On 2009-11-06, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:
> TomB wrote:
>> As far as I am concerned, Ubuntu and Mint are the same thing. The bulk >> of the system shares the same repositories. I do not know this for >> sure, but it seems that you can just add the Mint repos to an Ubuntu >> box, and install Mint specific packages without a problem.
> What if you want to install a package not in the repo?
I guess it's quite safe to assume that all Mint specific packages can be found in the Mint repositories.
To answer your Pardus question: Unless you are comfortable with installing from source, you are out of luck. Solution: get comfortable with installing from source, or pick a different distro.
Oh, and the fact that someone actually is reading this drivel between me and Snit simply amazes me O_o
-- Your reasoning is excellent -- it's only your basic assumptions that are wrong.
> TomB stated in post 20091106011958....@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/5/09 5:23 > PM:
>> Did you even read what I typed? What part of "I don't say that I >> don't believe that some vendors do release a server edition of >> their OS. Of course they do." didn't you understand?
> I completely understand: you do not believe in *actual* server > OSs... just OSs deemed so by marketing folks. This lead you to be > confused when I was talking not about just OSs marketed as server > OSs but OSs that are actually designed as server OSs. Further, your > lack of accepting the difference between an OS made with a server > focus (a server OS) and a desktop system running a single server > service (a desktop server) lead you to believe I had contradicted > myself - a misunderstanding that lead you to say unkind things about > me you have yet to take responsibility for.
> No big deal... you made some mistakes. Heck, you caught me in one, > too... though please note I was happy to acknowledge it and move > on.
I don't have to take responsibility for anything. You posted a false claim, a lie. I pointed that out. You chose to ignore that and now try to turn it against me.
>>>>> Shall we debate how many hairs are in a unicorns mane next? >>>>> Same idea from your perspective... right?
>>>> Nope.
>>> If you do not believe in server OSs, debating what they are with >>> you is absurd.
>> Oh my...
> You are claiming I made incorrect statements about a class of > systems you deny even exists.
Again (but this really is the last time - if you don't get it now you're hopeless), I have never denied that some operating systems are released as a server OS. The only thing I'm saying is that the 'server' in 'server OS' describes the programs that come with the OS rather than the OS itself. Hence my opinion that there is no such thing as a server OS.
> That is akin to my saying someone is wrong about how hairy a > unicorn's mane is.
> On 2009-11-06, the following emerged from the brain of Snit: >> TomB stated in post 20091106011958....@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/5/09 5:23 >> PM:
>>> Did you even read what I typed? What part of "I don't say that I >>> don't believe that some vendors do release a server edition of >>> their OS. Of course they do." didn't you understand?
>> I completely understand: you do not believe in *actual* server >> OSs... just OSs deemed so by marketing folks. This lead you to be >> confused when I was talking not about just OSs marketed as server >> OSs but OSs that are actually designed as server OSs. Further, your >> lack of accepting the difference between an OS made with a server >> focus (a server OS) and a desktop system running a single server >> service (a desktop server) lead you to believe I had contradicted >> myself - a misunderstanding that lead you to say unkind things about >> me you have yet to take responsibility for.
>> No big deal... you made some mistakes. Heck, you caught me in one, >> too... though please note I was happy to acknowledge it and move >> on.
> I don't have to take responsibility for anything.
Of course not. Many people fail to even acknowledge there errors. Note, though, that when you pointed out one of mine I was happy to acknowledge it. Yes, we all make errors.
> You posted a false claim, a lie. I pointed that out. You chose to ignore that > and now try to turn it against me.
What claim do you think I posted that was "false" and a "lie"? Please be specific.
>>>>>> Shall we debate how many hairs are in a unicorns mane next? >>>>>> Same idea from your perspective... right?
>>>>> Nope.
>>>> If you do not believe in server OSs, debating what they are with >>>> you is absurd.
>>> Oh my...
>> You are claiming I made incorrect statements about a class of >> systems you deny even exists.
> Again (but this really is the last time - if you don't get it now > you're hopeless), I have never denied that some operating systems are > released as a server OS.
But you do not accept that they are *really* server OSs. Right? In other words, you do not think the class of systems really exists. Which is what I said. And you show frustration with. This is where it is clear you are confused about what you really think.
> The only thing I'm saying is that the 'server' in 'server OS' describes the > programs that come with the OS rather than the OS itself.
Which means many "different" Linux based OSs must be the same OS... hence the reason you will not answer if you think Mint and Ubuntu are the same OS.
> Hence my opinion that there is no such thing as a server OS.
Yet you get bent out of shape when I note you make claims about things you do not think exist.
>> That is akin to my saying someone is wrong about how hairy a >> unicorn's mane is.
> On 2009-11-06, the following emerged from the brain of DFS: >> TomB wrote:
>>> As far as I am concerned, Ubuntu and Mint are the same thing. The bulk >>> of the system shares the same repositories. I do not know this for >>> sure, but it seems that you can just add the Mint repos to an Ubuntu >>> box, and install Mint specific packages without a problem.
>> What if you want to install a package not in the repo?
> I guess it's quite safe to assume that all Mint specific packages can > be found in the Mint repositories.
> To answer your Pardus question: > Unless you are comfortable with installing from source, you are out of > luck. > Solution: get comfortable with installing from source, or pick a > different distro.
> Oh, and the fact that someone actually is reading this drivel between > me and Snit simply amazes me O_o
> On 2009-11-06, the following emerged from the brain of Snit: >> TomB stated in post 20091106012605....@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/5/09 6:02 >> PM:
>>> On 2009-11-05, the following emerged from the brain of Snit: >>>>>> Absolutely! Remember, I am the one who has been saying the >>>>>> distros are different OSs. You have stated that at times you >>>>>> think I am wrong (saying multiple distros can be the same OS).
>>>>> I never made such a claim. My turn to ask for proof now.
>>>> You claimed the Ubuntu desktop distro and the Ubuntu server distro >>>> are the same OS. Two different - though closely related - >>>> distros. What about Mint and Ubuntu... they are very similar... >>>> do you consider them the same OS or different OSs?
>>> How many times do I have to answer this question before you'll get >>> what I mean?
>> I do not recall your answer for Ubuntu / Mint.
> As far as I am concerned, Ubuntu and Mint are the same thing. The bulk > of the system shares the same repositories. I do not know this for > sure, but it seems that you can just add the Mint repos to an Ubuntu > box, and install Mint specific packages without a problem. Somebody > correct me if I'm wrong.
> Basically Mint is just a 'rebranded' Ubuntu.
Elsewhere you claimed:
The only thing I'm saying is that the 'server' in 'server OS' describes the programs that come with the OS rather than the OS itself. Hence my opinion that there is no such thing as a server OS.
But now the programs that come with the OS are the deciding factor in determining if they OSs are the same or not. Interesting.
For what it is worth, though, I also accused you of not answering the question about Mint and Ubuntu. You now have... and had when I claimed you had not recently... I did not read your posts in the order you wrote them. In other words, when I wrote:
... hence the reason you will not answer if you think Mint and Ubuntu are the same OS.
>>>>>> I did not understand your uncommon use of terminology. So, yes, >>>>>> if you want to say we both lost track so be it.
>>>>> I wouldn't call my terminology 'uncommon'. I like to keep >>>>> technical subjects free of marketing babble. Tell me which of the >>>>> following views the the most focused one:
>>>> The terms "server OS" or "network OS" are not just marketing >>>> terms.
>>> Sure they are.
>> Not that I agree, but what do you think the terms mean in marketing?
> They are hollow terms and try to pin down a particular release of an > operating system to one specific task. It's not the operating system > however that defines this distincion, but rather the software that is > bundled with it.
In today's terms the "OS" refers to much more than it used to.
> The problem I have with the term 'server OS' is that it doesn't > accurately describes what it is.
