A website isn't going to make my CPU communicate with my PCIe bus
this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023
24 points (80.0% liked)
Linux
48008 readers
931 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Of course, without an operating system, all you have is hardware and other devices. But I meant for the casual desktop user, this does not really matter for them I don't think. I'm sorry, I forgot to put it in the question. Obviously operating systems must exist, I get that, but I mean that for a desktop user, who treats their computers as bootloaders to the browser, so to speak, will different operating systems be relevant for them, i.e. the majority of users?
To put it simply, no.
It's really exemplified by Chrome OS users, that is pretty much a browser bootloader, sure there's more to it than that, but the majority of users isn't going to even find out about crostini and whatnot, because if they can get all the applications they need on the browser then they're good to go.
So, as long as the browser is able to tap into the hardware in a performant enough way to enable all the kinds of applications that were once thought to be native only, the potential for the browser to replace all other apps is there.
For those who care about the technicalities there will always be value in choosing an OS with specific features though
True that. I think because for me, as a casual user, yes I use Linux, but I only use it basically for browsing, media consumption (songs, movies), writing down notes, simple office suite, some light gaming, and that's pretty much it. Sure there's the direction that Linux applications are run in containers like Flatpaks, but I can also imagine the direction of almost everything running on a browser engine since it's cross-platform. Whether I choose Debian or Fedora or Arch or MacOS or HaikuOS or whatever - I don't think there's gonna be any significant difference between them.
Keep in mind, I'm talking from the perspective of a filthy casual. More technical/philosophical-minded people may have different approaches in their computing altogether.
I guess we'll have to forgive you for not understanding the purpose of the operating system, but that's basically the fundamental system software and drivers that make it possible for the system to even work in the first place.
All apps/programs require an operating system to run on and communicate with.
Go ahead, format your drive and install only your favorite web app. It won't start. Web apps aren't designed to start the system, that's what the operating system does.
I think I understand the purpose of an operating system, but I meant for the casual desktop user. I'm sorry, I forgot to put it in the question. Obviously operating systems must exist, otherwise you'll only have the hardware. I get that, but I mean that for a desktop user, who treats their computers as bootloaders to the browser, so to speak, will different operating systems be relevant for them, i.e. the majority of users?
Until my browser does all things as well as an native app does, yes.
If I may ask, what native apps that you use that are not available as web-based applications yet?
Not OP, but “not available” is pretty different from “works as well as”
My native PDF viewer, document/text editor, music player, and email client all work significantly better than any web-based option I’ve found, for example
If you can do every single thing that you mentioned either online or offline but with the browser (or browser engine based applications), would you?
If the browser engine can be optimized enough, sure. It’s just nowhere near close at the moment
A (semi-)joke video called “The Birth and Death of JavaScript” envisions a future where JavaScript gets pulled down into the kernel.
I’m not entirely convinced it’s possible, but if we find a way to make it as efficient while also keeping security and privacy concerns met, I don’t care that much what language I’m using
https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death-of-javascript
I have been in IT for 30 years. This has been a recurring theme for at least 20 of those years. It has gone by different names but the idea hasn’t changed. Web technology has come a long way but there are too many developers still writing traditional apps to kill the OS completely. While new greenfield apps may be web first, most of the corporate world is running on legacy apps that are tied to the OS.
Still requires some sort of background software to render the pixels of the text, decode the video and audio, etc.
Web apps don't come with all that, they call on the operating system to do those things.
Of course, but my thinking is sort of that for example, when it comes to Linux distros, there's no longer any meaningful difference even between Ubuntu or Fedora or Arch for casual users; since applications now tend to be containerised or be web-based. Distro choice may not relevant afterwards.
Distro choice doesn't actually matter in any regard other than convenience, you can make any distro into any other distro by simply changing packages and modifying configs, the kernel is what matters.
Obligatory: containerisation is bloat, electron is bloat.
the kernel is what matters
Fundamentally, that's true. Of course the average user isn't going to think or probably even know what a kernel is, nor I'm unsure if they even have to.
containerisation is bloat, electron is bloat
I'm not a technical expert, but while containerisation is bloat, it's modularity is a plus, I think. Conceptually I like it.
one program I work with every day looks like it was first built for windows 95. IT so old we have to skip the Java update notification or else it will break the program.
Sheesh. But I guess the thinking is that if it works, then why change it, right?
So you don't see traditional native apps running on specific OSes or even cross-OSes as being obsolete for quite some time?
The part of the OS that you see is among the less important ones, hence headless machines are a thing and there are, to this day, people insisting to use terminals even in situations where it's stupid.
Most of the e.g. Windows hate does not come from their UI, but from horrible user experiences, technical faults or it violating one's privacy. It's true, most people don't really care about their OS as long as it O-s, but there are reasons to care and people who will.
