what is linux

you know, i thought i knew what linux was, i use windows, what is linux, how is it different? why do programmers tend to preffer linux if they do? is it stablity or what?

>>40
http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

>>21
Real programers DO make money because they don't spend their whole life writing crappy GUIs for noobs.

>>42
Don't you mean the opposite?

There's a lot of money to be made writing crappy GUIs for noobs. After all, this isn't the 70s and 80s anymore.

>>43
Similarly there's a lot more money to be made performing plastic surgery than developing innovative new heart surgery techniques. Are you more professional because you earn more money?

>>44
No, but you're no less professional either.

What that has to do with >>43 is beyond me though. I think you missed the point.

>>45
I'm comparing professionalism in programming to professionalism in medicine. Churning out pretty shitware is to writing real code as giving neurotic old californians facelifts is to doing real medicine. It's not really directed at >>43; it's just that he touched on a matter I felt like addressing.

Also I'm blatantly ripping off Philip Greenspun, but so what.
http//phil/...

>>46
Having been in an accident, and needing to go to a plastic surgeon as a result, I can assure you, they're quite professional about what they do. If they fuck up, guess what happens? People acknowledge they may end up dead in heart surgery, but for some reason go whack nuts when their face is messed up.

As for pretty shitware: this is the new era, friend. User interfaces are critical, because we're slowly entering the realm of grandma. Perhaps it's not as interesting as writing protein folding in MPI to run on a cluster, but the people writing GUIs were sitting next to you in university. The only difference is they ended up in one job, while you ended up in another.

People need to eat. In a bull market this isn't a problem, but it sure ain't no bull at the moment.

>>47
I can't understand most of what you said :(

>>48
tl;dr -> If you're working as a programmer, then it's all "real".

a

>>2 is absolutely right, end of story

>>3-51
I was going to say "back to /b/, please", but then I realized that /prog/ pretty much consists of just these posters.

>>52
I was going to say "but without /b/...", but then i realized that /prog/ is a distilled version of /b/ for older audience.

>>53
Sometimes, if (very) rarely, a tiny bit more cerebral too.

>>54
/prog/ is actually the most intelligent board out there.
Or at least it was about a year ago.
>>53
All those SUSSMEN and haxed anii are the distilled essence of /b/-style fun with programming theme. Unlike /b/, /prog/ isn't filled to the brim with retards.
Our retards are also more subtle, creative and intelligent. /prog/'s retard is /g/'s specialist or /v/'s genius.
This gives us the unique, genuine funniness, unavailable to other boards. /g/ tries to emulate this with interjections and routercats, but they are nowhere near /prog/.

Unfortunately, the glorious, master board of /prog/ is getting despoiled by floods of retards. /prog/'s not going to survive much longer.

>>55
Retards come and go but will only die if you allow it to.

>>55
Retards come and go but /prog/ will only die if you allow it to.

Are you saying that this linux can run on a computer without windows underneath it, at all ? As in, without a boot disk, without any drivers, and without any services ?

That sounds preposterous to me.

If it were true (and I doubt it), then companies would be selling computers without a windows. This clearly is not happening, so there must be some error in your calculations. I hope you realise that windows is more than just Office ? Its a whole system that runs the computer from start to finish, and that is a very difficult thing to acheive. A lot of people dont realise this.

Microsoft just spent $9 billion and many years to create Vista, so it does not sound reasonable that some new alternative could just snap into existence overnight like that. It would take billions of dollars and a massive effort to achieve. IBM tried, and spent a huge amount of money developing OS/2 but could never keep up with Windows. Apple tried to create their own system for years, but finally gave up recently and moved to Intel and Microsoft.

Its just not possible that a freeware like the Linux could be extended to the point where it runs the entire computer fron start to finish, without using some of the more critical parts of windows. Not possible.

I think you need to re-examine your assumptions.

>>58
I'd just like to interject for a moment.

>>58
old kopipe is ooooooold.
0/10 == overall failure

>>58
I goofed the floof from reading this

>>58
Trolls should be more subtle.
0.5/10 Some dumbfuck might believe it after all.

They really spent $9 billion?

>>62
0.5/10 Some dumbfuck might believe it after all.
That is what makes this troll worth more than 0.5, I'd give it a 4

My computer runs on the Google and a Windows.

>>65
the Google
Hey, I use that too!

OHHHHH RLY

>>67

Congratulations, you've bumped a five year old thread.

>>58
i tried telling my friends this but they don't believe.  they said linux replaces windows.  WHY WOULD YOU HAVE TO HAVE WINDOWS TO INSTALL LINUX THEN?  notice how all computers come with windows (or mac), linux needs them to run.  that's why there are only two profit operating systems because it's so hard to do it all.  linux runs on windows like a program that is like an operating system, thats why you can't sell linux.

>>68
OOH I DIDNT NOTICE SILLY ME