I can understand you not liking the standard term. Just do not expect everyone else to adopt your non-standard nomenclature. Really, I think that this is most of that this debate is about: you want me to accept your non-standard terminology... and if we were looking to move forward in a conversation that might work, but you have used your non-standard use of terms to "judge" comments of mine from before you even explained your use of terms... and you then insisted I was inconsistent and even dishonest because I did not use *you* non-standard terminology.
In other words, you are so stuck in your own self-made jargon you are having trouble communicating with people who use the common usage terms.
> The 'OS' in 'server OS' is exactly the same as the 'OS' in 'desktop' OS. It's > the software on top of the OS that defines the function of the system as a > whole. *NOT* the OS itself.
I can see where the terms "Desktop System" and "Server System" or "Network System" might be better - but they are not the common terms. If it helps you in understanding what I am saying, though, I am happy to use those terms. Do you think it would help you?
>>>>> View 1: There is no difference between a so called 'desktop OS' >>>>> and a so called 'Server OS'. Either can be used for either >>>>> function, or even for both at the same time.
>>>>> View 2: There are 'server OSs' and 'desktop OSs'. There's a lot >>>>> of grey areas between the both. Installing a single server >>>>> application on a 'desktop OS' doesn't make it a 'server OS'. I >>>>> can't exactly say how many packages are required to turn a >>>>> 'desktop OS' into a 'server OS' though. As I said, there's a lot >>>>> of grey areas. Basically they are the same OS however.
>>>> "views the most focused one"? Not sure what you mean.
>>> Who was talking about being pedantic again? You even fail to quote >>> my typing error correctly. Should've been "is the" by the way. Care >>> to answer the question now?
>> Sorry... did not understand the question. Still not sure what you >> mean by the "most focused one" means... with the first you sort of >> just shrug your shoulders and walk away from the differences between >> OSs / systems focused on different tasks... with the second you >> sound like you are trying parrot me in the most muddled way you can. >> Not sure what you are getting at.
> I'm just summarizing our views on the subject. That's all.
You are doing so poorly. This supports my view that you do not understand what you read *in this area*. Your own personal jargon has lead you to not understand common usage terms. But I can accept saying Server or Network "System" and not "OS". Even though those are not the common terms, they are more accurate.
>>>>>>> Your "desktop OS Mac" also comes with Postfix if I'm not >>>>>>> mistaken.
>>>>>> Yes, though with no GUI.
>>>>> Who needs a GUI to run postfix?
>>>> Well, there is a GUI for OS X Server... one of the things that >>>> shows it is focused on being a server OS is all of the focus on >>>> server functionality. OS X desktop is clearly focused on desktop >>>> functionality, though with modern desktops there is some overlap >>>> (as I have detailed in the past). It could be argued that OS X >>>> Server keeps too much of the desktop focus... tends to encourage >>>> "bad" usage of servers.
>>> I have seen the postfix gui on the server release of OSX. It's >>> laughable. There are much better open source frontends to postfix.
>> Might be interesting to discuss in another conversation on that >> topic some day.
> I suggest you take a look at the postfix section of Webmin.
I do not see how that would help you to understand your mistaken accusations against me.
>>> It's very odd by the way how you think the GUI to the postfix >>> binaries is more determing in what makes a system a server than the >>> postfix binaries themselves. It's common practice to run a server >>> completely headless, and run graphical configuration interfaces >>> (let's say WebMin) on a desktop client.
>> Sure. Never said it was not. You are focusing on specific >> technologies to define what an OS is (or, what it is not, being that >> you do not believe there is technical value in recognizing different >> purposes), I think there is technical value in understanding if what >> a system is best put designed for.
> I'm sorry, but I can't figure out what you're saying here.
You are looking at "Server OS" as just the OS... and then defining the OS as the kernel plus more... but not the server apps. This is not standard... though there really is no standard now on what is included in the concept of an "OS". It certainly has grown over the years.
In general the term "Server OS" refers to the whole system. This is something that bothers you... and prevents you from even understanding people who speak of the concepts. This is why I have offered to use the non-standard but technically more correct term "Server System". I think it will aid in your understanding of what I have been saying.
>> Part of your reasoning may come from being such a strong Linux user. >> Systems in the Linux world do not have the same level of focus as, >> say, OS X desktop and OS X Server... look at what I have shown with >> Ubuntu desktop - even though there is an attempt and a lot of work >> put into making it a coordinated whole, there are lots of areas >> which show it is not, such as having two largely similar but >> different cut and paste mechanisms... *neither* being internally >> consistent. This shows that there is a lack of focus. The concept >> of a server OS assumes a focus... as does the concept of a desktop >> OS. With Linux that focus is, by nature of the ecosystem, more >> muddied.
> I strongly disagree. As you said yourself Apple includes e.g. apache > and postfix on both the server edition and the desktop edition of OSX.
Frankly I am not sure of the value of postfix on the desktop... but Apache clearly is useful on desktop systems (I know I use it). Apple even provides a very simple UI for it... which, really, is all I need for desktop purposes. I could, of course, use the CL to do more with it if I wanted, but Apple made the desktop OS focused on more common desktop needs. I am happy they did... my needs are served with a very simple UI.
The server version has a more comprehensive GUI for Apache.
So, at least with Apache, Apple clearly thought about use-cases and made each to serve the needs of those who use the system.
> It puts a desktop interface on both.
By this do you mean a GUI? If so, Apple has a GUI for its server that is unique to the server... hard to call the server-only GUI app a "desktop interface" if you mean an interface made for a desktop system. (as opposed to a server system).
> TomB stated in post 20091106184354...@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/6/09 10:55 > AM:
>> On 2009-11-06, the following emerged from the brain of Snit: >>> TomB stated in post 20091106011958....@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/5/09 5:23 >>> PM:
>>>> Did you even read what I typed? What part of "I don't say that I >>>> don't believe that some vendors do release a server edition of >>>> their OS. Of course they do." didn't you understand?
>>> I completely understand: you do not believe in *actual* server >>> OSs... just OSs deemed so by marketing folks. This lead you to be >>> confused when I was talking not about just OSs marketed as server >>> OSs but OSs that are actually designed as server OSs. Further, >>> your lack of accepting the difference between an OS made with a >>> server focus (a server OS) and a desktop system running a single >>> server service (a desktop server) lead you to believe I had >>> contradicted myself - a misunderstanding that lead you to say >>> unkind things about me you have yet to take responsibility for.
>>> No big deal... you made some mistakes. Heck, you caught me in >>> one, too... though please note I was happy to acknowledge it and >>> move on.
>> I don't have to take responsibility for anything.
> Of course not. Many people fail to even acknowledge there errors. > Note, though, that when you pointed out one of mine I was happy to > acknowledge it. Yes, we all make errors.
Sure we do. And when I make an error I'll admit it. Only recently I wouldn't believe that ISPs use Gmail to provide mail services to their users. I was wrong and immediately admitted to it.
>> You posted a false claim, a lie. I pointed that out. You chose to >> ignore that and now try to turn it against me.
> What claim do you think I posted that was "false" and a "lie"? > Please be specific.
I pointed it out in my response to your post containing the lie. Look it up if you want to.
>>> You are claiming I made incorrect statements about a class of >>> systems you deny even exists.
>> Again (but this really is the last time - if you don't get it now >> you're hopeless), I have never denied that some operating systems >> are released as a server OS.
> But you do not accept that they are *really* server OSs. Right? In > other words, you do not think the class of systems really exists. > Which is what I said. And you show frustration with. This is where > it is clear you are confused about what you really think.
And finally you have reached to point where you attribute certain emotions to your opponent without any reason. I'm not frustrated at all, and I'm even less confused.
To answer your question: I accept those releases for what they are, ie. editions of the OS set-up to be used as a server. This does not mean the OS is different (as you have said yourself numerous times by now); only the set of applications shipped with the OS are different.
>> The only thing I'm saying is that the 'server' in 'server OS' >> describes the programs that come with the OS rather than the OS >> itself.
