linux based on unix?

dids22 · 2007-01-14 15:04:02

is there any connection between them?

Dusty · 2007-01-14 15:42:12

harlekin · 2007-01-14 15:50:49

I suggest you reading these articles. (:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix

elasticdog · 2007-01-14 17:27:13

Linux started as a UNIX clone, but written completely from scratch...definitely use Google, there are MOUNDS of information out there!

mucknert · 2007-01-14 19:07:40

/me chuckles. Sorry, can't help it.

redge · 2007-01-19 04:35:51

dids22 wrote:

is there any connection between them?

It is a good question, one that deserves discussion. It is truly pathetic that of the three people who have responded, one laughed at the question, one was so condescending that he told you to do a Google search and the third was equally condescending, referring you to the potted pseudo-encyclopedia stuff in wikipedia.

Leaving aside the intellectual genius who found it necessary to ay that he found your question funny, neither of the other respondents have exactly distinguished themselves. What they had to say is a variation on someting that is apparently called RTFM, standing for Read the Fucking Manual, a rather peurile idea that is actually endorsed in part of the Arch Wiki. How this squares with the express statement, on the part of this forum for newcomers (I refuse to use the word newbie, which is out and out baby-talk), that there are no stupid questions, is beyond me.

Leaving aside the fact that your question is a pretty good one, on which it might be interesting to hear the views of people who actually have something to say.

Cheers.

Cerebral · 2007-01-19 04:48:47

redge wrote:

It is truly pathetic that...

And then this condescends the condescenders. When will the cycle of condescension end?

I didn't even find the wikipedia response all that bad - gives a good amount of history and info on Linux and Unix.

In short, as elasticdog said, yes, the connection exists - started as a project to create an alternative to Minix, and went from there.

dolby · 2007-01-19 04:52:49

does the earth revolve around the sun?
does god actually exist?
do aliens live among us?

if one feels like such topics, or even a linux-unix connection one needs a debate, he first uses google or any media he can get info about & then ask a question.
btw i find a link to google or wikipedia a less pathetic answer than yours cause the above actually provide info.

redge · 2007-01-19 05:01:03

Cerebral wrote:

And then this condescends the condescenders.

No it doesn't. It just says that people shouldn't be treated this way, and yes, beyond that, that the people who responded maybe don't have as much to say as they think. What was said in those posts was not exactly impressive, none of them demonstrating any knowledge of the relationship between Unix and Linux, or for that matter of why some people talk about GNU/Linux.

I happen to think that the question was a pretty good one, and certainly might lead to a more interesting discussion than my own question, earlier today, about what file to configure to speed up my boot time when my laptop is disconnected from the internet.

redge · 2007-01-19 05:06:34

dolby wrote:

if one feels like such topics, or even a linux-unix connection one needs a debate, he first uses google

Hey, if that's how you learn, so be it. Just realize that not everybody learns that way, indeed that some people think that mucking around with Google is not necessarily a good way to learn. You don't have to agree. You just have to realize that not everyone, including me, agrees with you, and that some poeple might not endorse your idea that if one wants to know something, one must "first use google". Personally, Google is not high on my list of learning establishments.

Dusty · 2007-01-19 05:28:15

redge, I understand that you come from a different background than most of us do, with different traditions, goals, and values. I humbly ask that you understand this too.

There's two ways to evaluate everything. In the traditional Linux community, our goal is not so much to help people with their problems and questions, but more to help them learn how to solve their own problems. Using google, wikipedia, forum search, etc are good ways to answer questions you have. My answer was perfectly inline with these values, as I know that the history of Linux has been documented hundreds of thousands of times. harlekin's answer was much more inline with them, because he both provided the answer requested, and also provided a hint as to how he found those answers (clearly he searched wikipedia, an excellent resource for broad questions like this). In addition, it makes as much sense to link to this information as to copy/paste it for further discussion or to rephrase it, both of which would take extra time that can be committed to helping other users with more pressing Arch issues.

Further, this is a rather strange question with no backup information as to why it was requested. It almost reeks of a "homework problem". The answering of other people's homework assignments is heavily frowned upon in a world where we truly do believe in helping people to help themselves.

There is a saying, "give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man a fish and he will eat for a lifetime."

Now, to show I understand the other side of the argument, I know that both our answers, which appear perfectly legitimate from our point of view could also be interpreted as exhibiting an air of unhelpfulness. It could look like we are mocking someone for his complete lack of knowledge about what, to us, seems a very obvious question. We're throwing knowledge in his face, showing our superiority. I can easily see how this interpretation could be gleaned from a casual glance at our responses.

However, this interpretation is wrong. I feel it is our true intent that should be evaluated, not the intent as perceived by others. Please judge us within our own culture; its unfair to do otherwise. When in Rome... to choose a well-overused cliche.

