name because they thought the freedoms associated with gnu could hurt their buisness. Nowadays they use the tern gnu/linux in technical documentation and try to avoid using both linux and gnu on their sites afaik.
Most distros that target the enterprise sector try to use only their distro name.
Krita is a program that has the primary focus on web design and drawing and it is really good at it. Gimp is a program that is very capable in image manipulation (regardless of what adobe shills will say).
Both are very good programs at what they are for.
And i don't understand why GNU/Linux would be about competition but does GNU+Linux sound better to you?
>>54767877
>This is wrong, the term linux is used because the initial media coverage used this term.
Yeah, because that's what people were calling it. The name wasn't created by the media.
>but does GNU+Linux sound better to you?
No.
For starters, the name shouldn't have any symbols or numerals or anything of that sort. It just confuses people, in the same way people call OSX 'oh ess ecks.'
Secondly, for marketing purposes, you just shouldn't refer to two separate products as a whole. You never see that with cars, even though pretty much every car in the world now is a collaboration in seven different ways with three corporations across a dozen subsidiaries. You don't see it with franchises, you don't see it with products made under licence, you just don't see it.
So Linux it is!
>>54768029
This depends on who you Asked during the time. the first really big media coverage happened when they started making money on the stock market, who do you think was interviewed there?
This is why most distros marketed at enterprise try to not use the words linux and gnu too much. Ubuntu doesn't try to sell linux or gnu/linux, they try to get people to use ubuntu.
>>54768091
By the time any money was being made, the name was already well-established.
>>54768120
Not really, the name was well established in red hat and the kernel community. But the rest used the distro names and the names of the programs they were talking about. If the people that called it linux would have been the people that ported most of gnu, i would probably call it linux, but most of the porting was done by the gnu project and the gnu project also submitted a lot of stuff to the kernel at the time.
>>54765854
gtk is so disgusting ffs
>>54768176
Actually, Linus was the one who ported half of the GNU coreutils to begin with. The distro names just had 'Linux' in them, not 'GNU/Linux' - so they were directly and indirectly referring to it as a Linux system.
>>54768223
Post yours
>>54768239
I use i3/urxvt/Ranger
>>54768236
again, gnu is more than gcc and bash (which indeed linus ported), but the work the gnu project did to finally run gnu on the linux kernel was significantly more than that. i am not sure about which distros you are talking about right now, could you specify? The currently most used distro if you count derivatives is without a doubt debian and that used and used GNU/Linux.
Most distros at the time were more like LFS than anything else from what i know.
>>54768270
Taste is subjective i guess.
>>54768312
Look, just go search a Usenet archive. It was always predominately just called Linux. The Tenenbaum/Linus argument it was called Linux in reference to the whole system, with the GNU OS labelled vaporware. Before that, people were referring to it as Linux. One of the first was Softlanding Linux System, which evolved into the currently oldest continous distro, Slackware Linux. Even distros where the long name might've included GNU used the term 'Linux' by itself in a shortened version.
It's always predominantly been Linux, and it always will be, no matter what you or anyone else thinks. If GNUtards just built their kernel thirty years ago like they said they would, we could've simply avoided all this, but they didn't. It's because of that frustration that we have the elegance, the bliss, the wonder and grace that is the Linux operating system.
Amen.
>>54758446
/thread
They ain't stupid.
>>54768518
The tanenbaum debate was primarily a debate about kernel design, not about operating systems. The usenet archives also include a lot of gnu.
And we talked abour marketing terms earlier. To amen your own post is like /threading your own post, it makes you look silly.
The real problem was not that the gnu project started hurd too late because of linux arrival, it was that they improved gnu instead of just making an own distro like the downstream people at the time did.
which was a good thing to do but it resulted in not getting any credit outside of the circles where people knew about them.
Gentoo wants to be WIN10© so bad it's pathetic. Why hasn't MicroSoft sued Gentoo Foundation off the face of the planet for infringing on their design yet?
>>54765854
Looks pretty nice senpai, how could I make it look like that? Also how are 970 drivers on Ubuntu?
Thinking of making it my main OS.
>>54768738
No, you're still wrong.
The debate discusses different things.
The GNU kernel was started before Linus even started.
And Linux was always the preferred term.
Seriously, go look.
You can't sue something for being flat, clean and having round edges on your computer
>>54768789
I actually read the debate once a year (also the continuation) and most of it is about monolithic vs microkernel.
The hurd was only really started in 2002.
>>54768821
That doesn't mean they don't mention other things, like the two eponymous operating systems Minix and Linux.
>>54766828
U blind?
Yeah Ubuntu is trying hard but let's be honest. OSX is a billion times better
>>54768856
i never said they didn't say other things.
the reason for them using the term Linux is probably because in 92, Linus still wanted to make an OS. i don't know when exactly he gave up, but apperently he did.
they also assumed that GNU needed HURD to be GNU, which is wrong, GNU needed a Free kernel to be usable. Linus specifically made Linux because HURD was not finished and he would not have started it if he could have used GNU alone at the time.
"If the GNU kernel had been ready last spring, I'd not have bothered to
even start my project: the fact is that it wasn't and still isn't. Linux
wins heavily on points of being available now."
fact is, Linux is mostly used to run GNU and what runs on the combination of them. Linux is made in a way that it integrates nicely within GNU and GNU is patched to run nicely on GNU in addition to the overall portability of all GNU software.
can we agree on this? i ask because discussing without any common ground doesn't help anyone.
