Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 19th Aug 2013 17:27 UTC
Linux Steve Cheney:

There's more to the platform wars than mobile - Android is starting to take off in non-mobile markets in a massive way - Internet of Things, Television (Chromecast), etc. To date Linux has been the dominant OS but Android is now taking some embedded designs which would have run Linux. The effective decoupling of Android from carriers for non-mobile markets + the richness of tools and the existing developer ecosystem will likely cement Android as the definitive open source OS of the next decade. This will have pluses for Google but also unintended consequences.

A common misconception among people who don't really understand what Linux is - one that I'm seeing pop up more and more now that people are trying to paint Android in a negative light - i.e., as competition to not just iOS, but also the noble and open source Linux.

Repeat after me: Android is just as much 'Linux' as Ubuntu, Debian, Red Hat, or anything else that uses the Linux kernel. Technically, a better term would be 'Linux distribution', since Linux in and of itself is just a kernel. Wikipedia defines 'Linux distribution' quite well:

A Linux distribution (often called distro for short) is a member of the family of Unix-like operating systems built on top of the Linux kernel. Such distributions are operating systems including a large collection of software applications such as word processors, spreadsheets, media players, and database applications. These operating systems consist of the Linux kernel and, usually, a set of libraries and utilities from the GNU Project, with graphics support from the X Window System. Distributions optimized for size may not contain X and tend to use more compact alternatives to the GNU utilities, such as BusyBox, uClibc, or dietlibc.

Android is a Linux distribution, and is an addition to the Linux ecosystem - not a challenger. Painting it as such is just a sign of ignorance.

Thread beginning with comment 570122
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by drcouzelis
by intangible on Tue 20th Aug 2013 01:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by drcouzelis"
Member since:

I've actually been secretly hoping Ubuntu would adopt Gobo's file-system at some point...

It makes a lot more sense than the super-legacy filesystem we have from when it made sense to have /usr/bin and /bin separate, etc.
Not to mention how much better it works if you want to install multiple versions of the same application or library.

As for abandoning apt-get... I really wish they wouldn't... Without it, Ubuntu goes down the road to madness that a lot of other Linux distros do (except for Debian and Debian-derived distros).

Reply Parent Score: 2

UltraZelda64 Member since:

It makes a lot more sense than the super-legacy filesystem we have from when it made sense to have /usr/bin and /bin separate, etc.
Not to mention how much better it works if you want to install multiple versions of the same application or library.

I don't know... I think the FHS works pretty well. It could be cleaned up a bit maybe, and I think that is being done.

Haven't some distros already started merging /bin and /usr/bin using various compatibility tweaks such as symlinking every file from one into the other? I'm on openSUSE and it seems that everything in /bin is a symbolic link, and I'm pretty sure I read that other major distributions including Fedora and Ubuntu are doing it (and probably already have, it's been a while). And a few more distros that I can't remember.

I think it's a good step to make, although I personally would prefer /bin to be the standard, simply because it's fewer keystrokes... LOL. Plus more seriously, it's simpler--and IMO that's one of the best traits of UNIX... its simplicity and the elegance that results from it.

Reply Parent Score: 4

UltraZelda64 Member since:

Hmmm... I found an interesting topic on the FreeBSD forums on this subject:

They bring up a good point; since Linux doesn't have a sharp distinction between "base system" and "third-party" packages like the BSDs do, in Linux it really doesn't make much sense to have both directories. On the one hand, putting everything in /usr/bin does make more sense as it cleans up the / directory and makes it smaller... but the problem I can imagine would be if /usr is not mounted. This might cause some new problems when /usr is put on its own partition, to make the / partition smaller.

Anyway, apparently Fedora, openSUSE and Ubuntu have already done it, Arch Linux was considering it (don't know if they officially did), and I'm not sure about Debian. I don't currently have a separate /usr partition, but I have at one point and I do like the idea of making / smaller. So, if this can be done without causing problems with installations using a separate /usr partition, count me in as part of the crowd that is in favor of the /usr/bin directory.

I do believe that this consolidation should stay far, far away from the BSDs though... their distinct separation of base and third-party would be eliminated if this same thing were to be done there.

Edited 2013-08-21 06:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[7]: Comment by drcouzelis
by woegjiub on Wed 21st Aug 2013 22:08 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by drcouzelis"
woegjiub Member since:

With arch, /bin, /sbin and /usr/sbin are all symlinks to /usr/bin.
/lib and /lib64 are symlinks to /usr/lib as well.

It works just as perfectly well as it did before the shift.

Reply Parent Score: 3