What's a UNIX program that's popular but fucking garbage?

What's a UNIX program that's popular but fucking garbage?

Other urls found in this thread:

man.openbsd.org/st.4
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

bash

emacs, hands down - whoever made it hates users

Mac

Anything by GNU

vi

Gimp

ubuntu, fedora, arch, gentoo and other bullshit os you use

GNU/Linux

Well, the most used version is GNU emacs and that was Stallman.

Operating systems aren't programs.

MusicBee

Sup Forums leave this board you are not tech literate

systemd

libxml2

man

Autotools

firefox

GNU is Not UNIX. It's even in the fucking name, you double niggers.

Meanwhile there are multiple "GNU"/Linux operating systems that are UNIX

Tar, to this day it still requires a command line argument to *not* attempt to write to a magnetic tape.

technically yes they are, programs thats run other programs you tech illiterate bitmongler

Holy kek, is this real?

An OS is a collection of programs that function together.

Sorry, didn't realize that this thread was only targeted at the small subset of users who are working in bell labs during the 1970s. My b.

thats my point yes

then bash, firefox, gimp, etc are not unix or for unix too

It depends!
On most pure UNIXes and OpenBSD, tar without the f flag will try to read/write from the first tape drive. On an OS without tape drive drivers.
On Linux and FreeBSD, it seems to default to stdin/stdout instead

But the OS itself is not a program

So it's not a program

bash

What OS doesn't have tape drive drivers?

Fuck cal

op didnt mention you have to name One program, I named a collection of programs stupid goys

Vim

So you named a bunch of collections of programs that aren't UNIX as examples of popular UNIX programs?

linux is not UNIX based? since when?

>UNIX-like = UNIX

OpenBSD.

(GNU IS NOT UNIX)NU IS NOT UNIX

man.openbsd.org/st.4
>The st driver provides support for SCSI tape drives.

your post only strengthens my point goy

whats the difference goy?

Not at all, you shitty little memester.

tar

well between the occasional shitpost im willing to learn something from my obedient you-giving friendos at least, so im really open the explanation whats the actual different between GNU and Unix

Unix is a family of operating systems that are forks of each other, GNU is a shitty copy

Cuck licence, for once. Also, you had to pay fuckload of money to UNIX foundation to register a UNIX version.

>Cuck licence, for once
BSD license and Unix are far from mutually inclusive, you dumbass. Also, epik meme.
>Also, you had to pay fuckload of money to UNIX foundation to register a UNIX version
UNIX ≠ Unix

systemd

so UNIX kinda the original and the GNU project was to make it widely available as open source stuff? if im understanding it right. but the functionality and the logic behind them is the same right?

OSX

OP said garbage, not god-tier

dc

OP again:
>a UNIX program
You also admitted linux is popular and don't know what is the difference between UNIX (a sticker from open group) and unix-like system.

well, my point is still stands, you lost boy

Like what? You hate something? Beyond me.

I don't want to kill a thread, but shouldn't it be 'linix' and not 'linux'? Seems more' punny' that way.

the ubuntu subsystem for windows 10. too much shit that doesn't work.

yes it is
it runs when interrupts happen
do you know anything about computers? no

nano

Linus -> Linux not unix -> lunix

vim

>god-tier
>OSX
>implying

also nice waste of trips, faggot

It's a work-in-progress dude...

I don't want to blow your mind but:
LI-nus
u-NIX
LI-NIX

Simply, yes. The development of Unix was practically the same as GNU. The story goes like this:

At that time, AT&T concluded that software licensing fees was bullshit so they started writing their own OS to use it within their business. Because of the monopoly laws, AT&T couldn't distribute their OS in exchange for high fees so they licensed it for universities for a relatively low price. They also gave out their source code. The students in the Berkeley university started writing patches and new tools for Unix, eventually making it more popular and developed OS. Then, AT&T founded the Unix Foundation, a seperate entity to be able to sell Unix to other corporations for high fees. The Unix community however, continued to distribute Unix for free. This pushed the Unix Foundation into suing universities despite the fact that, in that time, majority of Unix was written by volunteers. Eventually, the court ruled that Unix could be proprietary like how AT&T demanded or stay open source, like community demanded. The court also ruled that everybody had to base their OS on 4.4BSD, which was a hybrid of proprietary code of AT&T and open source code of the community. The "cuckness" of BSD fan be credited to AT&T.

I'm not implying anything; I'm stating facts.

rxvt

there is zero code from UNIX in both GNU and Linux (which are usually used together). Linux is also not certified to be UNIX unlike OS X. The POSIX standard only requires that an OS gives the same interface as UNIX - programs like cc, man, grep, and other stuff like libc, etc. - but all of those were created by contributors to the GNU project and Linux, none of them have any code from UNIX.

vi under OpenBSD, this thing is developed for alien keyboards

There are two UNIX certified Linux distros.