> Which means many "different" Linux based OSs must be the same OS... > hence the reason you will not answer if you think Mint and Ubuntu > are the same OS.
I did you a favour and answered that question. Look elsewhere for that.
>> Hence my opinion that there is no such thing as a server OS.
> Yet you get bent out of shape when I note you make claims about > things you do not think exist.
Bent out of shape? That's a good one. By the way, you incorrectly note I make claims about things I do not think exist. Don't worry, we all make mistakes :-)
-- You are deeply attached to your friends and acquaintances.
> Again (but this really is the last time - if you don't get it now > you're hopeless), I have never denied that some operating systems are > released as a server OS. The only thing I'm saying is that the > 'server' in 'server OS' describes the programs that come with the OS > rather than the OS itself. Hence my opinion that there is no such > thing as a server OS.
A server truck and a desktop truck have the same engine.
> On 2009-11-06, the following emerged from the brain of Snit: >> TomB stated in post 20091106184354...@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/6/09 10:55 >> AM:
>>> On 2009-11-06, the following emerged from the brain of Snit: >>>> TomB stated in post 20091106011958....@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/5/09 5:23 >>>> PM:
>>>>> Did you even read what I typed? What part of "I don't say that I >>>>> don't believe that some vendors do release a server edition of >>>>> their OS. Of course they do." didn't you understand?
>>>> I completely understand: you do not believe in *actual* server >>>> OSs... just OSs deemed so by marketing folks. This lead you to be >>>> confused when I was talking not about just OSs marketed as server >>>> OSs but OSs that are actually designed as server OSs. Further, >>>> your lack of accepting the difference between an OS made with a >>>> server focus (a server OS) and a desktop system running a single >>>> server service (a desktop server) lead you to believe I had >>>> contradicted myself - a misunderstanding that lead you to say >>>> unkind things about me you have yet to take responsibility for.
>>>> No big deal... you made some mistakes. Heck, you caught me in >>>> one, too... though please note I was happy to acknowledge it and >>>> move on.
>>> I don't have to take responsibility for anything.
>> Of course not. Many people fail to even acknowledge there errors. >> Note, though, that when you pointed out one of mine I was happy to >> acknowledge it. Yes, we all make errors.
> Sure we do. And when I make an error I'll admit it. Only recently I > wouldn't believe that ISPs use Gmail to provide mail services to their > users. I was wrong and immediately admitted to it.
Yet you will not admit to your errors in claims about my being "inconsistent" and about me "lying"... even though you cannot support either.
...
>>> Again (but this really is the last time - if you don't get it now >>> you're hopeless), I have never denied that some operating systems >>> are released as a server OS.
>> But you do not accept that they are *really* server OSs. Right? In >> other words, you do not think the class of systems really exists. >> Which is what I said. And you show frustration with. This is where >> it is clear you are confused about what you really think.
> And finally you have reached to point where you attribute certain > emotions to your opponent without any reason. I'm not frustrated at > all, and I'm even less confused.
If you are not confused then you are lying. I prefer to think you are merely confused. As far as your frustration, look at your wording... making insults and the like... do you act that poorly when you are not frustrated?
> To answer your question: I accept those releases for what they are, > ie. editions of the OS set-up to be used as a server. This does not > mean the OS is different (as you have said yourself numerous times by > now); only the set of applications shipped with the OS are different.
We have talked about your non-standard use of terms. I think that is well established.
>>> The only thing I'm saying is that the 'server' in 'server OS' >>> describes the programs that come with the OS rather than the OS >>> itself.
>> Which means many "different" Linux based OSs must be the same OS... >> hence the reason you will not answer if you think Mint and Ubuntu >> are the same OS.
> I did you a favour and answered that question. Look elsewhere for > that.
I have already noted my mistake, above. My apologies again.
>>> Hence my opinion that there is no such thing as a server OS.
>> Yet you get bent out of shape when I note you make claims about >> things you do not think exist.
> Bent out of shape?
Clearly.
> That's a good one. By the way, you incorrectly note > I make claims about things I do not think exist. Don't worry, we all > make mistakes :-)
Yes... we do. But note how I openly admit to mine. Look above for an example.
On 2009-11-06, the following emerged from the brain of Chris Ahlstrom:
> TomB pulled this Usenet boner:
>> Again (but this really is the last time - if you don't get it now >> you're hopeless), I have never denied that some operating systems are >> released as a server OS. The only thing I'm saying is that the >> 'server' in 'server OS' describes the programs that come with the OS >> rather than the OS itself. Hence my opinion that there is no such >> thing as a server OS.
> A server truck and a desktop truck have the same engine.
> The server truck merely has a heavier suspension.
> Snit's got sawdust in his gearbox.
Don't reduce this brilliant discussion to a fscking car analogy!
> As for Tom, the sigmonster strikes again:
I'm merely bored the last couple of days. A long discussion with Snit kind of breaks the unbearable lightness of being (with more unbearable lightness - ain't life a joke?). I'm so bored that today at work I watched a MySQL slave server replicate for an hour or so. Pretty interesting once your mind has wandered off wide enough.
> On 2009-11-06, the following emerged from the brain of Chris Ahlstrom: >> TomB pulled this Usenet boner:
>>> Again (but this really is the last time - if you don't get it now >>> you're hopeless), I have never denied that some operating systems are >>> released as a server OS. The only thing I'm saying is that the >>> 'server' in 'server OS' describes the programs that come with the OS >>> rather than the OS itself. Hence my opinion that there is no such >>> thing as a server OS.
>> A server truck and a desktop truck have the same engine.
>> The server truck merely has a heavier suspension.
>> Snit's got sawdust in his gearbox.
> Don't reduce this brilliant discussion to a fscking car analogy!
>> As for Tom, the sigmonster strikes again:
> I'm merely bored the last couple of days. A long discussion with Snit > kind of breaks the unbearable lightness of being (with more > unbearable lightness - ain't life a joke?). I'm so bored that today at > work I watched a MySQL slave server replicate for an hour or so. Pretty > interesting once your mind has wandered off wide enough.
TomB wrote: > On 2009-11-06, the following emerged from the brain of DFS: >> TomB wrote:
>>> As far as I am concerned, Ubuntu and Mint are the same thing. The >>> bulk of the system shares the same repositories. I do not know this >>> for sure, but it seems that you can just add the Mint repos to an >>> Ubuntu box, and install Mint specific packages without a problem.
>> What if you want to install a package not in the repo?
> I guess it's quite safe to assume that all Mint specific packages can > be found in the Mint repositories.
> To answer your Pardus question: > Unless you are comfortable with installing from source, you are out of > luck.
It's about time you gave an honest answer, rather than run away like the usual "advocate".
You just lost the 90% of potential Linux users who are NOT going to install from source.
Linux wins again.
> Solution: get comfortable with installing from source, or pick a > different distro.
Distro shuffle quickly leads back to Windows.
> Oh, and the fact that someone actually is reading this drivel between > me and Snit simply amazes me O_o
I wasn't. I happened to pick this post of yours at random.
Though I often agreed with him, Snit is in my permanent killfile for his extremely boring obsessiveness - ie 6 months going on and on about "fractured UI". Sorry Snit.
> TomB wrote: >> On 2009-11-06, the following emerged from the brain of DFS: >>> TomB wrote:
>>>> As far as I am concerned, Ubuntu and Mint are the same thing. The >>>> bulk of the system shares the same repositories. I do not know this >>>> for sure, but it seems that you can just add the Mint repos to an >>>> Ubuntu box, and install Mint specific packages without a problem.
>>> What if you want to install a package not in the repo?
>> I guess it's quite safe to assume that all Mint specific packages can >> be found in the Mint repositories.
>> To answer your Pardus question: >> Unless you are comfortable with installing from source, you are out of >> luck.
> It's about time you gave an honest answer, rather than run away like the > usual "advocate".
> You just lost the 90% of potential Linux users who are NOT going to install > from source.
> Linux wins again.
