/lounge/ - Lounge

>>314581
>lainposter
>actually tech-illiterate
Heh, it's always like this.
>I don't understand what an OS is
>Yet each OS does the same thing: start programs
>Does one OS do something different that another OS doesn't?
>all execute applications in the same way
I'm not exactly a tech guru myself but the way I understand it is that while at face value it may look like OSs do the same thing which is launching programs, they do things differently behind the scenes so to speak, like the submerged part of an iceberg, which includes managing resources, input/output, etc.
Since different OSs work differently inside, programs have to be specially tailored for each OS, so if the developer is not interested in making versions of a program for some OSs, they won't run on them.
>why are there several OS?
>why then create different OS if they all do the same thing?
>why create another (OS)
Because people making OSs didn't like some part of other OSs (as I described above) and thought they could make better. They could also contribute to open source OSs, but if the technological vision is too different they have to make their own.
>does this mean that one OS is worse than another?
It depends on the user's needs and purposes.
>Why is Linux favored by computer enthusiasts instead of Mac OS and Windows?
It's open source and more customizable. For example you can easily change the desktop environment (see pic) entirely on Linux while on Windows and MacOS you're stuck with only one. Also for people who value privacy Linux doesn't spy on you, and even if it did, people would be able to remove that since it's an open source OS.
>why Linux can't launch video games (I hear that often).
Because game developers often don't make versions of their games for Linux. There are programs called "compatibility layers" that try to simulate an OS on another OS to run its programs, and more concretely, Linux has Wine and Proton for running Windows software, but it's not perfect.

>>314582
>lainposter
>actually tech-illiterate
>Heh, it's always like this
I know, I know.
another question:
why linux has a lot of diffrent linux (fedora, gentoo, etc…) why and what do they do to be diffrent in the first place?

>>314582
>Since different OSs work differently inside, programs have to be specially tailored for each OS, so if the developer is not interested in making versions of a program for some OSs, they won't run on them.
so if no one wants to make a programm that runs on your OS (let's say I made my own OS) it means I must create my own programms because no one want to run their programms on my OS?

>>314583
I'd say that the major difference between Linux distributions is the package manager, which is the program you use to download and install software. They connect to different repositories (servers that contain the software) and organize things in different ways, which is why they are incompatible. Distros may have other big differences like the "init system" (systemd is currently the most popular one but some people don't like it for various reasons), but otherwise the majority of Linux distributions are redundant and just change little things that you can easily change yourself like what desktop environment it comes with, etc.
Some of the major ones are:
Debian - Focused on stability so the programs are rarely updated (it spawned Ubuntu which has several problems, and Mint which fixes those problems)
Red Hat - I don't know much about it but it's more corporate (spawned Fedora)
Arch - Focused on customization and the programs are updated ASAP (it's considered to be hard but it really isn't if you know the Linux and command line basics)
Gentoo - Even more focused on customization since all the programs are compiled by you and you can easily make minor modifications to programs to make them faster, etc (it's considered to be quite hard)
Slackware - The oldest Linux distro, and it doesn't have a proper package manager so you have to manage installing software yourself
And there are some other minor ones that are NOT off-shots of existing distros, such as Void Linux, etc. Also there's a thing called Linux from Scratch which is a manual that teaches you how to make your personal Linux distro from scratch.
There are projects like AppImage that work like EXEs on Windows so you can just download a Linux program from the browser and run it on any distro.
>>314584
Essentially yes, but making an OS is a very hard and time-consuming task so making some simple utilities would be very quick and easy in comparison. You could also try to port existing programs from other OSs, or make a compatibility layer like Wine to run Windows or Linux programs.
But ultimately, there's no good reason to make an OS other than the technical details, so if you just want to make an OS that looks a certain way or whatever, you're better off just making a Linux distro or desktop environment.

>>314586
To add onto that, interestingly enough the most complicated programs are web browsers, particularly the big ones which are Chrome/Chromium and Firefox (and their off-shots like Brave, LibreWolf, etc). It's really mind-boggling how insanely bloated and clusterfucked the big browsers are, but the reality is that you must use them if you want to access the normie websites coded by Pajeets full of complex JavaScript and whatnot. Thus they're only available on the popular OSs like Windows/MacOS/Linux. Niche OSs usually have simpler browsers which can only access simpler websites like this one (though I'm pretty sure that the stupid Google captcha required for posting wouldn't work…).

>>314587
I am also interested about web browsers and internet access and https. so with normal browser you need just to type a key word to get recommendations. I know also that some website need to be entered manually (so you must know the https exactly to access the webpage , and other https (lets call it like that because I don't know haha) that need thor for exemple. what I want to know if is it possible to make a browser that can run all of these kinds of https into one browser (the goal of this is to have a browser with more websites than the actual browsers(because google let you only search for 20 or so pages then there's no other websites anymore)
>>314586
so what can be done is to make programms that run every other programms then, right?
why terry davis made templeOS, was it only because of schizophrenia?