Bless

thank you for the story time, exactly this is what i wanted to hear. So today we refer to UNIX as the closed source proprietary version and GNU as the open source, basically written by university students hobby stuff?

I understand this but the exact logic in these platforms are the same right? thats one thing that the current time OSes does not have any remnant code or anything else from the original project, but the logic in the system structure and funcionality is kinda the same right? like you can easily name 10 things which are fundamentally differently handled in windows and in this UNIX/GNU/Linux/I dont even know how to name it anymore system structures

GNOME, surprised nobody mentioned it yet.

Unix is not completely proprietary. For example, you can fork any BSD-licensed project, add/remove anything, however you want. Its entirely up to you whether if you want to make it proprietary (like macOS) or open source (like FreeBSD).

any idea how they achieved that and why RHEL isn't certified unix ? doesn't make much sense to me

Does Red Hat even Want a UNIX cert? I mean, it's not something that's going to happen unless they try.

where would you put ubuntu fedora arch etc OS-es in this organogramm?

On the linux family. Although they do have ports to other kernels.

ubuntu,fedora,arch aren't OSes, they are distros. They all fall under Linux on that chart.

Linux itself is not an OS, however.

im starting to understand this whole chaos around this stuff.
THEN WHATDAHELL IS AN OS? WHATS THE COMMON POINT IN THESE DISTROS? WHATS THEIR OS THEN? dont make me mad, i started to understrand this, now you make everything shit

Linux is a kernel, GNU is a set of tools, GNU/Linux is an OS. Most of the "distros" fall under GNU/Linux category.

However, there are Linux distributions those are completely free of GNU.
Alpine Linux is a good example for this and and I would personally call it musl-libc/Linux.

Linux is the kernel or "core" for lack of a better term of the operating system, an OS also needs a lot of other tools to run. most of the tools on "Linux Distros" were made by the GNU OS project. They were making their own kernel, but since Linux existed and was open source it was easier to just use that. So GNU/Linux is the GNU operating system using the Linux kernel.

The GNU/Linux OS is generally just reffered to as "Linux" which pisses off the GNU guys.

The distros are the OS supplied with additional tools wich are not neccesary for the OS to work but makes it much easier to use and maintain. Like package managers and premade binary packages and stuff.

>Linux is a kernel, GNU is a set of tools, GNU/Linux is an OS.
go read tanenbaums or stallings operating systems, retard.

How about we just drop the incredibly retarded naming schemes everyone is pulling out of their asses and stick to calling operating systems that use Linux as their kernel "Linux?" Oh wait, that would make too much sense and be too easy.

It would be easy, but incorrect.

I was speaking relatively to the chart, it should say GNU on it since GNU is what offers the UNIX interface.

GNU and Linux together make up a complete OS. GNU is a collection of programs, utilities, and libraries (notably the C library) which exist on the userspace. Linux is the kernel which is the part of the OS that communicates between hardware and software, performs scheduling, handles threads, etc. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on this point.

A distro is just like a specialized set of tools that are maintained by a company or contributors. The main thing distros offer is the package manager and the repositories where those packages are held and, usually, are guaranteed to work well when installed through the package manager. That's what usually sets most distros apart. Then there's additional details like window manager, desktop environment, stuff like that which distros ship with but in most cases those can be swapped out seamlessly.

Musl is a libc, so the name "musl/Linux" would be inaccurate. Ask the musl maintainer yourself.

okay, in the mean time ive started to do some research myself about this whole mess since this really started to interest me and now it kinda make sense. no the only thing remained is you try to explain to me whats the different between an actual OS and a kernel

For that one should be able to apply that principle to everything. From now on we should refer to OS X as XNU and Windows as NT.

where the fuck do you all get that "linux is not an OS" bullshit from ?
see an OS provides abstraction, manages resources and provides an interface. and since linux does all of that, it's an operating system.

No, what's incorrect is stopping at GNU when there are many other projects that also have software that make up distros. Giving GNU credit without giving credit to Red Hat, Freedesktop.org, etc. We should either stop at Linux, the one common trait between them all, or give full credit to all and call it GNU/Freedesktop/Red Hat/etc./Linux

No, because OS X has been named OS X and Windows has been named Windows. Quit being a fucking dumbass.

Think of a kernel as the layer between applications and the hardware. It translates program code to electrical pulses in the hardware so each application have to deal directly with the hardware.

Obviously very simplified explanation but it'll get the point across.

>it should be like X in this specific case
>and for similarly arbitrary reasons (my feelings) it is Y in all other cases.

okay, i wrote my post before i read yours, so basically, as i understand an OS, an operation system is just an abstraction which consist of many different functional entites such as a boot loader, the kernel which is kinda the rock bottom of the whole thing, like what i understand from here and a window manager, a desktop enviroment, where grafical interface firstly (?) appear and what the common user use to deal with the computer. is this somehow correct?

>gentoo
>bullshit
kys user

GNU

More or less.