>> Solution: get comfortable with installing from source, or pick a >> different distro.
> Distro shuffle quickly leads back to Windows.
>> Oh, and the fact that someone actually is reading this drivel between >> me and Snit simply amazes me O_o
> I wasn't. I happened to pick this post of yours at random.
> Though I often agreed with him, Snit is in my permanent killfile for his > extremely boring obsessiveness - ie 6 months going on and on about > "fractured UI". Sorry Snit.
>> As far as I am concerned, Ubuntu and Mint are the same thing. The >> bulk of the system shares the same repositories. I do not know this >> for sure, but it seems that you can just add the Mint repos to an >> Ubuntu box, and install Mint specific packages without a problem. >> Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
>> Basically Mint is just a 'rebranded' Ubuntu.
> Elsewhere you claimed:
> The only thing I'm saying is that the 'server' in 'server OS' > describes the programs that come with the OS rather than the OS > itself. Hence my opinion that there is no such thing as a server > OS.
> But now the programs that come with the OS are the deciding factor > in determining if they OSs are the same or not. Interesting.
Uh? Unlike what you think, my reasoning is completely consistent and solid.
One mistake you make is considering the desktop and server editions of Ubuntu as two different distros. They are not. I think it's that reasoning that makes you - incorrectly - think that what I say above is inconsistent.
> For what it is worth, though, I also accused you of not answering > the question about Mint and Ubuntu. You now have... and had when I > claimed you had not recently... I did not read your posts in the > order you wrote them. In other words, when I wrote:
> ... hence the reason you will not answer if you think Mint and > Ubuntu are the same OS.
> I was wrong. My apologies.
That's no problem. You just replied there before you read my other post. I see no reason in holding that against you.
>>>>> The terms "server OS" or "network OS" are not just marketing >>>>> terms.
>>>> Sure they are.
>>> Not that I agree, but what do you think the terms mean in >>> marketing?
>> They are hollow terms and try to pin down a particular release of >> an operating system to one specific task. It's not the operating >> system however that defines this distincion, but rather the >> software that is bundled with it.
> In today's terms the "OS" refers to much more than it used to.
I really don't care about today's terms, yesterday's terms or tomorrow's terms. I only care about correct terms.
I have another anecdote for you:
A couple of years ago I was in the market for a new drumkit. I am a heavy metal drummer, so as the cliche wanted it I had a big and bulky set, actually marketed as a 'metal drumkit' at the time I bought it. As one ages however, one becomes less interested in appearance, so I decided to buy a kit with smaller drum sizes and less bulky hardware. Easier to transport. Easier to set up. The kit I actually buyed was marketed as a 'jazz/fusion drumkit'. Now, that was enough to have a long discussion with one of my guitar player about buying the right tool for the job. His vision was that I couldn't possibly play heavy metal on a 'jazz/fusion drumkit'. Mine was that it was just a marketing thing. I tuned the kit to my liking, set it up with the heavier of my cymbals, attached a double pedal to it, and played heavy metal. On my little 'jazz/fusion kit'.
>> The problem I have with the term 'server OS' is that it doesn't >> accurately describes what it is.
> I can understand you not liking the standard term. Just do not > expect everyone else to adopt your non-standard nomenclature. > Really, I think that this is most of that this debate is about: you > want me to accept your non-standard terminology... and if we were > looking to move forward in a conversation that might work, but you > have used your non-standard use of terms to "judge" comments of mine > from before you even explained your use of terms... and you then > insisted I was inconsistent and even dishonest because I did not use > *you* non-standard terminology.
> In other words, you are so stuck in your own self-made jargon you > are having trouble communicating with people who use the common > usage terms.
You're probably right. I also never use the word 'folder' to refer to a directory, although 'folder' seems to be the most popular term now. Nor do I like or use terms such as netbook and nettop.
>> The 'OS' in 'server OS' is exactly the same as the 'OS' in >> 'desktop' OS. It's the software on top of the OS that defines the >> function of the system as a whole. *NOT* the OS itself.
> I can see where the terms "Desktop System" and "Server System" or > "Network System" might be better - but they are not the common > terms. If it helps you in understanding what I am saying, though, I > am happy to use those terms. Do you think it would help you?
I really don't need help in understanding you; I understand you perfectly fine.
>>>>>> View 1: There is no difference between a so called 'desktop OS' >>>>>> and a so called 'Server OS'. Either can be used for either >>>>>> function, or even for both at the same time.
>>>>>> View 2: There are 'server OSs' and 'desktop OSs'. There's a lot >>>>>> of grey areas between the both. Installing a single server >>>>>> application on a 'desktop OS' doesn't make it a 'server OS'. I >>>>>> can't exactly say how many packages are required to turn a >>>>>> 'desktop OS' into a 'server OS' though. As I said, there's a >>>>>> lot of grey areas. Basically they are the same OS however.
>>>>> "views the most focused one"? Not sure what you mean.
>>>> Who was talking about being pedantic again? You even fail to >>>> quote my typing error correctly. Should've been "is the" by the >>>> way. Care to answer the question now?
>>> Sorry... did not understand the question. Still not sure what you >>> mean by the "most focused one" means... with the first you sort of >>> just shrug your shoulders and walk away from the differences >>> between OSs / systems focused on different tasks... with the >>> second you sound like you are trying parrot me in the most muddled >>> way you can. Not sure what you are getting at.
>> I'm just summarizing our views on the subject. That's all.
> You are doing so poorly. This supports my view that you do not > understand what you read *in this area*. Your own personal jargon > has lead you to not understand common usage terms. But I can accept > saying Server or Network "System" and not "OS". Even though those > are not the common terms, they are more accurate.
If you think I don't understand these common terms, you are wrong. I understand them perfectly fine. In fact I understand them so well that I can see they are hollow and technically wrong.
>>>>>>>> Your "desktop OS Mac" also comes with Postfix if I'm not >>>>>>>> mistaken.
>>>>>>> Yes, though with no GUI.
>>>>>> Who needs a GUI to run postfix?
>>>>> Well, there is a GUI for OS X Server... one of the things that >>>>> shows it is focused on being a server OS is all of the focus on >>>>> server functionality. OS X desktop is clearly focused on >>>>> desktop functionality, though with modern desktops there is some >>>>> overlap (as I have detailed in the past). It could be argued >>>>> that OS X Server keeps too much of the desktop focus... tends to >>>>> encourage "bad" usage of servers.
>>>> I have seen the postfix gui on the server release of OSX. It's >>>> laughable. There are much better open source frontends to >>>> postfix.
>>> Might be interesting to discuss in another conversation on that >>> topic some day.
>> I suggest you take a look at the postfix section of Webmin.
> I do not see how that would help you to understand your mistaken > accusations against me.
What have those so called 'accusations' to do with this bit of the discussion? How would my suggestion to take a look at webmin be an effort to help you understand something completely unrelated? I very much would like to know.
>>>> It's very odd by the way how you think the GUI to the postfix >>>> binaries is more determing in what makes a system a server than >>>> the postfix binaries themselves. It's common practice to run a >>>> server completely headless, and run graphical configuration >>>> interfaces (let's say WebMin) on a desktop client.
>>> Sure. Never said it was not. You are focusing on specific >>> technologies to define what an OS is (or, what it is not, being >>> that you do not believe there is technical value in recognizing >>> different purposes), I think there is technical value in >>> understanding if what a system is best put designed for.
>> I'm sorry, but I can't figure out what you're saying here.
> You are looking at "Server OS" as just the OS... and then defining > the OS as the kernel plus more... but not the server apps. This is > not standard... though there really is no standard now on what is > included in the concept of an "OS". It certainly has grown over the > years.
> In general the term "Server OS" refers to the whole system. This is > something that bothers you... and prevents you from even > understanding people who speak of the concepts. This is why I have > offered to use the non-standard but technically more correct term > "Server System". I think it will aid in your understanding of what > I have been saying.