>>314588
>I am also interested about web browsers and internet access and https. I know also that some website need to be entered manually (so you must know the https exactly to access the webpage , and other https (lets call it like that because I don't know haha) that need thor for exemple
By "https" you either mean URL, like "https://wizchan.org/lounge/res/314581.html", right?
>so with normal browser you need just to type a key word to get recommendations.
What do you mean? Search engine suggestions, like typing "cute" and it suggests "cute cat", "cute font", etc? Or website/URL suggestions based on your history, bookmarks, and open tabs? Pretty sure those things are easy to enable/disable on common browsers.
>what I want to know if is it possible to make a browser that can run all of these kinds of https into one browser (the goal of this is to have a browser with more websites than the actual browsers
That's a curious idea. .onion (dark net) websites need a TOR connection to be accessed, and you can have a TOR connection without the official TOR browser. There are alternative protocols to HTTP(S) such as Gemini and Gopher (eg. "gemini://example.com" instead of "https://example.com"), and those wouldn't be hard to implement. I'm pretty sure that you can install add-ons for all these things on existing browsers like Chrome/Chromium or Firefox, though, so that doesn't warrant making a new browser. But if for some other reason you wanted to create a new browser, that could be a convenient feature to add.
>(because google let you only search for 20 or so pages then there's no other websites anymore)
That's a search engine problem, though, not a browser one. Browser (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge…) is the program on your computer that you use to access web pages, and search engine (Google, Bing, Yandex, DuckDuckGo…) is a website that allows you to search for websites/web pages. In theory any browser (that can run the necessary web bloat) can access any search engine, and you can also change the default search engine (the one when you search things on the browser's bar) on the browser.
You could in theory make a browser or a browser extension that pulls the results from several search engines (and removes duplicate entries) to be able to show more results, though. Actually, there are "meta search engines" which are like search engines but they get their results from other search engines (Searx, for example), but from my experience they're often broken.
>so what can be done is to make programms that run every other programms then, right?
I'm not a master hacker myself so I don't know exactly. But it would involve studying the OS you want to run the programs of, and also how to convert the programs' instructions into instructions that your OS can understand.
>why terry davis made templeOS, was it only because of schizophrenia?
Mostly yes, after all he claimed to makes his OS as a temple of God. However, but his OS is genuinely unique in various ways, such as having 16 color 640x480 resolution, using a special programming language he created called "Holy C" and a special compiler he created too, and using documents containing images, 3D models, hyperlinks, etc for most things instead of simple text files.
Anyway, this is a long shot and might sound like a weird question, but… are you by any chance the guy who asked on a certain other imageboard if you can make "energy watermelons" by watering watermelons with an energy drink?

>>314589
>are you by any chance the guy who asked on a certain other imageboard if you can make "energy watermelons" by watering watermelons with an energy drink?
energy watermelon? haha good one, no I'm not that guy, sorry
I may have other question conceening OS later on, hope you'll be there😊

>>314589
>By "https" you either mean URL, like "https://wizchan.org/lounge/res/314581.html", right?
yes, I forgot it is called url.
I have another question:
what available OS lack of that should be added because very needed. also, it seems that the only thing an OS does is executing a program manualy, am I
right?
me when you answer my questions :3

>>314591
>what available OS lack of that should be added because very needed
The wording is a bit confusing… You mean what OSs lack compatibility layers for other OSs? In that case it would be a lot of them, or most, even. That's the reality. However, relying too much on compatibility layers for other OSs is not necessarily a good thing, since it retards an OS' own ecosystem. It's good if at least the basic programs for an OS are native (or ports).
For example, there's a reason why Wine is mostly used for games. It's because Linux already has a rich ecosystem of non-game software to do a lot of tasks, but since games mostly do not exactly serve a utilitarian purpose like normal software and are more artistic, they are not exactly interchangeable, so there's no choice but running the other OS's games instead of making your own, unless it's a simple and very technical game where the artistic elements are not as important (eg. Minesweeper, Tetris, Snake, etc).
>also, it seems that the only thing an OS does is executing a program manualy, am I right?
That's a bit of an oversimplification but ultimately it's kind of like that, I guess… an OS manages all the under-the-hood stuff needed to make a program run, so that each software developer doesn't have to go through the trouble of adding that stuff to his program himself. You can see it this way, a computer is just a bunch of pieces of metal and wires with electrical signals going through them, and a program is just a certain combination of tiny magnetic switches. An OS does all the magic needed to convert those physical things into something that you can see on a screen and interact with with your keyboard and mouse.

