GNU/Linux - what did it look like?

[u-noob-tu]

When GNU/Linux was first made, what did it look like? I know it was made in 1991 (GNU/Linux, not GNU), so does that mean it was like a unix shell? Was it command line only and no GUI? I was only a year old when all this stuff happened so I don't remember a thing (plus I've only been using Linux for 6 months). Also what was the first GUI interface for GNU/Linux? I know KDE has been around for awhile. I'm just curious about how Linux (and computers in general) got to where they are today.

[Cam!]

I'd imagine it would've been using a command line interface.

[Spice Weasel]

The kernel was released in 1991.

What you must remember is that all these GUIs run on the X Window System. Which means they are compatible with UNIX, Solaris, BSD, GNU, and GNU/Linux.

To give you a general idea of UNIX GUI history:

1969:

CLI

http://cdn.cbsi.com.au/builder/i/s/unix_backup_james_1.jpg

1987:

twm

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Twm-screenshot-20050401.png

1989:

OpenWindows

http://i.imgur.com/rJ6eB.png

1993:

CDE

http://i.imgur.com/EBONP.png

1995:

FVWM-95

http://toastytech.com/guis/xstart.gif

1998:

KDE 1. Pre-GNOME.

http://i.imgur.com/cfrRn.jpg

[skierkyles]

http://toastytech.com/guis/xstart.gif

1993:


Am I the only one who is a tad bit nostalgic for the Windows 95ish era of computers?

They just looked nice, in a strange sort of way.

[szymon_g]

hm... i always wonder why people uses that name "GNU/Linux" instead of simply Linux? up to last september /or was it august?/ even glibc wasn't entirely "free". not to mention, that without software that is/was licensed under other type of licenses, quite often written for other unix-likes /sunos, freebsd etc/ in mind, it was /and, frankly speaking, still is/ quite useless.. so why not GNU/Apache/Berkeley/place_any_license_here/Linux :?

[u-noob-tu]

Wow, that's incredible. It's amazing how far we've come. It's the same way with cars. It's fascinating.

[szymon_g]

i wouldn't be so excited.
X11, was designed in 1987- sure, it's being developed, but still you cannot change anything "deep" without kind of breaking everything
look on apple- they could use xfree86 /xorg predecessor/, but they preferred to create their own "graphic solution". hopefully, wayland will make things better.
so no- being fascinated about the evolution of graphic mechanisms in linux isn't- imo of course- rational (but of course do whatever you like!)

[Seq]

Am I the only one who is a tad bit nostalgic for the Windows 95ish era of computers?

Yes. yes you are.

Now if we were talking about Windowmaker...

[jethro_tell]

Thanks Spice Weasel. That's pretty cool to see.

[Lucradia]

Yes. yes you are.

Now if we were talking about Windowmaker...

I love Windows classic.

[lykwydchykyn]

Am I the only one who is a tad bit nostalgic for the Windows 95ish era of computers?

The just looked nice, in a strange sort of way.

fvwm, icewm, jwm, afterstep, windowmaker -- the 90's look is just a tantalizing apt-get away!

Give in to your nostalgia...

[samalex]

Check out http://xwinman.org/ for a list of different Windows Managers and many of the secondary links will have screenshots. Some of these systems are very nostalgic for folks who've ran Linux or even Unix since the 90's and earlier.

I don't even remember what WM I ran on my first install of Linux I spent most time in Shell. I think KDE was my first love with Linux GUI but I eventually moved to Gnome and will probably jump to Xfce on my next reload.

[MBybee]

The biggest issue in the early linux releases was configuring X to run at all - scanlines/modes and that enormous Q&A for xconfig were my nemesis :D

Then it was sound. Getting sound to work at all was a nightmare - and we finally got to hear Linus pronounce Linux

Then it was Mesa/3D (which persists until now).

Still - I run WM on some machines to this day (since I used to admin IRIX, it is something I still like to use), but CDE was a very dark period for X :D

[u-noob-tu]

i would love to have been a programmer during the late 80's/early 90's. That was a time when standards were being set, every idea was new, and there was real innovation in computing. maybe its time for a second revolution.

[earthpigg]

The kernel was released in 1991.

What you must remember is that all these GUIs run on the X Window System. Which means they are compatible with UNIX, Solaris, BSD, GNU, and GNU/Linux.

