PDA

View Full Version : I'm writing a paper on the advantages of OSS vs CSS...



Jiraiya_sama
November 9th, 2006, 01:16 PM
I'm having a bit of trouble on the history of Linus Torvalds and the creation of linux. Could you guys help out a bit? Here is the paragraph:
Finally, Linux isn't a program per se, but rather an operating system. Regardless, it is one of the biggest open source projects there is, so logically it needs to be mentioned. In 1991, Unix was used for servers and in universities for instruction. Linus Torvalds, a student at the Univerity of Helenski, received a version of this OS called Minix. He liked it very much, but it wasn't as powerful as a full blown Unix OS, and it wasn't very portable. He solved this problem by writing a Unix Emulator using Minix, which he then dubbed Linux. Years later in 2006, Linux is now the second most popular Server OS* and rapidly gaining on the most popular, Windows 2000, due to most Unix servers (the old first place) being converted to Linux. Linux is a shining example of the power of the open source development method.

any innaccuracies in that statement?

23meg
November 9th, 2006, 01:28 PM
Finally, Linux isn't a program per se, but rather an operating system.It's not an operating system per se, but rather a kernel.
He solved this problem by writing a Unix Emulator using Minix, which he then dubbed Linux.Rather, he was using Minix which wasn't openly extendible and he wrote an open replacement for it and made it available with a non-restrictive license.

Jiraiya_sama
November 9th, 2006, 01:50 PM
It's not an operating system per se, but rather a kernel.

That's getting a bit too technical. Since my target audience is people who don't know much about open source software, I would have to explain what a kernel is, then explain how it relates to the distributions I'm describing and the various other pieces of software that comes to make the typical distro, which would overcomplicate my paper and make it over 15 pages long. I'll leave it as being called an OS for now.

As for the other thing, I've altered the paragraph, how does it look.


Finally, Linux isn't a program per se, but rather an operating system. Regardless, it is one of the biggest open source projects there is, so logically it needs to be mentioned. In 1991, Unix was used for servers and in universities for instruction. Linus Torvalds, a student at the Univerity of Helenski, received a version of this OS called Minix. He liked it very much, but it wasn't as powerful as a full blown Unix OS, and it wasn't easily developed for, because of the restrictive licence it was distributed with. He solved this problem by writing a Unix Emulator using Minix, which he then dubbed Linux. Years later in 2006, Linux is now the second most popular Server OS* and rapidly gaining on the most popular, Windows 2000, due to most Unix servers (the old first place) being converted to Linux. Linux is a shining example of the power of the open source development method.

SunnyRabbiera
November 9th, 2006, 02:20 PM
Well there are some proprietary/ closed softwares that are pretty good though.
I like Opera's web browser, and personally like it more then firefox.

DoctorMO
November 9th, 2006, 02:24 PM
It's not an operating system (OS) and to call it such isn't just misleading it's just plain wrong. It's a Kernel, software that directly interacts with the hardware in a computer.

I don't care for your writing, it's too broken up and doesn't make a lot of sense; as if important parts have been edited out or chunks have been copied and pasted.

It's more proper to talk about the Begining of Linux in relation to GNU and Richard Stallman, mostly because it makes more sense in why things where done. The Linux kernel was only an addition later on to the GNU operating system (now you know why RMS gets upset when people call GNU, Linux)

Jiraiya_sama
November 9th, 2006, 02:57 PM
It's not an operating system (OS) and to call it such isn't just misleading it's just plain wrong. It's a Kernel, software that directly interacts with the hardware in a computer.

Again, I am writing an argument paper about the advantages of open source vs closed source. The target audience of this paper are people who don't know much about open source and its advantages. As such, calling linux a kernel would require me write out far too much backstory for what is supposed to be a 7 page paper (its 8 pages already and far from done).


I don't care for your writing, it's too broken up and doesn't make a lot of sense; as if important parts have been edited out or chunks have been copied and pasted.

That would be because this is a rough draft.


It's more proper to talk about the Begining of Linux in relation to GNU and Richard Stallman, mostly because it makes more sense in why things where done. The Linux kernel was only an addition later on to the GNU operating system (now you know why RMS gets upset when people call GNU, Linux)

That would be fine for a historical paper, not for an argument paper. It veers to far off of what I'm supposed to be talking about, which again, is the advantages of open source compared to closed source.

