no no no you're doing it all wrong you're supposed to roll out your own GNU/Linux distribution from scratch, only with gnubinutils, gnucore and gnu gcc family of compilers
>>1
1. go to the cli and type in `python` (make sure to press return ;)
2. when the python interpreter shows up (you'll see some useless gibberish that you can ignore, type `print "Hello, world"`
Congratulations, you are now qualified to post on /pr/
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-06 20:30
How do I install Slime?
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-06 20:41
Thank you OP I have been entertained :)
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-06 20:49
Also, I just got a book from the library on algorithms, but it's all in Pascal ;_;
>>16
If rimmis had proposed that, he might have had more traction than he did with GNAA/stallmanix
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-06 23:03
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.
>>18
i hate this copypasta so much.
do people actually believe this shit? seriously?
makes me rage every time i head somebody say "GNU/Linux"
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-07 4:32
You should call it GNU / Linux. It's always good to separate yourself from gnu.
Also, OP, read some Python tutorials, some Perl tutorials, decide which one you like more, and don't listen to trolling. I personally hate Python and love Perl, but I know there are people who think completely opposite, so I propose you to try both, and decide which one you prefer. And don't listen to this PHP trolls, PHP is shit and it always was.
I have more than 119 executable files in my C:\Program Files (x86)\GnuWin32\bin directory. Shouldn't I refer to my OS as GNU/Windows, following the same logic?
the number of executables does not matter, as it was you who got them to be there. Infact, your Windows(™) experience woudln't change if you deleted them, but your interaction with The Linux would be reduced to cmd, hence the logically chosen name - GNU/Linux.
>>30
Well he wrote the kernel.
That is, he wrote the operating system.
He deserves to name it after himself.
The GNUsers and Stallman just want to steal his credit.
I wouldn't complain if Stallman wanted to rename the Free Software Foundation "The Stallman Software Foundation"
>>32
whoops >>31 should have said linus, rimmis would be >>30
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-07 7:51
>>27
You may call your system GNU/Windows but this isn't necessary as Windows already a complete system without GNU. A general Linux system without GNU is not the same; Linux an OS kernel.
>>29 In response to suggestions that Stallman's renaming efforts stem from egotism or personal pique, Stallman has responded that his interest is not in giving credit to himself, but to the GNU Project: Some people think that it's because I want my ego to be fed. Of course, I'm not asking you to call it "Stallmanix".
>>31
The kernel is not the OS by itself. It is a kernel. A complete OS is one that is defined by POSIX.
>>34
It is 100% egotism and personal pique.
Do you really expect him to tell the truth about something like that?
Are you.... an idiot?
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-07 8:15
>>36
Fuck your stupid newbie books. I was writing operating systems before you were even born.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-07 8:18
>>38
The truth is, RMS wants people to value their four essential freedoms WRT software. He has never advocated for Stallmanix, only GNU.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-07 8:24
>>39
troll.
most operating system design book, these so-called "newbie books" are all very well respected and most written 20 or 30+ years ago.
many of these "newbie books" were around when you were in your mother's womb.
these "newbie books" are the same ones the Linus used while writing his kernel.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-07 8:26
>>40
He hasn't done it YET because it would display his true motives too obviously.
Now that you faggots are going around calling it GNU/Linux it's only a matter of time until he starts saying it should be called RMS/GNU/Linux.
And you fanboy retards will actually do it for him.
>>5
Just grab it from CVS, then extract it into some directory site site-emacs, and then add it to your .emacs file. There's even a "screencast" about it.
I really don't know how to articulate this any more without identifying myself. I was not an OS pioneer, but I was in the scene when IBM began selling their hardware to businesses. I was an OS programmer in that era studying, and improving the OS that was delivered. The OS was the fundamental layer of software that exist to support to application software. Stuff like text editors and compilers were part of this OS. Without this OS software, the rest of the system could not be controlled. The kernel was always one part of this system, the very core of the OS.
>>34,39 In addition, we have no universally accepted definition of what is part of the oerating system. A simple viewpoint is that it includes everything a vendor ships when you order "the operating system."....A more common definition is that the operating system is the one program running at all times on the computer (usually called the kernel), with all else being application programs. This last definition is the one that we generally follow.
regardless, can you really consider the ancient computers of times past to have an OS in the modern sense?
i mean, computers, software, and operating systems have changed an incredible amount since then.
Computer software can be divided roughly into two kinds: system programs, which manage the operation of the computer itself, and application programs, which perform the actual work the user wants. The most fundamental system program is the operating system, whose job is to control all the computer's resources and provide a base upon which the application programs can be written
Operating Systems Design and Implementation, 3rd Edition, Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Chapter 1, Page 1.
>>59
i asked moot 3 times whether he visits us here on world4ch (two in threads, and once as an ancillary to an email), he ignored me every time :(
Name:
!Ep8pui8Vw22009-11-07 10:58
>>52,54
To me, an OS will always be an OS - the fundamental software layer between the hardware the higher level software that depend on the OS. Andy Tanenbaum terms my "OS" as "system software". While I don't think he's incorrect, I'm not going to change my terminology on his account.
>>60
Moot doesn't care about w4ch. I am not Moot, I just like this tripcode.