To give you a general idea of UNIX GUI history:

1969:

CLI

http://cdn.cbsi.com.au/builder/i/s/unix_backup_james_1.jpg

(...snip...)


A post so nice I blogged about it (http://ctmason.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/history-of-unix-user-interfaces-1969-to-1998/). :)

EDIT: if you have any objections to the public recognition, Spice Weasel, let me know how you would like me to sanitize the post and I will do so immediately.

[ssam]

the very early linux distros did not include X http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCC_Interim_Linux

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux it looks like it might have taken until 1994 to get X running.

[Spice Weasel]

A post so nice I blogged about it (http://ctmason.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/history-of-unix-user-interfaces-1969-to-1998/). :)

EDIT: if you have any objections to the public recognition, Spice Weasel, let me know how you would like me to sanitize the post and I will do so immediately.

Thanks. No objections. I'll just replace the bad OpenWindows screenshot. :P

It's threads like this that keep me turning up here, despite all of the Unity vs GNOME, Windows Sucks, Ubuntu is going downhill and Dell sucks threads

Edit: Now I have to do one comparing DOS GUIs at the time with UNIX GUIs...

[alaukikyo]

hm... i always wonder why people uses that name "GNU/Linux" instead of simply Linux? up to last september /or was it august?/ even glibc wasn't entirely "free". not to mention, that without software that is/was licensed under other type of licenses, quite often written for other unix-likes /sunos, freebsd etc/ in mind, it was /and, frankly speaking, still is/ quite useless.. so why not GNU/Apache/Berkeley/place_any_license_here/Linux :?

because linux is only the kernel!
you cannot do ANYTHING with a kernel alone. GNU had a goal of a free operating system much before linus created linux,only a kernel was missing for a complete OS and linux filled that void and so it should be called GNU/Linux .

see this(http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html)

[u-noob-tu]

because linux is only the kernel!
you cannot do ANYTHING with a kernel alone. GNU had a goal of a free operating system much before linus created linux,only a kernel was missing for a complete OS and linux filled that void and so it should be called GNU/Linux .

see this(http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html)

and if you wanna be really specific, its pronounced "GNU 'slash' Linux" meaning you say the word "slash". Ive heard richard stallman is very adamant about that.

and one more thing: if Linux is only the kernel, and GNU is the OS, why don't we call it "Ubuntu GNU", instead of "Ubuntu Linux"?

[alaukikyo]

and if you wanna be really specific, its pronounced "GNU 'slash' Linux" meaning you say the word "slash". Ive heard richard stallman is very adamant about that.

and one more thing: if Linux is only the kernel, and GNU is the OS, why don't we call it "Ubuntu GNU", instead of "Ubuntu Linux"?
i wrote GNU/Linux

we don't call it Ubuntu GNU because GNU was a project to make a fully free operating system all parts except the kernel were complete the kernel gnu hurd was in development (still not completed) in 1991 linus created linux and GNU utilities were started to be used with linux so GNU/Linux is the most appropriate name.

[CraigPaleo]

Funny how KDE started out with dual panels and GNOME with a single panel. Does anyone know what inspired them to switch their default panel settings? Just curious.

[alaukikyo]

Funny how KDE started out with dual panels and GNOME with a single panel. Does anyone know what inspired them to switch their default panel settings? Just curious.

gnome does not have two panels anymore.

[CraigPaleo]

gnome does not have two panels anymore.

I know but that doesn't answer my question. When they first started out, KDE had two and GNOME had 1. Then they switched. I'm curious to know what the reasons were for the switch.

[Spice Weasel]

I know but that doesn't answer my question. When they first started out, KDE had two and GNOME had 1. Then they switched. I'm curious to know what the reasons were for the switch.

GNOME 1 looked a lot like KDE 1's development version with one panel. I guess they decided to base it upon the development version of KDE.

[youbuntu]

Wow, that's incredible. It's amazing how far we've come. It's the same way with cars. It's fascinating.

Cars? :?

I'd hardly say cars have evolved much at all. The only things that have evolved are the MCUs, bluetooth sound systems, ABS and construction techniques (materials used etc)... but that isn't engine evolution, and they still pollute the planet, and suck your bank balance dry. They still use the extremely primitive system of setting light to fuel vapour with a spark, the deflagration of which pushes a piston out of a cylinder - I'd hardly call any of that "hi tech", sorry.

