Is Linux Really A Programmers OS?

I read somewhere Linux was a programmers OS, I can't remember where I read this but it caught my attention. Anyways after reading this I decided hey, maybe I should try using linux more. I already had linux installed on my other partition but I kept using windows cause I was so used to using mIRC, microsoft word, and all those other windows programs I had grown attached to. So instead I reformatted my entire hard drive and went with one clean install of slackware 9. Now ever since I've started using Linux as my sole OS I feel I have learned more about programming and computers in general than ever before, all in like 2 weeks if that. Maybe its the fact that I can type man strtol and read the stuff from my terminal rather than off a website. Or maybe it's the fact that I can actually download sourcecode for all kinds of linux programs off the internet. Whatever it is, I feel there is more support for programming in Linux in the form of good references, tutorials, sourcecode etc and I'm starting to think that Linux really is a programmers OS. Don't get me wrong I love windows but the support just doesn't seem to be there. I know there is msdn etc but there seems to be just so much more information and code examples for making programs in linux. Anyone else think so also or am I just totally mistaken here?

you have a problem in the poll, bsd is a kind of unix too... not just linux.

Thanks Vber I didn't know that I've never used BSD.:) It won't let me edit my poll though, only moderators can, maybe a moderator can edit it? :)

I think linux is in a way, being that you can edit and recompile the kernel...

Why people here say "kernal", it's "kernel", or this is not what you're meaning?

it was a typo, i apologize. I'm well aware its kernel hehe

Open source OS's are better for people who like to tinker with the OS.

To learn programming, any of the OS's mentioned would be fine, some just have more tools/choice available.

BSD is now included with the other *nix's, and it's single vote was added to the combined category.

What about "there's no such thing as a programmers OS"?

Quote:

---

Open source OS's are better for people who like to tinker with the OS

---

Excellent point Adrian.

Govtcheez good idea maybe that should be added to the poll, add it if you want.:)

There isn't a platform with more development tools available than Windows. Therefore, it is a true programmer's platform. Technologies are coming out for it everyday. Don't kid yourself. Linux is if you want to learn systems programming and do things the really hard way.

I don't think there's such a thing as a programmer's OS. You can program on Linux and Windows both just fine. However, there's probably more tools, resources, and example code to go by for Windows since it's more popular.

Using the OS itself, Linux is a better system to learn internal system structure on than Windows, but it's not the best one in my opinion, at least the modern Linux. Check out v0.10, another early version, or a more simple open-source OS to get a better hands on OS workings.

I only program for linux if I want to use it on linux. I hate using the X window system, and I just like the Windows platform for development a lot better. However, I do not believe there is a programmers OS, because it would be stupid to be made. Programmers make programs for someone to use. If the OS was just made to program, there would be no user, so the point of programming is destroyed.

Yea Silvercord pretty much every application is open source and you can view all the source for the kernel also. There is no rule or law that says that everything you develop must be open source. I guess like hillbillie and adrian said its the fact that I can tinker with the OS and everything is opensource is what appeals to me. I kinda get into that low lvl stuff heh. I really like it! There are also libraries for making windows and stuff you can use in linux, GTK comes to mind as probably the most popular, there is also QT, although I have heard a few negative things about it.

Oh yea it can be hard to install, I think the biggest factor is hardware compatibility, for example mandrake doesn't work on my machine, it dies when I try to startx. Obviously it is a driver or configuration issue but I got sick of searching the web with lynx to try and find out lol.

Check this website out, it has tons and tons of info, and all questions are usually answered, all mine have been. www.justlinux.com

I read somewhere that Linus coded Linux just for programming. :dunno:

>Is it true that you can view the entire source of the operating system? Is everything that run on linux open source? If so, is there some rule or law that anything you develop on linux must be open source?<

Yes, it's "open"-source. :)

No, and there's no law.

>If the OS was just made to program, there would be no user, so the point of programming is destroyed.<

Not necessarily. There are compilers that are capable of generating binaries for systems other than what the compiler runs on. It's called a cross-compiler.