Ok, let's see if I correctly understand you here. Bear with me...
You are willing to replace the term 'server OS' with 'server system'. By that I understand that you deem a 'server OS' to be the same as a 'server system'. Is that right?
So now we need to establish what a 'server system' is. It is my opinion that a system becomes a 'server system' from the moment I give it a server role. Any server role. Web server (e.g. apache or iis). Mail server (e.g. postfix or exchange). Directory service (e.g. nis or ad). File server (e.g. cifs or nfs). Etc. Any one of those, or even any combination of those. This is OS agnostic. I could do this with OSX Server, regular OSX, FreeBSD, Debian, Ubuntu Server, Kubuntu, whatever. Do you still agree with me at this point?
On 2009-11-07, the following emerged from the brain of TomB:
> On 2009-11-06, the following emerged from the brain of Snit: >>> It puts a browser and a mail client on both. I don't call that >>> focus. The server edition of Ubuntu on the other hand doesn't have >>> an email client, web browser or desktop interface, while the >>> desktop edition doesn't bother the user with a web server (it does >>> include postfix though, but that for historical reasons - a Unix >>> like OS is supposed to have an MTA) (Mhh, as OS X is Unixy too, >>> forget what I said about having postfix on the desktop edition).
By the way, you dodged the bit where I said the OS X Server has less focus on being a 'server (OS/System/whatever)' then e.g. Ubuntu Server by including desktop applications such as a web browser and a mail client. Instead you started rambling how the desktop applications included in the desktop edition of Ubuntu aren't created for the 'system' (whatever that is supposed to mean).
Another fine example of your focused debating skills?
-- You'll never see all the places, or read all the books, but fortunately, they're not all recommended.
> On 2009-11-06, the following emerged from the brain of Snit: >>> As far as I am concerned, Ubuntu and Mint are the same thing. The >>> bulk of the system shares the same repositories. I do not know this >>> for sure, but it seems that you can just add the Mint repos to an >>> Ubuntu box, and install Mint specific packages without a problem. >>> Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
>>> Basically Mint is just a 'rebranded' Ubuntu.
>> Elsewhere you claimed:
>> The only thing I'm saying is that the 'server' in 'server OS' >> describes the programs that come with the OS rather than the OS >> itself. Hence my opinion that there is no such thing as a server >> OS.
>> But now the programs that come with the OS are the deciding factor >> in determining if they OSs are the same or not. Interesting.
> Uh? Unlike what you think, my reasoning is completely consistent and > solid.
Well, you hide it well. :)
> One mistake you make is considering the desktop and server editions of > Ubuntu as two different distros. They are not. I think it's that > reasoning that makes you - incorrectly - think that what I say above > is inconsistent.
We can play the semantics game and debate if they are closely related but different distros or different versions of the same distro, but, really, it does not matter. I think we both know they come from the same source, are quite similar, but have definite differences.
Looking up definitions of "distro", I do not see anything that gives a definitive answer, though some definitions do talk about the distributor, and, since Mint is distributed by someone else, that would make it a different distro. Again, though, I think it is just semantics and a silly debate...
>> For what it is worth, though, I also accused you of not answering >> the question about Mint and Ubuntu. You now have... and had when I >> claimed you had not recently... I did not read your posts in the >> order you wrote them. In other words, when I wrote:
>> ... hence the reason you will not answer if you think Mint and >> Ubuntu are the same OS.
>> I was wrong. My apologies.
> That's no problem. You just replied there before you read my other > post. I see no reason in holding that against you.
>>>>>> The terms "server OS" or "network OS" are not just marketing >>>>>> terms.
>>>>> Sure they are.
>>>> Not that I agree, but what do you think the terms mean in >>>> marketing?
>>> They are hollow terms and try to pin down a particular release of >>> an operating system to one specific task. It's not the operating >>> system however that defines this distincion, but rather the >>> software that is bundled with it.
>> In today's terms the "OS" refers to much more than it used to.
> I really don't care about today's terms, yesterday's terms or > tomorrow's terms. I only care about correct terms.
With you as the final arbiter of what is "correct"... as opposed to, say, what is in common usage.
As I have noted, this is where you get confused... and why I have agreed to use the *non-standard* terms "server system" (or "network system") instead of server OS and desktop system instead of desktop OS.
> I have another anecdote for you:
> A couple of years ago I was in the market for a new drumkit. I am a > heavy metal drummer, so as the cliche wanted it I had a big and bulky > set, actually marketed as a 'metal drumkit' at the time I bought it. > As one ages however, one becomes less interested in appearance, so I > decided to buy a kit with smaller drum sizes and less bulky hardware. > Easier to transport. Easier to set up. The kit I actually buyed was > marketed as a 'jazz/fusion drumkit'. Now, that was enough to have a > long discussion with one of my guitar player about buying the right > tool for the job. His vision was that I couldn't possibly play heavy > metal on a 'jazz/fusion drumkit'. Mine was that it was just a > marketing thing. I tuned the kit to my liking, set it up with the > heavier of my cymbals, attached a double pedal to it, and played heavy > metal. On my little 'jazz/fusion kit'.
Oh, I have no problem with people using the "wrong" tool for the job, as long as it works. Heck, I often "MacGyver" things to get them to do what I want... some friends even got me a shirt that says "I can fix anything, where is the duct tape".
Question for you: is English your first language? I think you have said it is not and, above, I see you use words such as "buyed" which is incorrect. Not putting you down for that, especially if English is not your first language, just trying to understand why there seems to be a language barrier in this debate. I really think that is what it comes down to - semantics... not really, to any great extent, the ideas we have.
I think we both believe that I can use my *desktop* system to serve many server functions - I am currently sharing printers (well, with my wife's computer), have a web server set up (for internal needs... not public), etc. I have also used "Server" systems to quickly type up a text document to print, to do some web surfing, and other "desktop" purposes. I suspect we also both accept that some systems are designed / put together with the ideas of desktop use-cases and others with server use-cases. We also agree that, with Linux as least, one can modify their own computer heavily and re-purpose it - setting up the system for different use-cases than it was originally intended for. Not exactly sure, to be honest, where we disagree... other than in terminology.
>>> The problem I have with the term 'server OS' is that it doesn't >>> accurately describes what it is.
>> I can understand you not liking the standard term. Just do not >> expect everyone else to adopt your non-standard nomenclature. >> Really, I think that this is most of that this debate is about: you >> want me to accept your non-standard terminology... and if we were >> looking to move forward in a conversation that might work, but you >> have used your non-standard use of terms to "judge" comments of mine >> from before you even explained your use of terms... and you then >> insisted I was inconsistent and even dishonest because I did not use >> *you* non-standard terminology.
>> In other words, you are so stuck in your own self-made jargon you >> are having trouble communicating with people who use the common >> usage terms.
> You're probably right. I also never use the word 'folder' to refer to > a directory, although 'folder' seems to be the most popular term now. > Nor do I like or use terms such as netbook and nettop.
I use folder in most cases because I know that is what will be best understood by most. I still think in terms of "directories" for the most part.
>>> The 'OS' in 'server OS' is exactly the same as the 'OS' in >>> 'desktop' OS. It's the software on top of the OS that defines the >>> function of the system as a whole. *NOT* the OS itself.
>> I can see where the terms "Desktop System" and "Server System" or >> "Network System" might be better - but they are not the common >> terms. If it helps you in understanding what I am saying, though, I >> am happy to use those terms. Do you think it would help you?
> I really don't need help in understanding you; I understand you > perfectly fine.
So where do you think we have any significant disagreement?
...
>>> I suggest you take a look at the postfix section of Webmin.
>> I do not see how that would help you to understand your mistaken >> accusations against me.
> What have those so called 'accusations' to do with this bit of the > discussion? How would my suggestion to take a look at webmin be an > effort to help you understand something completely unrelated? I very > much would like to know.
Well, you asked me to look up postfix, not webmin... but either way, it is not directly related to the idea that there are server systems and desktop systems.
