Question about Unix, GNU, and open source
Hi, I was just reading the Wikipedia article on Windows vs. Linux, when I came across this one particular part in the next-to-last paragraph:
Now, that particular part which I highlighted for specifics had me thinking: is it really necessary anymore to have an open-source OS that is based on Unix?
I mean, think about it: the Unix-like (POSIX) approach to computer operation has enjoyed a revival in the forms of GNU/Linux, OpenSolaris, Mac OS X, and the BSD family, as a result of the open-source approach to development. That, of course, is awesome, and great things should continue to result out of this revival, but as the article goes, Unix (and, I guess, Unix-like) is primarily centered around the same mantra that has long been the slogan for Sun Microsystems: "The network is the computer".
On the other hand, there's DOS, upon which Microsoft's Windows OS platform is ultimately based. It was, and, to and extent, still is, centered upon the single-user approach. Thus, as a result, it has long been good as a home computer, but bad as a network computer (or server, for that matter; hence, the fact that IRC channels will not allow for hosts to use Windows, from an article that I read on Wikipedia on IRC daemons).
Now, looking at GNU/Linux, which has become the premiere example of open source development, I'm trying to wonder if the calls for a desktop Linux are really worth the advocacy. Considering that Unix was intended as a network/server OS platform, and also considering that GNU/Linux is Unix-like, why is it that the advocates of GNU/Linux are trying to put it inside the home, in which there is usually just one PC that the average family can afford?
I mean, don't get me wrong, I like anything that is FOSS, and would advocate such software if I know that it could work out for the best interest of the end user (and it should). But the only way that they'll get an open-source OS into the home of the "average Joe" en masse is if it would make sense to him (and him alone, at the least) to use it on a daily basis.
Meanwhile, with Linux and its ever-growing plethora of distributions, the first thing that you'll be hit with after installation is a login/password request. Now....why would that be necessary if I'm the only person in the house who uses this computer?
Maybe a rewrite of the GNU operating platform that is made for single-user (not multi-user) usage should be done? That's what I'd do if I knew code....
Anyway, just asking a few questions. Thanks.
Linux users attribute this immunity to the UNIX-like permissions and better security built into the filesystem and kernel, since a malicious program run by a user can only remove his or her files but can not damage the system. (The popularity of the Apache web server, which runs approximately two thirds of the web and yet is subject to less intrusion than Microsoft's web server IIS, is often cited as a contradiction of the theory that popularity diminishes security)[1]. This is because GNU was modeled after UNIX, which is a multi-user server operating system, as opposed to Windows, which has its origins in single-user DOS. Linux is already known as the "OS for networking" while Windows is known as the "OS for everything". Linux does not use the file extension to determine if the file should be executed but instead uses a file system execute bit, which cannot be set by the file's original source; this provides added protection for wetware exploits (tricking the user into running programs).
Now, that particular part which I highlighted for specifics had me thinking: is it really necessary anymore to have an open-source OS that is based on Unix?
I mean, think about it: the Unix-like (POSIX) approach to computer operation has enjoyed a revival in the forms of GNU/Linux, OpenSolaris, Mac OS X, and the BSD family, as a result of the open-source approach to development. That, of course, is awesome, and great things should continue to result out of this revival, but as the article goes, Unix (and, I guess, Unix-like) is primarily centered around the same mantra that has long been the slogan for Sun Microsystems: "The network is the computer".
On the other hand, there's DOS, upon which Microsoft's Windows OS platform is ultimately based. It was, and, to and extent, still is, centered upon the single-user approach. Thus, as a result, it has long been good as a home computer, but bad as a network computer (or server, for that matter; hence, the fact that IRC channels will not allow for hosts to use Windows, from an article that I read on Wikipedia on IRC daemons).
Now, looking at GNU/Linux, which has become the premiere example of open source development, I'm trying to wonder if the calls for a desktop Linux are really worth the advocacy. Considering that Unix was intended as a network/server OS platform, and also considering that GNU/Linux is Unix-like, why is it that the advocates of GNU/Linux are trying to put it inside the home, in which there is usually just one PC that the average family can afford?
I mean, don't get me wrong, I like anything that is FOSS, and would advocate such software if I know that it could work out for the best interest of the end user (and it should). But the only way that they'll get an open-source OS into the home of the "average Joe" en masse is if it would make sense to him (and him alone, at the least) to use it on a daily basis.
Meanwhile, with Linux and its ever-growing plethora of distributions, the first thing that you'll be hit with after installation is a login/password request. Now....why would that be necessary if I'm the only person in the house who uses this computer?
Maybe a rewrite of the GNU operating platform that is made for single-user (not multi-user) usage should be done? That's what I'd do if I knew code....
Anyway, just asking a few questions. Thanks.