I have to say that Linux & cars are incomparable, totally.

As advanced as we think we have become, we're still bleeding the planet dry; we're still digging coal out of the ground, and burning it (highly inefficiently) to produce the power. That's not hi tech.

Sorry, went off-topic - personally my favourites are E16/E17 and WindowMaker :)

[KiwiNZ]

Cars? :?

I'd hardly say cars have evolved much at all. The only things that have evolved are the MCUs, bluetooth sound systems, ABS and construction techniques (materials used etc)... but that isn't engine evolution, and they still pollute the planet, and suck your bank balance dry. They still use the extremely primitive system of setting light to fuel vapour with a spark, the deflagration of which pushes a piston out of a cylinder - I'd hardly call any of that "hi tech", sorry.

I have to say that Linux & cars are incomparable, totally.

As advanced as we think we have become, we're still bleeding the planet dry; we're still digging coal out of the ground, and burning it (highly inefficiently) to produce the power. That's not hi tech.

Sorry, went off-topic - personally my favourites are E16/E17 and WindowMaker :)

Yep a modern Hybrid or McLaren is the same as a Model T Ford ;)

I agree about the Coal, we should be building more Nuclear Power Stations and leaving the fossil
fuels alone.

[MBybee]

i would love to have been a programmer during the late 80's/early 90's. That was a time when standards were being set, every idea was new, and there was real innovation in computing. maybe its time for a second revolution.

I was a coder and sysadmin in the 90s (and in school learning that stuff in the 80s) - it was more than a little frustrating.

Great example was the 8086/286/386/486/Pentium progression. I was on the wrong end of it initially, believing that RISC would win (so I had largely DEC, Sun, and SGI dev/admin experience). It was really amazing to work with new tech coming out like computer-driven cameras, OpenGL, GLUT, optical mice, MO storage (NeXT was SO cool)... but it was really a pain when you tried to move any of those skills across to the nascent but faster selling world of x86. Tons of libraries that you took for granted either didn't exist or didn't work. PCs still didn't think IP was a good idea (Trumpet WinSock, anyone?), and Apple had the strangest graphics paradigms (if you could even afford the dev tools).

I eventually retreated to sysadmin and DBA because databases had a lot more consistency across the landscape, and RDBMS was cool as heck.

[Jesus_Valdez]

I remember using Corel Linux and I remember that it look fairy standard.

[giddyup306]

Cars? :?

I'd hardly say cars have evolved much at all. The only things that have evolved are the MCUs, bluetooth sound systems, ABS and construction techniques (materials used etc)... but that isn't engine evolution, and they still pollute the planet, and suck your bank balance dry. They still use the extremely primitive system of setting light to fuel vapour with a spark, the deflagration of which pushes a piston out of a cylinder - I'd hardly call any of that "hi tech", sorry.



Just goes to show how much you don't know about cars. I've been a driveability tech, and I have almost 10 years of experience. You're forgetting all the nodes in the system. The PCM/PATS/RAB/GEM/BCM. I can't even think of half of the computers off the top of my head that might be in a production Ford vehicle. I'm only talking about Ford, not generic OBDII terms. Even a lot of Fords have a separate fuel pump delivery module.


Now that's the electronics.... We've come a long way as far as engine design come as well. Low tension rings, better oils, more precise fuel monitoring... Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean you should say it hasn't changed.

What do you want to see as change? A square piston???

[muoitom.com]

Thanks, that's good topic, i like this topic, Ubuntu and Win a wild look quite similar:guitar:I like version Ubuntu 10.04, try some times with kubuntu or xbuntu, but don't use it.





The kernel was released in 1991.

What you must remember is that all these GUIs run on the X Window System. Which means they are compatible with UNIX, Solaris, BSD, GNU, and GNU/Linux.

To give you a general idea of UNIX GUI history:

1969:

CLI

http://cdn.cbsi.com.au/builder/i/s/unix_backup_james_1.jpg

1987:

twm

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Twm-screenshot-20050401.png

1989:

OpenWindows

http://i.imgur.com/rJ6eB.png

1993:

CDE

http://i.imgur.com/EBONP.png

1995:

FVWM-95

http://toastytech.com/guis/xstart.gif

1998:

KDE 1. Pre-GNOME.

http://i.imgur.com/cfrRn.jpg