DoctorMO
November 9th, 2006, 03:12 PM
Then I wouldn't talk about the begining of the the Linux 'operating system' because it'll be misleading to scope it as such.

Luggy
November 9th, 2006, 03:26 PM
Again, I am writing an argument paper about the advantages of open source vs closed source. The target audience of this paper are people who don't know much about open source and its advantages. As such, calling linux a kernel would require me write out far too much backstory for what is supposed to be a 7 page paper (its 8 pages already and far from done).

Why not just call it GNU Linux. You can explain that the kernel in very simple terms such as "The kernel is the core of the operating system and gives guidelines for how the CPU is supposed to operate. An operating system can't contain just a kernel though, it also requires programs and that's what the GNU team contributed to".

If you are going to write a paper on Open Source Software ( and Cascaded Style Sheets? ) you best included some history and background about the subject and that's the perfect place for talking about the kernel.

If you want more ideas download and watch the movie Revolution OS. They talk about the creation of Linux and the kernel in a nice layman way.

Jiraiya_sama
November 9th, 2006, 03:56 PM
Why not just call it GNU Linux. Ok I will.


If you are going to write a paper on Open Source Software ( and Cascaded Style Sheets? ) you best included some history and background about the subject and that's the perfect place for talking about the kernel.


I would, but my teacher would mark me off for lack of focus for much more than I have now.


Finally, GNU/Linux isn't a program per se, but rather an operating system. Regardless, it is one of the biggest open source projects there is, so logically it needs to be mentioned. GNU/Linux has a long history, dating back to 1991,when Unix was used for servers and in universities for instruction. Linus Torvalds, a student at the Univerity of Helenski, received a version of Unix called Minix. He liked it very much, but it wasn't as powerful as a full blown Unix OS, and it wasn't easily developed for, because of the restrictive license1 it was distributed with. He solved this problem by writing a Unix Emulator using Minix, which he then dubbed Linux. Years later in 2006, GNU/Linux is now the second most popular Server OS* and rapidly gaining on the most popular, Windows 2000, due to most Unix servers (the old first place) being converted to GNU/Linux. This makes GNU/Linux a shining example of the power of the open source development method.

Christmas
November 9th, 2006, 04:30 PM
I guess that it's indeed wrong to call it an "OS". Just say something like "it's not a program per se, but the most important component of the operating system". It sounds better I think. You can also mention briefly that it's a term that is used by some people to talk generically about any operating system which is based on Linux. To call it "an operating system" is wrong, no matter which audience you are reading it to.

Virogenesis
November 9th, 2006, 04:40 PM
a better example would be using firefox, out of all the browsers it supports the most and you could mention the adobe deal which has been confirmed earlier this week.

Not only that but IBM have been known to be doing deals with the mozilla foundatio.
Firefox was also written from the ground up, netscape did release navigator as opensource but it was said to be so badly done, that phoenix came about its taken firefox 3 years to get where it is and its taken 5 years for Ie.

bonzodog
November 9th, 2006, 06:32 PM
hrm..I would argue with the fact of it being the second most popular server OS...I think it is now THE most popular OS on servers. I believe I saw a figure of 75% install base for servers the other day.
Cannot remember where though.

chickengirl
November 9th, 2006, 06:53 PM
He liked it very much, but it wasn't as powerful as a full blown Unix OS, and it wasn't easily developed for, because of the restrictive license1 it was distributed with. He solved this problem by writing a Unix Emulator using Minix, which he then dubbed Linux.

Fun fact: He originally wanted to call it "Freax", but the fellow who was hosting it for him said, "Eh, not so much..." and called it "Linux" instead, and the name stuck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds#The_Linus.2FLinux_connection

23meg
November 10th, 2006, 12:56 AM
He solved this problem by writing a Unix Emulator using Minix, which he then dubbed LinuxThis is again not accurate. Linux wasn't an emulator, it was a kernel, no more and no less. Even if you aren't willing to say "kernel", you still shouldn't be saying "emulator" either.