>>314594
sorry, I meant this:
I wanted to say: in your opinion, what are the available/most well-known OSes lacking that would push you to make your own OS, or do the available OSes have everything you need for the moment? and there is no point in creating yet another OS?

>>314595
Personally Linux fits my needs, but it has many annoyances. Mind you, though, making an OS is not a joke, it took Terry 10 years just to make TempleOS (which is not enough to fit the needs of the vast majority of people) and that's with him being a genius. To realistically make an OS that could fit the needs of non-negligible amounts of people, it would have to be a collective effort and it would need clear goals.
In my opinion making a browser to destroy Chrome and Firefox would be more important. By that I mean a browser that has the goal of being able to access modern/bloated websites and having modern features while NOT being a barely working gigantic bloated mess (reminder that Chrome has more lines of code than the base of Linux), and having many add-ons (possibly being able to use add-ons for Chrome and Firefox), customization options, and useful features all around.

>>314596
>In my opinion making a browser to destroy Chrome and Firefox would be more important. By that I mean a browser that has the goal of being able to access modern/bloated websites and having modern features while NOT being a barely working gigantic bloated mess
the problem is that if we make a search engine to compete with Chrome/Firefox, we would have to encourage people to post their website in our browser but also guarantee them that there will be no deletion or archiving of their website. is it good like that?
am I right?

>>314600
Sorry, I'm a bit confused by your question again, but I'll try my best…
>if we make a search engine to compete with Chrome/Firefox
Chrome and Firefox are browsers, not search engines.
>we would have to encourage people to post their website in our browser
In case you mean search engines, then I think they usually find new websites automatically somehow, but there are some niche engines like wiby.me (this one is for old school-style websites) where websites have to be manually user-submitted (and reviewed by the admin).
>guarantee them that there will be no deletion or archiving of their website
I'm not sure what the "archiving" part is about, but in case of a search engine, there's no way of guaranteeing that you won't delete things, you can only speak with your actions. For example Google and other mainstream engines censor a lot of websites that they don't like, so they've built a bad reputation and are not trusted by those who know about that.
But if you're talking about some sort of browser feature, then as long as the browser is open source (and the code is not super complex like the big browsers), people can check the code and make sure of that.

>>314611
thank for answering, I just want to fill my curiosity but it's going nowhere and I waste people's time (T_T) its just I was daydreaming about making an OS by myself and being so perfect that it beat linux windows and macOS

what each distro does?

>>314733
>what each distro does?
Nothing besides crash your system.

>Arch
Dysfunctional, complicated on purpose
>Debian
Dysfunctional, complicated on purpose
>Fedora
Dysfunctional
>Foresight
Literally what
>Gentoo
Dysfunctional, complicated on purpose
>Mandriva
Literally what
>Mint
Dysfunctional, made to teach Africans about computers
>Ubuntu
Dysfunctional, all decent devs went to make their own less functional version, with blackjack, and hookers
>kubuntu
Dysfunctional, has blackjack
>xubuntu
Dysfunctional, has hookers
>openSUSE
Dysfunctional, for single-board toy computers
>PCLinuxOS
Literally what
>redhat
Dysfunctional, abandoned
>sabayon
Literally what
>Slackware
Dysfunctional on purpose
>Slax
Literally what

>>314734
I see, yet people prefer linux over a working windows, right?

>>314737
That anon is being a bit dramatic if not disingenuous. Both Linux and Windows often crash, and when something more serious breaks, at least on Linux you have a chance to fix it yourself, while on Windows you're fucked and have to reinstall the OS or try your luck with a tech repair pajeet.

>>314738
oh ok, he was a little bit misleading, right?
so linux is still the best OS over windows/macOS

>>314739
>oh ok, he was a little bit misleading, right?
Well, Linux does kind of require you to learn new things, which in the long run is going to be beneficial, but for people unwilling to learn new things (which is a lot of people) it's easy to get the impression that Linux sucks and doesn't work.
>so linux is still the best OS over windows/macOS
It depends. Using Linux over Windows/MacOS is like riding a car as opposed to riding public transport. Linux is better if you want more control and privacy and are willing to learn and fix things yourself. Windows/MacOS is better if you want to turn off your brain and are fine with having a straightforward but shallow and intrusive experience. Additionally all of them have special use cases that others don't have such as Linux being good for servers and Windows/MacOS having some exclusive professional programs such as Adobe-slop and M$ Office.
However, I must say that MacOS does suck a lot and there's little reason to use it compared to Windows. It's even more restricted than Windows and it's weak in the game department like Linux (so, worst of both worlds), aside from the fact that it's not meant to just be installed on any PC and you have to buy Apple PCs which have a ton of problems including being overpriced and hard to repair. Most MacOS users are either backwards boomers, or hipsters who want to show off their fancy MacBook at Starbucks while complaining about capitalism on Xitter. The only valid use case for MacOS would be if you have the misfortune of requiring one of the very few super-snowflake programs that don't have any decent equivalent on Windows/Linux.
So in the end, it's more about Linux VS Windows. And… they don't have to be mutually exclusive. For example, you can use Windows for work and games, and Linux for general personal computing.
But overall, if you could only use one OS… Linux is best if you don't need special software and aren't serious about PC gaming, however, even in those cases, if you're really willing to learn and hack things, you can get around those problems.

