Microsoft wants to move Windows fully to the cloud

DukenukemX said:
You can boil most Linux distros down to either being Debian/Ubuntu based, Arch based, or just stand alone. Linux Mint for example is just Ubuntu with a custom UI and some select software they feel should or shouldn't be included. Ubuntu itself is based on Debian with a more updated repository and use of kernel, with again a custom UI and select software. They can all download and install a .deb and for the most part work the same. This is why when you go to install software, you often see "Debian/Ubuntu/Mint" because they're all nearly the same and popular.

Anyone who uses the argument that Linux is fragmented hasn't actually used Linux.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I mean, I am not familiar with this new Arch upstart people are talking about these days, but I tend to think of Linux in terms of three major branches.

Those based on:
  • Slackware: -> Suse, etc.
  • Debian: -> Ubuntu -> Mint, etc.
  • Redhat: -> RHEL & Fedora -> Centos, Mandrake, Mandriva, etc.

I don't really know where Arch fits in in that picture, but there are many many more, as this chart illustrates. Hundreds in fact.

The truth - however - is that every last one of them are binary compatible. Take an executable from one, and run it on the other, and as long as you have the right dependencies installed (or they are statically compiled, or a part of a binary blob) it will run on any of them.

They all have different tools, installers, updaters, etc. to suit the particular project, but they all work with each-other, and because of this fragmentation is a red herring.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Agreed.

I mean, I am not familiar with this new Arch upstart people are talking about these days, but I tend to think of Linux in terms of three major branches.

Those based on:
  • Slackware: -> Suse, etc.
  • Debian: -> Ubuntu -> Mint, etc.
  • Redhat: -> RHEL & Fedora -> Centos, Mandrake, Mandriva, etc.

I don't really know where Arch fits in in that picture, but there are many many more, as this chart illustrates. Hundreds in fact.

The truth - however - is that every last one of them are binary compatible. Take an executable from one, and run it on the other, and as long as you have the right dependencies installed (or they are statically compiled, or a part of a binary blob) it will run on any of them.

They all have different tools, installers, updaters, etc. to suit the particular project, but they all work with each-other, and because of this fragmentation is a red herring.
Click to expand...
Reading that chart makes me smell burnt toast.


*Shout out to the old Canadians who get it.
 
Lakados said:
Reading that chart makes me smell burnt toast.


*Shout out to the old Canadians who get it.
Click to expand...

This isn't a Kids in the Hall skit reference, is it?

Ps. I'm squishing your... head?

signal-2023-10-14-14-48-01-877~2.jpg
 
Funny, I do the same basic thing MS and Google and Apple are trying to push every single day by using remote desktop on my phone and several desktops. I can almost instantly log into my "main" PC and do anything important that needs doing and grab/view any files that need grabbing or viewing.

And if the damn internet is down? I can still sit down at that PC at home, USE IT, and have access to all my files and programs. Imagine that.

And it's so stupid easy.

No Mr.-Mega-Corp-Cloud-OS-in-the-Middle necessary.

In my mind, there's a reason Microsoft never really made their RDP into a super easy front and center major application in Windows that everyone can just use:

It would undermine a dozen of their own products and initiatives if the masses actually understood that a simple remote desktop session makes the rest of this crap completely unnecessary for individual users, families, and even most small businesses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top