Much of this information has been written much more verbosely and accurately here: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

It is a good history of how most people steeped in unix tradition tend to view the world.

Dusty

redge · 2007-01-19 05:44:03

Dusty,

Sorry, but I have a problem with what you say is the position of the Linux community toward learning. I have very little time for Google and Wikipedia. For one thing, as we both know, a good deal of the information about Linux on the internet is either out of date or wrong. As for Wikipedia, it wants to be pretty much on the level of an encyclopedia. OK so far as it goes, but I haven't looked at an encyclopedia, to actually learn something, since the age of about 14. There was a very good piece on Wikipedia, about two months ago, in the New Yorker, well worth reading.

In any event, that isn't my point. If you think that what has gone on in this thread is appropriate, we definitely take different views on how people should be treated. I am of course familiar with the line "When in Rome". That is, as I recall, the same place where people, for the sport of others, were fed to lions. You people can either take this rather nasty attitude toward others, or you can take the attitude expressed on your own forum: "There are no stupid questions here!" The real question is, which is the truth about your own position? It ain't a hard question.

Let me ask you something. Mark Shuttleworth is working to make computer technology available in Africa. Do you really think that he, and the people around him, take the attitude that you are espousing? Is what you are saying actually the position of the Arch community?

I don't know what to say about this line: "There is a saying, "give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man a fish and he will eat for a lifetime."" Apart from the fact that it is pretty high-falutin' stuff, given what we are talking about, did you notice the word "teach"? Tell me, since when does someone teach by telling someone to go off to Google?

pauldonnelly · 2007-01-19 05:56:07

Very well put, Dusty.

Redge, our take is that before asking a question you should at least do preliminary research. On the Internet especially, since it's so easy to Google and check Wikipedia. This is partly a courtesy to the people you're asking (although it's not Did22's fault if he isn't familiar with the custom), but it's also because a search and consultation of relevant references will likely get an answer much closer to what you're wondering about than whatever short responses to your vague uninformed question forumites have time to type out.

Taking this question for example, is there any way to guess what he's asking about? It could be anything from system structure (in which case the answer is yes) to the fairly recent SCO trouble (in which case it is no). Is it more helpful for us to throw out some shot-in-the-dark answers to a question that could be better answered by easy-to-find references, or is it more helpful just to direct him to those?

EDIT: You posted while I was composing, so I'll just add on here:

Perhaps you should take another look at those encyclopedias. I don't use the paper kind much since it would be awkward to carry twenty tomes of knowledge with me, but Wikipedia is by far the best resource ever created by people when it comes to getting a handle on a topic you know nothing about.

As you say, that isn't the point. I fail to see how anyone (except us by you, maybe ) has been mistreated here, except for the chuckle, which is rather mild. The first two posts were pointers to massive stores of information that will tell the intrepid reader more than they ever wanted to know about Linux. The third gives about the best reply you could expect to a post so vague. From there we're just talking about manners.

You may not have much time for Google and Wikipedia, but the rest of us don't have an infinite amount of time to spend guessing what a person may mean, gathering the relevant information in our minds, and typing it out. It is quite an imposition on your part to assume that 20 minutes of your time spent reading about a topic in which you are interested is more valuable than 20 or more minutes of my time spent writing about a topic on which I may happen to have knowledge. I, and most of us here, are glad to help as much as we possibly can with tricky questions that aren't easy to research. I'm not going to leave someone hanging if I don't have to. But I'm also not anyone's personal reference librarian. Sometimes it's completely appropriate to point someone to the encyclopedia.

neotuli · 2007-01-19 06:05:04

Redge,

Would you care to recommend a book on the subject? I was really looking forward to seeing what you had to say, since as you point out, generally the internet is a poor resource for information, and I really do prefer solid sources as you do.

Thanks!

redge · 2007-01-19 06:06:29

Paul,

Sorry, I was editing my post at the same time that you were posting.

I can only say that while I respect the fact that you have a high regard for Google and Wikipedia, I have very little use for either. In any event, for me this is a question about how people get treated.

redge · 2007-01-19 06:12:07

Neotuli,

I see that you are an Arch developer. Flippancy is terribly easy. Do you have an opinion on what we are talking about?

pauldonnelly · 2007-01-19 06:19:16

Um. The same thing has happened again. My regard for Google and Wikipedia is not that high -- I know there are plenty of problems with each -- but the point is that it is possible (and in this case easy) to better your position considerably within literally less than a minute using these tools. Not doing this, but expecting someone else to expend more time on your behalf, rubs some of us the wrong way.

I don't want to give the impression that I'm upset with the original poster or you.