>>314740
thank you. do you think linux will beat windows in coming years? maybe if a distro that works like windows comes out, windows will be dead. why not create a program on top of windows with linux so it works both for gaming and messing around? am I being clear? also does raspberry pi is considered is own OS/can create an OS with raspberry?

>>314741
>do you think linux will beat windows in coming years? maybe if a distro that works like windows comes out, windows will be dead
Unfortunately Micro$oft does a lot of shady shit to make sure that people will use Windows such as bribing governments to use Windows and Microsoft services in their institutions (eg. schools), computer manufacturers to pre-install Windows on their computers, etc. So it's not as much of a technical competition, but it would be more like fighting against a gigantic corporation and governments, which is impossible (excluding a revolution, etc etc). And Linux doesn't have the same reputation and name brand aspect of Apple slop either.
Therefore, even if Linux becomes very "user-friendly" and much better than Windows with no compromises, it would still be a thing mostly for tech people since normies are content using Windows. And at the same time, by making it too "user-friendly" and Windows-like to attract Windows users, it could be destroying itself and making it less usable to the "core" Linux userbase until they move to an even more niche OS like BSD.
But anyway, if theoretically Micro$oft made Windows 12 to be so insanely bad that even your neighbor Bob Joe would consider looking for a different OS, then that may be a way to gain some traction with non-tech people. But in
But maybe I'm just being pessimistic. Either way, I don't particularly care about the Linux market share… it works for me, so why should I care too much if everyone else uses it? It's not like social services (forums/imageboards, online games, messaging services, social media, etc) where it only makes sense to use them if other people do.
>why not create a program on top of windows with linux so it works both for gaming and messing around?
A thing like that exists already, it's made by Microsoft and it's called WSL. And personally I think that it's a silly concept… A Linux system running on top of Windows is going to share the same problems as Windows (spyware, resource-heaviness, etc), so at that point the only reason to use it is if you mainly use Windows but want to develop a program for Linux or want to use a Linux-only program. Also it's basically a virtual machine so the performance gets additionally worse.
>also does raspberry pi is considered is own OS/can create an OS with raspberry?
Raspberry Pi is just the name of the micro-computer running on an ARM CPU (ARM is a CPU architecture commonly used on phones and microcomputers, while desktops and laptops use x86 and x64 AKA 32-bit and 64-bit CPUs; basically, software is mostly incompatible between different CPU architectures and has to be specially tailored for them, aside from being specially tailored for each OS).
Raspberry Pi OS (formerly known as Raspbian) is the recommended OS but as far as I know it's just a modified ARM version of Debian Linux but with some educational and development programs pre-installed (and I presume that it has some aspects that take advantage of the Raspberry Pi), and it can probably be run on ARM devices other than the Raspberry Pi and on ARM virtual machines, and conversely, the Raspberry Pi can theoretically run any OS that supports its hardware (ARM CPU architecture, etc), which includes many Linux distributions or even Windows (though Windows would run really badly on something as weak as a Raspberry Pi). The only problem is software availability, since as I mentioned it has to be specifically tailored for each CPU architecture, however you could possibly compile/port open source software to ARM yourself without too much hacking, especially if it's written in a high level language like Java or Python.
Anyway, Raspberry Pis aren't that great and there are better microcomputers, aside from the fact that the Raspberry Pi company is very woke. And in the first place, there's not much reason to use a microcomputer as a normal PC…

>>314742
thank you very much answering my questions. since I started this thread and more and more answers comz up, I want to use a linux distro/linux but I'm tech illitrate so I'll stay on windows all my life I guess hahaha
>Using Linux over Windows/MacOS is like riding a car as opposed to riding public transport. Linux is better if you want more control and privacy and are willing to learn and fix things yourself. Windows/MacOS is better if you want to turn off your brain and are fine with having a straightforward but shallow and intrusive experience.
this phrase made me realise what is linux and understand better why people prefer to use linux. at the moment I don't have questions anymore…maybe next time
>raspberry is just a pc but weaker
ok I got it, it's only good for making robots, right? haha
>BSD
why some people leave linux for BSD?

>>314742
>Unfortunately Micro$oft does a lot of shady shit to make sure that people will use Windows such as
making an operating system that works