YOUR Linux is ready

[smallharmlesskitten]

Hello everyone.

Now on my Internet trawls I have discovered this. A custom Linux builder called Custom NimbleX 2.

It let's you select what programs you want a tailor it to your needs. It allows anyone to create their own OS.

Follow the Instructions and make what you desire.

Once finished download your .iso and burn onto a CD, reboot and try out your own custom version of Linux!

Edit: stupid me I forgot the link http://custom.nimblex.net/

 

[cleverlymadeup]

you can do that with gentoo, portage is the second greatest install system next to ports

 

[Uncompetative]

Can you select a OpenBSD kernel?

 

[sirdanrhodes]

This is why I go with the penguin!

 

[mipegg]

Iv gotta admit Im not fond of linux. I mean, as a basic OS its ok but for me there just is no advantage over windows (for now, it might change in the future). I used it on a dual boot for 3 years (various distros) and just found it a hassle that was rarely used.

Kudos to whoever likes it tho.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

Can you select a OpenBSD kernel?

ummm you do know that bsd and linux, while similar are not the same, if you install the bsd kernel it would not work AND it would be bsd you're running not linux

I mean, as a basic OS its ok but for me there just is no advantage over windows (for now, it might change in the future).

you do realize that linux is years ahead of windows right? most of the gui stuff that came about in vista had been in a *nix window manager for several years already. it's more secure than windows is, the unsecured version tested well above windows.

the only thing it really lacks to be better than windows is a lot of games, other than that it beats windows hand down in everything else

 

[Uncompetative]

Can you select a OpenBSD kernel?

ummm you do know that bsd and linux, while similar are not the same, if you install the bsd kernel it would not work AND it would be bsd you're running not linux

It was my pathetic attempt at a joke. You see if you swapped out the kernel you couldn't call it Linux.

However, there is a slightly serious side to what I said, which is that GNU/Linux seems to have been unfairly rebranded Linux.

Sure, I've read Torvalds impressively clean source, but I feel he is tacitly accepting credit for writing the whole OS by the ignorant (media).

 

[fedpayne]

I've been using Ubuntu for the last week or so because I don't have a copy of windows anywhere, but I think I might get one. I want to use my webcam and play games at normal speed, not through WINE.

 

[Alex_P]

However, there is a slightly serious side to what I said, which is that GNU/Linux seems to have been unfairly rebranded Linux.

Sure, I've read Torvalds impressively clean source, but I feel he is tacitly accepting credit for writing the whole OS by the ignorant (media).

The man just doesn't care that much. You can call it "GNU/Linux", or "Linux", or "Ubuntu". As long as credit is given where credit is due, he doesn't care.

It wasn't really "rebranded". Originally Torvalds called his kernel "Freax" or something and then a friend renamed it to "Linux". "Linux" was already in use as a name for Linux + GNU tools + X -- sometimes by GNU itself, if I recall correctly -- when Stallman raised the "GNU/Linux" issue. And he wasted yet more momentum by flip-flopping between "GNU/Linux" and "Lignux".

Most of the people who have actually used the OS for any amount of time will know about GNU and the FSF and all that stuff. They have a rough idea of where credit is due (and just calling it "GNU/Linux" means you're still not giving credit to most of the people involved). Most of the people who have never seen a Linux box don't know enough for the name "GNU" to be at all meaningful, and just seeing the letters is not gonna suddenly make them learn about free software any faster than seeing "Linux" will.

So, ultimately: who cares? I understand why RMS cares, but I see no reason why it should matter to me or some random "ignorant" journalist.

-- Alex

 

[Uncompetative]

However, there is a slightly serious side to what I said, which is that GNU/Linux seems to have been unfairly rebranded Linux.

Sure, I've read Torvalds impressively clean source, but I feel he is tacitly accepting credit for writing the whole OS by the ignorant (media).

The man just doesn't care that much. You can call it "GNU/Linux", or "Linux", or "Ubuntu". As long as credit is given where credit is due, he doesn't care.

It wasn't really "rebranded". Originally Torvalds called his kernel "Freax" or something and then a friend renamed it to "Linux". "Linux" was already in use as a name for Linux + GNU tools + X -- sometimes by GNU itself, if I recall correctly -- when Stallman raised the "GNU/Linux" issue. And he wasted yet more momentum by flip-flopping between "GNU/Linux" and "Lignux".

Most of the people who have actually used the OS for any amount of time will know about GNU and the FSF and all that stuff. They have a rough idea of where credit is due (and just calling it "GNU/Linux" means you're still not giving credit to most of the people involved). Most of the people who have never seen a Linux box don't know enough for the name "GNU" to be at all meaningful, and just seeing the letters is not gonna suddenly make them learn about free software any faster than seeing "Linux" will.

So, ultimately: who cares? I understand why RMS cares, but I see no reason why it should matter to me or some random "ignorant" journalist.

-- Alex

Fair point, I agree that the average guy doesn't care all that much. Its a pity they couldn't have 'gestured' at the heritage by just calling it GNUX.

Pronounced "NEW", silent G, NU, silent X:

G N U X

that way the geeks could still make fun of the newbies for mispronouncing it.

My original point could be made another way... If Torvalds has never been born, then GNU would have eventually got an Open source kernel from the very slow to yield a result Hird project. Now if that had been the case I really doubt that there would have been a name change for the combined distro from GNU to GNU/Hird.

Ultimately, GNU is a clone of UNIX ("GNU is Not Unix"... yeah, right - despite being compatible with it), but you didn't see AT&T marketing an OS with a slashed-together multi-part give-every-major-contributor-credit name, it would have been totally impractical. UNIX is a lot of little programs acting in concert. Hey, that's a good name for an OS - Concert. The FSF should have called it that.