Running GNU/Windows Vista x64

[oddballz194]

I've been talking with Prometheum, and he's convinced me that GNU/Linux is the GNU OS (consisting of executables and libraries) on top of the Linux Kernel. Since Cygwin allows running almost all of those same executables and libraries on top of Windows, it is therefore Cygwin/Microsoft GNU/Windows (The GNU OS running on top of Windows libraries and executables, as well as the Windows kernel. In fact, through Cygwin.dll, the entire DLL layer of Windows acts as a *nix kernel, without the hardware compatibility problems or having to give up games or other paid software.)

So, GNU/Windows is pretty easy to install. It can run X11, with GNOME or KDE (last I checked), the full GNU toolsuite, and lots of additional software.

So, has anyone else had experience with GNU/Windows? I know that the GCC is the heart of this distribution, and I've used it a lot by command-line, but rarely by makefiles. Is automake worth trying? Should I try setting up a CVS repository? Should I try running KDE as my main desktop system?

[deus-redux]

GNU/Windows runs really well.

I've never tried running X, but the command line works well. Makes accessing and working with my Linux servers less of a pain in the arse.

It's certainly a good way to get use of the GNU tools, while still retaining the advantages of running a modern kernel like Windows.

-deus-

[oddballz194]

X is a little sluggish, but I assume that's at least partially since it's transmitted over TCP/IP instead of being direct function calls into the operating system. It's not unworkable though.

[Prometheum]

The funny thing is, I've talked to oddballz about this (not recently, so I don't know what he's getting on about in his first sentence), and by his definition, "the GNU OS" is "The sum of all code written by the GNU Project".

All of that should run natively on Windows. There's no need for cygwin. In addition, I don't know of any GNU X11 server, so that shouldn't be there in oddballz's GNU/Windows.

Real Gnu/Windows would involve replacing the shell with bash, and then setting up X and a WM. I've considered it, but I'd have to run windows, which is non free.

Also, it is is perfectly possible to pay for free software. This "paid software" bullshit is just that -- bullshit.

[oddballz194]

Originally Posted by Prometheum

The funny thing is, I've talked to oddballz about this (not recently, so I don't know what he's getting on about in his first sentence), and by his definition, "the GNU OS" is "The sum of all code written by the GNU Project".

I changed my mind on that. I accept (what I assume is) your definition of it being a combination of code running on top of the kernel, including libraries and utilities that are written by the GNU project, but also used by the GNU project because it was under either compatible or acceptable licenses, as defined by the Free Software Foundation.

Originally Posted by Prometheum

All of that should run natively on Windows. There's no need for cygwin. In addition, I don't know of any GNU X11 server, so that shouldn't be there in oddballz's GNU/Windows.

So if we add an X11 server to GNU/Linux, it's not GNU/Linux anymore? I doubt you mean that, but it is what you said.

Originally Posted by Prometheum

Real Gnu/Windows would involve replacing the shell with bash, and then setting up X and a WM. I've considered it, but I'd have to run windows, which is non free.

Cygwin uses bash as its default shell, and includes X11 and window managers, including GNOME at least, and I think also KDE. But you just said there is no X11 in a GNU system -- please make your statements more consistent.

Originally Posted by Prometheum

Also, it is is perfectly possible to pay for free software. This "paid software" bullshit is just that -- bullshit.

I said nothing about this, so I have no opinion on this statement.

[Prometheum]

Originally Posted by oddballz194

I changed my mind on that. I accept (what I assume is) your definition of it being a combination of code running on top of the kernel, including libraries and utilities that are written by the GNU project, but also used by the GNU project because it was under either compatible or acceptable licenses, as defined by the Free Software Foundation.

My definition is purposefully vauge: an operating system is the system with which you operate. If that includes the kernel, so be it. I think another good benchmark is whatever is shipped by default in your distribution.

Originally Posted by oddballz194

So if we add an X11 server to GNU/Linux, it's not GNU/Linux anymore? I doubt you mean that, but it is what you said.

No, it is by my definition, but by the one you commonly use, it isn't.

Originally Posted by oddballz194

Cygwin uses bash as its default shell, and includes X11 and window managers, including GNOME at least, and I think also KDE. But you just said there is no X11 in a GNU system -- please make your statements more consistent.

Wow, I haven't used Cygwin in a long time, I suppose. Either way, I meant replacing the windows shell.

Originally Posted by oddballz194

I said nothing about this, so I have no opinion on this statement.

"Without having to give up paid software."


I've been thinking about this, though, and I think there's no way to have a Gnu/Windows OS. Any Gnu/* OS must also fit under the abstraction of the Gnu OS, and the Gnu OS has to be free, at least as far as the "base install" goes. The "base install" of Gnu/Windows includes non-free software, so that bastardization should get put to rest for now.

Linux has nothing to do with the GNU project, except the licence on which it is distributed, and the compiler used to compile it.
Regular lusers has no knowledge of GNU, *modern* distributions boots in the X11 runlevel by default, shall we call it Xorg/Linux?
I've never ever came across the name of Richard Stallman in the kernel source code, including 2.4.x series.

BTW, coreutils is easily replacable.

X in cygwin is quite stable, except when you invoke a subshell, fork fails.

This thread has nothing to do with Unixies, GNU's not Unix.

you can install some KDE apps under windows
i tried to get amorak running in windows a few months back. It worked but it had trouble producing sound and used up to much RAM,

http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/KDE...s/Installation

[Prometheum]

Originally Posted by zeusy

Linux has nothing to do with the GNU project, except the licence on which it is distributed, and the compiler used to compile it.
Regular lusers has no knowledge of GNU, *modern* distributions boots in the X11 runlevel by default, shall we call it Xorg/Linux?
I've never ever came across the name of Richard Stallman in the kernel source code, including 2.4.x series.

BTW, coreutils is easily replacable.

X in cygwin is quite stable, except when you invoke a subshell, fork fails.

This thread has nothing to do with Unixies, GNU's not Unix.

Gnu is an OS. If you want to name your system by the names of every program you're running, go ahead. I'll stick with using the name of an OS for my OS.

[deus-redux]

Originally Posted by Prometheum

Gnu is an OS.

GNU/Linux

Just as Linux is Linux is just a kernel, the GNU system does not constitute an OS without a kernel.

It is the Linux kernel that handles memory management, file system and hardware abstraction, device control, network sockets and process management - the core functionalities of an OS.

Unless you're talking about Hurd...

-deus-