>>>>> It's very odd by the way how you think the GUI to the postfix >>>>> binaries is more determing in what makes a system a server than >>>>> the postfix binaries themselves. It's common practice to run a >>>>> server completely headless, and run graphical configuration >>>>> interfaces (let's say WebMin) on a desktop client.
>>>> Sure. Never said it was not. You are focusing on specific >>>> technologies to define what an OS is (or, what it is not, being >>>> that you do not believe there is technical value in recognizing >>>> different purposes), I think there is technical value in >>>> understanding if what a system is best put designed for.
>>> I'm sorry, but I can't figure out what you're saying here.
>> You are looking at "Server OS" as just the OS... and then defining >> the OS as the kernel plus more... but not the server apps. This is >> not standard... though there really is no standard now on what is >> included in the concept of an "OS". It certainly has grown over the >> years.
>> In general the term "Server OS" refers to the whole system. This is >> something that bothers you... and prevents you from even >> understanding people who speak of the concepts. This is why I have >> offered to use the non-standard but technically more correct term >> "Server System". I think it will aid in your understanding of what >> I have been saying.
> Ok, let's see if I correctly understand you here. Bear with me...
> You are willing to replace the term 'server OS' with 'server system'. > By that I understand that you deem a 'server OS' to be the same as a > 'server system'. Is that right?
Yes.
> So now we need to establish what a 'server system' is. It is my > opinion that a system becomes a 'server system' from the moment I give > it a server role.
I would say that a server system is one in which the design has been focused on server needs...
...
> On 2009-11-07, the following emerged from the brain of TomB: >> On 2009-11-06, the following emerged from the brain of Snit: >>>> It puts a browser and a mail client on both. I don't call that >>>> focus. The server edition of Ubuntu on the other hand doesn't have >>>> an email client, web browser or desktop interface, while the >>>> desktop edition doesn't bother the user with a web server (it does >>>> include postfix though, but that for historical reasons - a Unix >>>> like OS is supposed to have an MTA) (Mhh, as OS X is Unixy too, >>>> forget what I said about having postfix on the desktop edition).
> By the way, you dodged the bit where I said the OS X Server has less > focus on being a 'server (OS/System/whatever)' then e.g. Ubuntu Server > by including desktop applications such as a web browser and a mail > client. Instead you started rambling how the desktop applications > included in the desktop edition of Ubuntu aren't created for the > 'system' (whatever that is supposed to mean).
> Another fine example of your focused debating skills?
I had already talked about how OS X Server had items which were really likely more focused for desktop use... even before your quote, above.
Not sure what more you are looking for... nor why you have to push insults. I would hope you have a better view of yourself.
> TomB stated in post 20091107111813....@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/7/09 7:14 > AM: >> One mistake you make is considering the desktop and server editions >> of Ubuntu as two different distros. They are not. I think it's that >> reasoning that makes you - incorrectly - think that what I say >> above is inconsistent.
> We can play the semantics game and debate if they are closely > related but different distros or different versions of the same > distro, but, really, it does not matter. I think we both know they > come from the same source, are quite similar, but have definite > differences.
> Looking up definitions of "distro", I do not see anything that gives > a definitive answer, though some definitions do talk about the > distributor, and, since Mint is distributed by someone else, that > would make it a different distro. Again, though, I think it is just > semantics and a silly debate...
I'm more than happy to drop it. I just gave my opinion on this because you asked for it.
>> I really don't care about today's terms, yesterday's terms or >> tomorrow's terms. I only care about correct terms.
> With you as the final arbiter of what is "correct"... as opposed to, > say, what is in common usage.
Absolutely. I am the one and only authority on my own opinions. That doesn't mean you or anyone else has to agree with them though. Or that I am willing to revise them under certain circumstances.
> As I have noted, this is where you get confused... and why I have > agreed to use the *non-standard* terms "server system" (or "network > system") instead of server OS and desktop system instead of desktop > OS.
I'm still not confused.
> Question for you: is English your first language? I think you have > said it is not and, above, I see you use words such as "buyed" which > is incorrect.
I have absolutely no idea why I typed buyed instead of bought. Just a silly mistake.
> Not putting you down for that, especially if English is not your > first language, just trying to understand why there seems to be a > language barrier in this debate. I really think that is what it > comes down to - semantics... not really, to any great extent, the > ideas we have.
> I think we both believe that I can use my *desktop* system to serve > many server functions -
Not many. Any.
> I am currently sharing printers (well, with my wife's computer), > have a web server set up (for internal needs... not public), etc. I > have also used "Server" systems to quickly type up a text document > to print, to do some web surfing, and other "desktop" purposes. I > suspect we also both accept that some systems are designed / put > together with the ideas of desktop use-cases and others with server > use-cases.
Yes.
> We also agree that, with Linux as least, one can modify their own > computer heavily and re-purpose it - setting up the system for > different use-cases than it was originally intended for.
Absolutely. And not only with Linux.
> Not exactly sure, to be honest, where we disagree... other than in > terminology.
See below.
>>> In other words, you are so stuck in your own self-made jargon you >>> are having trouble communicating with people who use the common >>> usage terms.
>> You're probably right. I also never use the word 'folder' to refer >> to a directory, although 'folder' seems to be the most popular term >> now. Nor do I like or use terms such as netbook and nettop.
> I use folder in most cases because I know that is what will be best > understood by most. I still think in terms of "directories" for the > most part.
I just think 'folder' is a bad metaphor. It does injustice to the way directories work, to what directories really are (directories in fact).
I had the same feeling about the 'drawers' metaphor used on the Amiga. It's just silly. It are no 'drawers' or 'folders'; it are directories.
>>>> The 'OS' in 'server OS' is exactly the same as the 'OS' in >>>> 'desktop' OS. It's the software on top of the OS that defines the >>>> function of the system as a whole. *NOT* the OS itself.
>>> I can see where the terms "Desktop System" and "Server System" or >>> "Network System" might be better - but they are not the common >>> terms. If it helps you in understanding what I am saying, though, >>> I am happy to use those terms. Do you think it would help you?
>> I really don't need help in understanding you; I understand you >> perfectly fine.
> So where do you think we have any significant disagreement?
>>> In general the term "Server OS" refers to the whole system. This >>> is something that bothers you... and prevents you from even >>> understanding people who speak of the concepts. This is why I >>> have offered to use the non-standard but technically more correct >>> term "Server System". I think it will aid in your understanding >>> of what I have been saying.
>> Ok, let's see if I correctly understand you here. Bear with me...
>> You are willing to replace the term 'server OS' with 'server >> system'. By that I understand that you deem a 'server OS' to be >> the same as a 'server system'. Is that right?
> Yes.
>> So now we need to establish what a 'server system' is. It is my >> opinion that a system becomes a 'server system' from the moment I >> give it a server role.
> I would say that a server system is one in which the design has been > focused on server needs... not just one which is set with a server > role.
Setting a system with a server role *is* focusing its 'design' on server needs. You are trying to twist it as if it isn't, but it is.
> My desktop, for example, is doing some peer-to-peer serving... but > it is not a system focused on server needs.
>> Any server role. Web server (e.g. apache or iis). Mail server (e.g. >> postfix or exchange). Directory service (e.g. nis or ad). File >> server (e.g. cifs or nfs). Etc. Any one of those, or even any >> combination of those. This is OS agnostic. I could do this with >> OSX Server, regular OSX, FreeBSD, Debian, Ubuntu Server, Kubuntu, >> whatever. Do you still agree with me at this point?
> Not quite... as explained above. I think as you modify a system you > can get to gray areas as to what it is "designed" for... really, a > system need not really be "designed" for either... or could be > designed for a bit of both.
I'm not interested in 'gray areas'. Why do there have to be 'gray areas'? I'm talking about *any* machine, setting it up as a server (doesn't matter what kind of server, or with how many services) and using it for no more than that.
