What does /g/ think of Redox OS?

>>58767508
absolutely haram

>>58767508
>written in rust.

Well if it's that oxidized we might as well toss it in the bin.

>>58767508
it use B2G kernel?

>>58767508
>Redox
Isn't it that nigger shit that made all file trees "URLs" or some shit?

Why can't a group just focus on one Open Sores OS and make it good instead of making another OS that will never be good

Rust was not made for your freedom. Because it advocates the confusing and ignorant term of 'Open Source', you must reject contributing to this operating system.

TrueGNU~
>Skype-- No way! That's proprietary!

>>58767508
>screenshot larger than resolution
wut

>>58767508
>OS written in rust
Can it even compile itself?

File: 1471547095783.jpg (61KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 480x640px

>>58767508
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.

>>58767508
Development is too slow but I still applaud the effort and they're already at a pseudo-usable stage. I honestly hope this can replace linux once in a decade.

>>58767987
Two reasons:
1- you can't just remove cruft.
2- your idea of good is not the same as someone else's.

>>58767508
>written in rust
>alternative to linux

Wew lad!

>>58769955
not an argument, paid shill.

>>58768286
what are virtual machines

>no iso
>no source
Looks leddit.

>>58770186
>no source
>source right on front page
rly mks u tk

Does it display alternative facts?

>Redox OS
More like Reddit OS

>>58767508
>2017
>Microkernals
wut?

>>58767508
>Writter in rust
nice meme.

>>58767987

>>>/BSD/

>>58769971
>implying people get paid to shill for linux
at least you tried

>>58771900
Reddit hates Rust though.

>>58772353
BSD has no drivers!

File: LinuxCon_Europe_Linus_Torvalds_05.jpg (3MB, 2346x2346px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2346x2346px

>>58769732
No, Richard, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.

Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.

One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you?

(An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.

File: linus-eff-you-640x363.png (213KB, 640x359px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 640x359px

>>58772436
Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.

You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument.

Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD?

File: linus-torvalds-says-people-who-believe-in-an-ai-singularity-are-on-drugs-486373-2.jpg (21KB, 618x361px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 618x361px

>>58772447
If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this:

Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag.

Thanks for listening.

Wasn't Redox just supposed to be some hobby project?

>>58772436
No matter how you slice it, the fact is that most who run the Linux "operating system" on personal computers combine it with GNU utilities, and the "operating system" would not be usable without those utilities. Certainly, they could be replaced with non-GNU utilities, but then they'd merely be running "HNG/Linux" (HNG = HNG's Not GNU!) or some such thing, rather than "GNU/Linux". So regardless of whether Linux, the kernel, by itself meets the definition of a complete operating system - the operating system most PC Linux users use incorporates GNU software, and to these users, that GNU software is a fundamental part of the operating system. If you were to remove all GNU software from these OS distributions, without providing an adequate replacement, the result may still qualify as an operating system, but it wouldn't be one that the average GNU/Linux user considers usable. And that is what "operating system" means in casual conversation, regardless of its technical definition. To most users, if something can boot and control hardware, but not provide some sort of practical user interface, it's not really an "operating system". So while the term "Linux operating system" may be correct, "GNU/Linux operating system" is MORE correct when you're referring to the most common distributions of Linux-based operating systems for personal computers.

>>58767508
>it's another distro with a random DE episode