I think that a Marxist society should allow for 0 proprietary software, and instead support for everything in free and open source decentralized technology.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    When you talk about proprietary firmware, does that make Debian more stable with e.g. a better range of graphics cards, printers, mice, etc?

    Security-wise, a standard set up that keeps out phishers, keyloggers, ‘hackers’, etc, out will do.

    So with, rust/Redox, does that use a different language for the terminal than other distros?

    Thanks for all the other info!

    Edit: typo

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      So with, rust/Redox, does that use a different language for the terminal than other distros?

      It means that the RedoxOS system is written in Rust (Kernel, Drivers, Userspace, etc.). Redox itself is still just a POSIX compatible UNIX-like System similar to Linux. Which means you can run things like Bash on Redox just like on Linux. But unlike Linux or BSD, both of which are Monolithic, Redox follows a Micro-kernel design. For the average user this doesn’t mean much really. But I wouldn’t use RedoxOS as it is right now since it’s still in its early stages of development. It runs on a limited set of hardware and is still pretty rough around the edges.

      If you just want an OS to use for things like web browsing, programming or writing documents then any up-to-date Linux distro will be your best bet. They all use the same software, with some minor exceptions. The difference is in the design.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Thanks for explaining.

        If you just want an OS to use for things like web browsing, programming or writing documents then any up-to-date Linux distro will be your best bet. They all use the same software, with some minor exceptions. The difference is in the design.

        This is the kind of insider knowledge I was hoping for! Front-end design-wise, I’m probably happy with something that looks like an early OSX or Windows 95. Newer OS’s have become at once very simple and yet so complicated that no files or settings can be found.

        • Łumało [he/him]M
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          If you’d like to have something that looks identical to a Windows 9x setup, check out Chicago95. It’s a project that aims (and succeeds!) at making the XFCE4 desktop environment look as close to as possible to Win9x! I use it personally because that is my preference, and I have to say it looks amazing! Here’s screenshots!

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            Memories! Look at that tiled background and the file manager! Beautiful. If I installed that, I’d be tempted to connect a floppy disc drive, too, for real authenticity.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          On Linux you aren’t just limited to a specific set of utilities, or a specific UI or Desktop. You can mix and match software to varying degrees. A desktop environment like MATE or XFCE comes to mind for something that resembles a Windows 9x-XP era desktop. Cinnamon and KDE Plasma are similar to Windows Vista-7. GNOME is like current macOS. All of them vary in terms of customization and theming. Most distros have all of these (and more) available in their software repositories and some distros offer multiple ISOs with different software and desktops pre-bundled. For example the Debian installer lets you pick which Desktop(s) you want and then downloads and installs all the required packages. But Linux Mint has 3 different editions each with a different Desktop environment (MATE, XFCE, Cinnamon).