Would you disagree I turn a system into a 'server system' by doing that?
Remember, there's no grey area. The machine will even be tucked away in a server room, doors locked, no monitor, keyboard or mouse attached. The only cables attached to the machine will be the power cord and the network cable.
>> Now, taking all of the above in consideration, why would you say >> that installing apache on Windows XP doesn't turn Windows XP into a >> 'server OS'? After all a 'server OS' is the same as a 'server >> system' (by your own saying), and I really can't see how a server >> differs from a server system, other than the term server would >> refer to the entire machine rather than just the software running >> on that machine.
> I think this works well... though they use the term "network > operating system":
Why don't you just directly answer my question instead of digging up some articles from the internet?
The basis for this silly discussion is your claim that I couldn't possibly turn XP into a 'server OS'. In the meantime you have agreed to replace this term with 'server system', so your opinion is that I can't turn XP into a 'server system' (yet I can with Ubuntu desktop edition apparently). So unless you can give me a perfectly good explanation why a 'server system' is different from a 'server', your abovementioned claim holds no ground.
The only possible reason I can think of is that it is your opinion that a system can only be a 'server system/OS/whatever' because it was sold as one.
> An operating system that is designed for network use. Normally, > it is a complete operating system with file, task and job > management; however, with some earlier products, it was a > separate component that ran under the OS; for example, LAN > Server required OS/2, and LANtastic required DOS.
> Unix, Linux, NetWare, Windows 2000 Server and Windows Server > 2003 are examples of network operating systems designed for use > in stand-alone servers. Such products may also include a Web > server, directory services, messaging system, network management > and multiprotocol routing capabilities.
> Multiuser File Sharing A network operating system (NOS) manages > concurrent requests from clients and provides the security > necessary in a multiuser environment. A file sharing component > is installed in each client machine that interacts with the > server to share files and applications as well as network > devices such as printers, faxes and modems.
> Peer-to-Peer Operating Systems In a peer-to-peer network, such > as Windows 98 or XP, where each client machine can also be a > server, the OS might still be considered a network operating > system, but it is more lightweight than a full-blown NOS. See > LAN. -----
> Also this: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Operating_System> > ----- A networking operating system is an operating system that > contains components and programs that allow a computer on a network > to serve requests from other computer for data and provide access to > other resources such as
On 2009-11-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> TomB stated in post 2009110717185...@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/7/09 9:25 AM:
>> By the way, you dodged the bit where I said the OS X Server has >> less focus on being a 'server (OS/System/whatever)' then e.g. >> Ubuntu Server by including desktop applications such as a web >> browser and a mail client. Instead you started rambling how the >> desktop applications included in the desktop edition of Ubuntu >> aren't created for the 'system' (whatever that is supposed to >> mean).
>> Another fine example of your focused debating skills?
> I had already talked about how OS X Server had items which were > really likely more focused for desktop use... even before your > quote, above.
Very true. Yet you still think that OSX Server is more focused on being a server than Ubuntu's server edition, and then even made the totally unrelated claim that for some reason you failed to mention the desktop applications available for Ubuntu aren't really that focused on desktop usage at all.
> Not sure what more you are looking for... nor why you have to push > insults.
Insults? Where? The remark about your self-proclaimed focused debating skills, while you are side tracking the hell out of this discussion? The bit where I say you started rambling (which you did). You call those insults? I'd just call them observations.
Perhaps another example of me using unconventional terms?
> I would hope you have a better view of yourself.
My view of myself I fine thank you. (although I can be an asshole at times) (I actually like being an asshole) (most of the time)
-- You will reach the highest possible point in your business or profession.
> On 2009-11-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit: >> TomB stated in post 20091107111813....@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/7/09 7:14 >> AM: >>> One mistake you make is considering the desktop and server editions >>> of Ubuntu as two different distros. They are not. I think it's that >>> reasoning that makes you - incorrectly - think that what I say >>> above is inconsistent.
>> We can play the semantics game and debate if they are closely >> related but different distros or different versions of the same >> distro, but, really, it does not matter. I think we both know they >> come from the same source, are quite similar, but have definite >> differences.
>> Looking up definitions of "distro", I do not see anything that gives >> a definitive answer, though some definitions do talk about the >> distributor, and, since Mint is distributed by someone else, that >> would make it a different distro. Again, though, I think it is just >> semantics and a silly debate...
> I'm more than happy to drop it. I just gave my opinion on this because > you asked for it.
And I am happy for the discussion. Even though places were a bit rough, I think we reached a greater understanding of each other's views.
>>> I really don't care about today's terms, yesterday's terms or >>> tomorrow's terms. I only care about correct terms.
>> With you as the final arbiter of what is "correct"... as opposed to, >> say, what is in common usage.
> Absolutely. I am the one and only authority on my own opinions. That > doesn't mean you or anyone else has to agree with them though. Or that > I am willing to revise them under certain circumstances.
You are the arbiter of your own opinions... no doubt. The only place where I had a problem with your comments was when you judged my comments as being contradictory and even dishonest because I did not go by your non-common terminology. I believe, however, you have acknowledged that this may have been from a misunderstanding... or, if not, well, let bygones be bygones.
>> As I have noted, this is where you get confused... and why I have >> agreed to use the *non-standard* terms "server system" (or "network >> system") instead of server OS and desktop system instead of desktop >> OS.
> I'm still not confused.
>> Question for you: is English your first language? I think you have >> said it is not and, above, I see you use words such as "buyed" which >> is incorrect.
> I have absolutely no idea why I typed buyed instead of bought. Just a > silly mistake.
No problem. It happens, especially in an informal forum such as this.
>> Not putting you down for that, especially if English is not your >> first language, just trying to understand why there seems to be a >> language barrier in this debate. I really think that is what it >> comes down to - semantics... not really, to any great extent, the >> ideas we have.
>> I think we both believe that I can use my *desktop* system to serve >> many server functions -
> Not many. Any.
Well... not without extensive work... and even then likely not as well as OS X server (I am on OS X), unless I were to pretty much make it be OS X Server (or the components I need, of course).
>> I am currently sharing printers (well, with my wife's computer), >> have a web server set up (for internal needs... not public), etc. I >> have also used "Server" systems to quickly type up a text document >> to print, to do some web surfing, and other "desktop" purposes. I >> suspect we also both accept that some systems are designed / put >> together with the ideas of desktop use-cases and others with server >> use-cases.
> Yes.
>> We also agree that, with Linux as least, one can modify their own >> computer heavily and re-purpose it - setting up the system for >> different use-cases than it was originally intended for.
> Absolutely. And not only with Linux.
Sure... but more easily with Linux, at least in general.
>> Not exactly sure, to be honest, where we disagree... other than in >> terminology.
> See below.
>>>> In other words, you are so stuck in your own self-made jargon you >>>> are having trouble communicating with people who use the common >>>> usage terms.
>>> You're probably right. I also never use the word 'folder' to refer >>> to a directory, although 'folder' seems to be the most popular term >>> now. Nor do I like or use terms such as netbook and nettop.
>> I use folder in most cases because I know that is what will be best >> understood by most. I still think in terms of "directories" for the >> most part.
> I just think 'folder' is a bad metaphor. It does injustice to the way > directories work, to what directories really are (directories in > fact).
> I had the same feeling about the 'drawers' metaphor used on the Amiga. > It's just silly. It are no 'drawers' or 'folders'; it are directories.
And yet, if you want to be understood by most people, you need to use the term folders.
>>>>> The 'OS' in 'server OS' is exactly the same as the 'OS' in >>>>> 'desktop' OS. It's the software on top of the OS that defines the >>>>> function of the system as a whole. *NOT* the OS itself.
>>>> I can see where the terms "Desktop System" and "Server System" or >>>> "Network System" might be better - but they are not the common >>>> terms. If it helps you in understanding what I am saying, though, >>>> I am happy to use those terms. Do you think it would help you?
>>> I really don't need help in understanding you; I understand you >>> perfectly fine.