I see your edits now. You don't think that the "teach a man to fish" phrase applies here, but I think it very much does. A reminder to Google first is teaching. The lesson, of course, is to dig a little on your own first. Perhaps it would have been better said as, "Around here it is customary to Google your question first and ask more specific questions when you have some more information."

If you think we could have suggested that course of action in a more gentle and welcoming way I won't argue, although I don't think anyone was seriously out of line. I can't comprehend why you would consider a question that could be best explored with a little reading more appropriately greeted with a host of incomplete little essays though.

mucknert · 2007-01-19 06:35:41

Why did I 'laugh' at the question? Well, because I anticpated exactly that kind of question from the OP. This reaction had some background to it which, honestly, not everyone could understand. dusty put it the best way: the question reeked about being a "homework question" and in fact, if you search for other posts of the OP you will find that he actually refuses to do just those: "his homework". The OP showed a distinct lack of knowledge in all of his posts which is, as I always state, not a bad thing in itself: you can always learn, right? But what would be a bad thing? Well, for startes the absolute reluctance or even refusal to read documentation, figure out stuff on his own, to actually invest some time in a matter. Instead he insists on being spoon-fed, does NOT read provided documentation but spams the BBS with very basic questions that could have been solved by searching the Wiki or, in that case, WikiPedia.

While it is not a bad thing to ask stuff to increase your knowledge, it is a very bad thing to do it that way. As dusty said, research should precede the question. So if I see that someone asks a question that could have been answered with a minimum of research, I react with ridicule because I just can not help it. In this special case I chuckled because I did not expect everything else.

pauldonnelly already said it: it is not dids22s fault that he does not know the connection or basic knowledge about some matters at all. But that he does not care to do research, refuses to learn or to even follow some advise.. that really IS his fault.

I once got in an argument with dusty about this so I won't stretch it any further. I can understand your reaction, redge, but it was uncalled for. There are fields in life where really no stupid question exist but Computers, where a whole world of Information exists at your fingertips - easily accessible to ANYONE, is no such domain. WikiPedia is always a good starting-point for that because it is the best example of how cool and useful things can be accomplished within a virtual community. What is beyond me is how you can state that most information concerning the connection of Linux and Unix on the Internet is outdated. Any proofs handy or are you just reaching for a straw to justify help-vampirism? In what way would a BBS be more approriate to research the connection of Linux and Unix then, being heavily based on knowledge from the Internet? Ah well, it is early in the morning and I need food. Perhaps then I will understand. We can always hope.

neotuli · 2007-01-19 06:38:57

Yes I have an opinion, and that opinion is that I'd like to know what kinds of resources you would recommend for the original question.

Actually, come to think of it, I'm rather insulted that you misconstrued by comment as being flippant. I considered the possibility that it might be interpreted that way given the context of this thread, and tried my best to word it so that it would in fact not be taken the wrong way.

I too think this is a good question and deserves discussion, and I want to hear your discussion on the topic, as I would expect your contribution to be above and beyond what others here have to say, because your sources are better.

However, now I'm relatively disappointed, since your last response came off as extraordinarily condescending, seeing as you effectively demand an opinion of me, as though I had made an off topic comment or something.

That's insulting, to say the least.

F · 2007-01-19 07:09:34

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINIX

phrakture · 2007-01-19 07:12:57

Enough. Locked.

Arch Linux

#1 2007-01-14 15:04:02

linux based on unix?

#2 2007-01-14 15:42:12

Re: linux based on unix?

#3 2007-01-14 15:50:49

Re: linux based on unix?

#4 2007-01-14 17:27:13

Re: linux based on unix?

#5 2007-01-14 19:07:40

Re: linux based on unix?

#6 2007-01-19 04:35:51

Re: linux based on unix?

#7 2007-01-19 04:48:47

Re: linux based on unix?

#8 2007-01-19 04:52:49

Re: linux based on unix?

#9 2007-01-19 05:01:03

Re: linux based on unix?

#10 2007-01-19 05:06:34

Re: linux based on unix?

#11 2007-01-19 05:28:15

Re: linux based on unix?

#12 2007-01-19 05:44:03

Re: linux based on unix?

#13 2007-01-19 05:56:07

Re: linux based on unix?

#14 2007-01-19 06:05:04

Re: linux based on unix?

#15 2007-01-19 06:06:29

Re: linux based on unix?

#16 2007-01-19 06:12:07

Re: linux based on unix?

#17 2007-01-19 06:19:16

Re: linux based on unix?

#18 2007-01-19 06:35:41

Re: linux based on unix?

#19 2007-01-19 06:38:57

Re: linux based on unix?

#20 2007-01-19 07:09:34

Re: linux based on unix?

#21 2007-01-19 07:12:57

Re: linux based on unix?

Board footer