I get that for servers, you'll run it headless. I forgot to mention that I'm referring to casual desktop users.
insisting to use terminals even in situations where it’s stupid
I mean I'm a novice at using the terminal, but what are situations where it's stupid to use it? I can think of many situations where having GUIs would objectively be better or necessary, like using specifically graphical software like video editing, but can you share with me the situations where it's stupid to use the terminal?
but there are reasons to care and people who will
I agree with you, that's why I stick with Linux (or GNU/Linux if you prefer). I'm talking about years into the future, where our paradigm of building software is using web applications, rather than traditional native applications. SaaS stuff. I don't know if OS choice will still be "relevant".
noob question, what's headless?
A computer without a screen. Most of the time a server is “headless” and you need to ssh to it rather than use it like your desktop
I'll differ from the rest just for the sake of argument: No, the operating system doesn't matter for the vast majority of computer users. Therefore, for most people, the OS is irrelevant. I don't think my mom knows that her phone is Android or iOS and to her, the computer is the browser. If the browser doesn't open when she turns on the computer, the computer's broken.
The operating system won't be going away. It's the low level bits that connect the applications to the hardware. When you have companies owning the top to bottom stack from the hardware to the user interface, like Apple, the operating system becomes invisible (or irrelevant) to the user. Case in point, what OS does your car run?
None, pure hardware stick-shift minimal abstraction. They will never be able to charge me a subscription for higher speeds, remote unlock or the seat warmers, and the best part is no telemetry.
Will you never purchase a car again?
I don't think the other manufacturers are going to do the same things that BMW and Tesla are trying.
Nah I'm going the other direction, if I ever need new transport the Amish near me have good deals on a used horse and buggy.
Haha, this is brilliant.
I hope to live in a place, one day, where I can get by without a car. Imagine being able to cycle everywhere!
So….it seems no one plays games here?
We had to specifically rent windows servers to host our game server instances and related services.
While there is the steam translation layer thing for running games on Linux, it doesn’t work with everything, especially more complicated cases.
Nah, they only play SuperTuxKart and 0 A.D. Okay I'm kidding, but yea, gaming is another section that needs attention if the Linux world wants to invite more people into it.
All the OSes running the web servers and client browsers:
"Are we a joke to you??"
This reminds me of a talk by Rob Pike that was made 23 years ago: https://doc.cat-v.org/bell_labs/utah2000/utah2000.html
This is interesting! Thanks for sharing!
Most applications will not be web based. Most services might but applications are sticking around. Just a little less than half the world still doesn't have access to reliable internet.
Interestingly enough I think you may have the right conclusions for the wrong reasoning. We are moving towards very capable languages that provide high level productivity and low level performance, improved modularity and perhaps a productivity boost from LLMs.
I think the question cannot be do we need an OS but rather what will a new OS look like. Fuchsia has been famously failing to break into any market but as Cybersecurity gets even more important will we see microkernels composed just for app dependencies be the norm?
Looking at the security improvements on mobile OS'es the next platform will be augmented reality with which security will be even more paramount. Your system may run a heterogeneous OS/program microkernel that's signed and trusted to prevent malicious actors. This promises that your vision and bio sensor functions remain safe.
I'd say yes OS's will be around but will become more lightweight, more performant, and more specialized for the apps that run on top of them.
So basically, the design of OSes in the future will be different? Maybe I don't know enough about microkernels and OSes.
Basically yes. Instead of shipping everything and the kitchen sink for driver support the kernel will be built specifically for what's needed and only that. Additionally only the kernel modules that are necessary will be included instead of optional when needed.
- Fuck electron, I will never use vscode unless I have no choice in the matter. Well, at least I can use vscodium. I don't want to run JS as an app on my machine, and I sincerely hope no FOSS apps on Linux do this either. Maybe I should switch to BSD some time soon.
- I don't care if random developers like developing for browsers. That would mean that I won't be using their products for the foreseeable future. Linux has all I need, I'm the kind who doesn't even start the DE on my machine half the time because I simply don't need it. Lynx ftw. And use buffers if you absolutely need a GUI for an application.
- I don't see a relevance to a lot of Linux distributions, but that's just my opinion. I think the developers of all of these different DEs should hop together, and create a distribution which will allow the user, preferably through a TUI, the choice to install whatever DE they like during install. This should, in theory, eradicate the distinct efforts to maintain Kubuntu, Xubuntu and everything else. Do the same thing for a Debian based distribution too, if someone feels like it.
- Some distributions are definitely essential. For example, the ones without SystemD. I was very disappointed when Debian and Arch switched to SystemD. I would like Antix, Void, Slackware, Gentoo and it's derivatives, and other such distributions to remain since they promote choice for the user. (Speaking of which, I would like to try Slackware with the unofficial package management solution as an alternative to using Debian - it fills me with nostalgia and I'll probably try it at some point).
That's what I think. All of these are but philosophical arguments, as are most arguments in this space related to freedom and rallying against SystemD and the big corporates.
Cheers