>> So where do you think we have any significant disagreement?
> Almost there.
>>>> In general the term "Server OS" refers to the whole system. This >>>> is something that bothers you... and prevents you from even >>>> understanding people who speak of the concepts. This is why I >>>> have offered to use the non-standard but technically more correct >>>> term "Server System". I think it will aid in your understanding >>>> of what I have been saying.
>>> Ok, let's see if I correctly understand you here. Bear with me...
>>> You are willing to replace the term 'server OS' with 'server >>> system'. By that I understand that you deem a 'server OS' to be >>> the same as a 'server system'. Is that right?
>> Yes.
>>> So now we need to establish what a 'server system' is. It is my >>> opinion that a system becomes a 'server system' from the moment I >>> give it a server role.
>> I would say that a server system is one in which the design has been >> focused on server needs... not just one which is set with a server >> role.
> Setting a system with a server role *is* focusing its 'design' on > server needs. You are trying to twist it as if it isn't, but it is.
If I turn on web sharing on my computer I am not changing its design. I do not see what you are trying to say.
>> My desktop, for example, is doing some peer-to-peer serving... but >> it is not a system focused on server needs.
>>> Any server role. Web server (e.g. apache or iis). Mail server (e.g. >>> postfix or exchange). Directory service (e.g. nis or ad). File >>> server (e.g. cifs or nfs). Etc. Any one of those, or even any >>> combination of those. This is OS agnostic. I could do this with >>> OSX Server, regular OSX, FreeBSD, Debian, Ubuntu Server, Kubuntu, >>> whatever. Do you still agree with me at this point?
>> Not quite... as explained above. I think as you modify a system you >> can get to gray areas as to what it is "designed" for... really, a >> system need not really be "designed" for either... or could be >> designed for a bit of both.
> I'm not interested in 'gray areas'. Why do there have to be 'gray > areas'?
There are in many areas of thought. Not all, mind you... but many. Life is not black and white.
> I'm talking about *any* machine, setting it up as a server > (doesn't matter what kind of server, or with how many services) and > using it for no more than that.
> Would you disagree I turn a system into a 'server system' by doing > that?
You are using the system as a server... I cannot tell what it was designed for *in general* just by knowing, for example, that it has a print server on it!
> Remember, there's no grey area. The machine will even be tucked away > in a server room, doors locked, no monitor, keyboard or mouse > attached. The only cables attached to the machine will be the power > cord and the network cable.
To quote below, it might be a "lightweight" server system. Again... gray areas.
>>> Now, taking all of the above in consideration, why would you say >>> that installing apache on Windows XP doesn't turn Windows XP into a >>> 'server OS'? After all a 'server OS' is the same as a 'server >>> system' (by your own saying), and I really can't see how a server >>> differs from a server system, other than the term server would >>> refer to the entire machine rather than just the software running >>> on that machine.
>> I think this works well... though they use the term "network >> operating system":
> Why don't you just directly answer my question instead of digging up > some articles from the internet?
They not only answer the question well, they show that my usage of language is the common one, or at least real close to it.
> The basis for this silly discussion is your claim that I couldn't > possibly turn XP into a 'server OS'.
What? When did I say that? I noted merely installing Apache on a desktop OS does not turn it into a server OS... and this is supported by my desktop OS having Apache *by default* and yet not being a server OS (as OS X Server is).
> In the meantime you have agreed to replace this term with 'server system', so > your opinion is that I can't turn XP into a 'server system' (yet I can with > Ubuntu desktop edition apparently). So unless you can give me a perfectly good > explanation
> On 2009-11-07, the following emerged from the brain of Snit: >> TomB stated in post 2009110717185...@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/7/09 9:25 AM:
>>> By the way, you dodged the bit where I said the OS X Server has >>> less focus on being a 'server (OS/System/whatever)' then e.g. >>> Ubuntu Server by including desktop applications such as a web >>> browser and a mail client. Instead you started rambling how the >>> desktop applications included in the desktop edition of Ubuntu >>> aren't created for the 'system' (whatever that is supposed to >>> mean).
>>> Another fine example of your focused debating skills?
>> I had already talked about how OS X Server had items which were >> really likely more focused for desktop use... even before your >> quote, above.
> Very true. Yet you still think that OSX Server is more focused on > being a server than Ubuntu's server edition, and then even made the > totally unrelated claim that for some reason you failed to mention the > desktop applications available for Ubuntu aren't really that focused > on desktop usage at all.
I have not used Ubuntu server... but what I did say was that Linux distros in general do not have software that is as focused. They *cannot*... being that the software is not made for the distro! How can software be focused on an environment it is not made for?
>> Not sure what more you are looking for... nor why you have to push >> insults.
> Insults? Where? The remark about your self-proclaimed focused debating > skills, while you are side tracking the hell out of this discussion? > The bit where I say you started rambling (which you did). You call > those insults? I'd just call them observations.
> Perhaps another example of me using unconventional terms?
You are pushing a lot of side issues there.
>> I would hope you have a better view of yourself.
> My view of myself I fine thank you. (although I can be an asshole at > times) (I actually like being an asshole) (most of the time)
> Different editions, different distros, different default packages, different > download sites, etc.
And then add the "K".
COLA arseholes call it choice. I call I ridiculous.
Hint for the uninformed : installed apps on a server that are not running as "services/daemons/whatever" dont screw the performance by taking space on the hard drive.
>> Different editions, different distros, different default packages, different >> download sites, etc.
> And then add the "K".
> COLA arseholes call it choice. I call I ridiculous.
> Hint for the uninformed : installed apps on a server that are not > running as "services/daemons/whatever" dont screw the performance by > taking space on the hard drive.
This whole thing came from me noting that some systems are designed to be servers and some are designed to be desktops... and the difference is far more than if Apache is or is not installed.
>>> Different editions, different distros, different default packages, different >>> download sites, etc.
>> And then add the "K".
>> COLA arseholes call it choice. I call I ridiculous.
To each his own. I find it odd that Snit, DFS and now you as well consider the different editions of Ubuntu as different distros. They are not. They are the same distro. They just offer a different set of default packages on the installation medium.
For what it's worth: I don't necessarily think this is a Good Thing™. Perhaps Ubuntu should just focus on Gnome as its desktop environment, and be done with the K and X versions. Those who really want KDE or Xfce can install it afterwards anyway.
>> Hint for the uninformed : installed apps on a server that are not >> running as "services/daemons/whatever" dont screw the performance by >> taking space on the hard drive.
Having a full blown desktop environment running for no apparent reason however does. At least it eats up memory, even when sitting idle.
> This whole thing came from me noting that some systems are designed to be > servers and some are designed to be desktops... and the difference is far > more than if Apache is or is not installed.
As I said numerous times: it doesn't matter how many server applications are running to turn a system into a 'server system'. That's a vague distinction (how many are needed?) that you try to force on the notion of what exacltly makes a system a 'server system', but doesn't make any sense at all.
It only makes remotely sense if you are saying that the difference between a 'server OS' and a 'desktop OS' is defined by the distributor, and that the end user can't possibly setup one as the other.
-- Having nothing, nothing can he lose. -- William Shakespeare, "Henry VI"
>> I can turn an Ubuntu desktop installation into an Ubuntu server and >> vice versa in no time.
> The only thing you have to do is start X, then you have a server.
At least Debian starts X with the --nolisten tcp flag as default, so that's not exactly true.
> Don't know if ssh is enabled by default in linux distros but ssh is > a server.
It is. I have a server at work that acts as an ssh proxy for remote administration of the other servers on the network. It's a FreeBSD virtual machine doing nothing else than listening for incoming ssh connections (pubkey authentication only of course). The entire installation takes less than 300MB and the only running service is sshd. I'm sure Snit wouldn't think of this as a server system/OS/whatever, but it is. I know it, because I set it up to be one.
-- You will obey or molten silver will be poured into your ears.
|