I use Linux to run GNU, not the other way around. and i run the combination of GNU and Linux (and X until i get gnome 3 to give me the option to use wayland but that is even more off topic than our discussion) to be able to run Icecat or firefox, blender, cmus, wget, liferea and krita (mostly).
if Linux was something uncommon (like hurd or minix3) i would run gnu to use linux, but it is the other way around.
Instead of just calling it GNU, i choose to call it GNU/Linux because Linux is an essential part of my system and i want to credit people like alan cox, linus and all the people that helped make this possible.
>>54769325
As I said originally,
> I don't particularly want to start referring to my operating system as Chromium/LibreOffice/WINE/Steam/KDE/Xorg/Nvidia/GNU/Linux.
>>54769362
i tried to explain it in my own words because i didn't want to make this a typical /g/ discussion, sorry if i was unclear.
i will post what the FAQ on gnu.org answers, because i think that it is a very good argument:
What we say is that you ought to give the system's principal developer a share of the credit. The principal developer is the GNU Project, and the system is basically GNU.
If you feel even more strongly about giving credit where it is due, you might feel that some secondary contributors also deserve credit in the system's name. If so, far be it from us to argue against it. If you feel that X11 deserves credit in the system's name, and you want to call the system GNU/X11/Linux, please do. If you feel that Perl simply cries out for mention, and you want to write GNU/Linux/Perl, go ahead.
Since a long name such as GNU/X11/Apache/Linux/TeX/Perl/Python/FreeCiv becomes absurd, at some point you will have to set a threshold and omit the names of the many other secondary contributions. There is no one obvious right place to set the threshold, so wherever you set it, we won't argue against it.
Different threshold levels would lead to different choices of name for the system. But one name that cannot result from concerns of fairness and giving credit, not for any possible threshold level, is “Linux”. It can't be fair to give all the credit to one secondary contribution (Linux) while omitting the principal contribution (GNU).
>>54769406
Yes, but I think it's a terrible argument, and GNU coreutils is about the same size as the Linux kernel, so it's not secondary at all.
>>54769526
depends on how many drivers you count in. and size is not what they mean, what they mean is that the GNU project started way earlier and was at a more complete state than Linux when the 2 projects practically merged.
and the coreutils are not the whole of GNU, pic related is a list of currently maintained gnu packages.
>>54769605
How complete they were when Linux sprang into being is pretty much meaningless, because the man-hours that went into the software by that point would probably be dwarfed by orders of magnitude by the man-hours that goes into just some key components of software these days.
You're not really driving home your point with that pic either. There's a lot of underwhelming software there.
>>54769808
these man hours went primarily into drivers, which would be handled outside of the kernel with other kernel designs.
there is also a lot of great software there, but this is also true for most other OS and projects.
>>54769851
Again, you miss the point. Most key, core software in a modern distro is not GNU/developed by them, especially if you eschew GNOME. Software and the role of operating systems has fundamentally changed in the precise timeframe that Linux has existed, whereas it was reasonably stable in the preceding decade in which GNU started development, and the decade preceding it. Thinking of it in terms of a GNU operating system on top of a Linux kernel is completely outdated.
So in terms of division of labour, it in no way makes sense to reallocate half the recognition to GNU, just as the reverse would be true if it was always referred to as just GNU would it not make sense to suddenly change it to Linux/GNU. The only thing that really makes any sense is to continue with the established convention, because anything else is a technological parallel of the SJW movement.
>>54770006
> anything
>completely
>SJW
I don't feel like there is a point in discussing this with you if you start to derail it.
>>54770105
You're already going around in circles, I might as well.
But I'm surprised you don't see the glaringly obvious parallel between this and politically correct speech vs speech in common usage.
>>54770138
I don't know a lot about the SJW movement, just that they go into other movements and destroy them from inside.
but seriously, it is kind of hard to discuss in a reasonable manner if the other person ignores points and uses absolute language. it seems to me like most of the stuff you know about discussions (or at least what you use of it) comes from what you saw on here.
It would probably even be nice to discuss with you in meatspace but on the internet it seems to be pointless.
>>54770217
I didn't ignore your points, I addressed them a number of times from a number of different perspectives. Pretty much everything I said was in no way absolutist either. Just because I said 'anything' once doesn't suddenly make what I was saying absolutist, that's a ridiculously childish and dismissive notion.
>>54770286
maybe i'm just emotional in this but stating an argument that is relevant to the discussion but not the specific point again after try to elaborate the reason for the naming during a specific time period with you instead of pointing out why you think that the community decided the name (which is the main point i disagree with you in) doesn't seem to be addressing the point.
>>54770006
in my opinion it doesn't matter who exactly it is developed by if it calls itself a GNU project and uses their license. and i also disagree that there is a established convention because in order to have one, you would need a central body of power that decides for a name. comparing these two movements does not make sense to me and i have not heard a compelling argument as of why they would be similar.
I always try to use both watzlawicks and rogers values and rules when discussing, tell me if i break them.
>>54758285
Canonical is in Europe, where software patents don't stand.
>>54771148
holy shit you're one dumb fuck
>>54758285
>Why hasn't Apple sued Canonical off the face of the planet for infringing on their design yet?+ 0 post omitted.
What the fuck does this even mean? You can't hold IP to a superficial design. How the fuck else would people be able to make new OSes then? Hurrr apple has the rights to have a taskbar on the upper part of the screen and dock on the lower part
What matters is the code and the underlying intellectual property