According to Linus, his reasons for creating the kernel were, as quoted from Linus in "The Code"

Quote:

---

I didn't want anbody else to have to go through the same thing I had. Your trying to find something like Linux, so I decided hmm, maybe some other computer science student out there needs his own operating system then he doesnt have to start from scratch. It wasn't the big fight against the windmills it was not Don Quixote against the world trying to, to make a better place.

---

Sort of related story:

One of my friends that's trying to get into programming (calculators, impressive...), anyways he aproaches me and asks "How does Linux make money?".

I replied "Umm... There isn't really a 'Linux' as in a main company or something, and they don't make money, considering it's open source."

He said "Well then how do they pay the programmers?"

I just laughed and walked away.

You laughed at your friend who doesn't understand the concept of open-source?

There was a day that I didn't know what Linux or open-source was. Would you have laughed at me then?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CheesyMoo
lolz my friend din'nt kno a teck thing

---

You're pretty cool, dude. Call me when you're in the neighborhood. We'll hang out, and I'll laugh at you once for every single thing I know that you don't. Sounds fun, doesn't it?

> Would you have laughed at me then?

Well, yeah, but it wouldn't have had anything to do with Linux or open-source, hippie :p

>Well, yeah, but it wouldn't have had anything to do with Linux or open-source, hippie<

Granted. Keep on drinking you bastard. :p

I laughed at him because he always trys to act smarter than me, and he is a know-it-all, I didn't like laugh at him meanly, I was just kinda like "Heh..." then kinda walked off. Oh well I've explained it to him a million times, what a mullet.

Anyways who's up for a game of grab ass?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CheesyMoo
Anyways who's up for a game of grab ass?

---

Shut up. It's past your bedtime.

edit: shut up

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Govtcheez
What about "there's no such thing as a programmers OS"?

---

Agreed. Last time I checked, Linux, Mac, Windows, and even Unix, were not solely meant for programming, or else they would have no purpose. They are meant for productivity, each one with it's own unique qualitys.

if you were to call *nix, bsd, etc programmers OS's it's because of the aforementioned ability to tweak the kernel as you see fit, and the fact that it comes with programming tools (compilers etc) No version of windows has ever come with a compiler, DOS didn't even have one (at least i don't htink it did, all it had was debug if i remember). So, from that standpoint, *nix, etc comes out of the chute as more programmer friendly.

> So, from that standpoint, *nix, etc comes out of the chute as more programmer friendly.

I guess so, but that's pretty silly to say. It takes 10 whole minutes to download a compiler.

>>10 minutes

plus another 10 for the assembler, another for the disassembler, etc etc etc

That and MS's compiler for instance has a lot of proprietary stuff, and you can only develop programs that will run on an OS, no stand alones

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Waldo2k2
No version of windows has ever come with a compiler, DOS didn't even have one (at least i don't htink it did, all it had was debug if i remember). So, from that standpoint, *nix, etc comes out of the chute as more programmer friendly.

---

What about QBasic? LOL! :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Waldo2k2
plus another 10 for the assembler, another for the disassembler, etc etc etc

---

Which is really minor, considering the benefits, IMO. Besides, not everyone needs an assembler and disassembler.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Waldo2k2
That and MS's compiler for instance has a lot of proprietary stuff, and you can only develop programs that will run on an OS, no stand alones

---

So don't use MS's compiler...

> Is Linux Really A Programmers OS?

That depends on what you call a programmers OS. In my opinion each OS for which a set of programming tools is available to create applications for is a programmers OS. So yes, Linux is a programmers OS in that way.

And about support, I think for Windows there is also a lot of programming support. Perhaps for Linux and Unix-variants there is more, I don't know. I think it also depends on what you want and expect.

> So don't use MS's compiler...

Yep. GCC and its tools are downloadable for free, also the source, and there are ports for Windows. And there are more free or open source programming tools available for Windows.

> and you can only develop programs that will run on an OS

With the GCC tools or any free downloadable assembler and toolkit for Windows you can build OS'es. I guess that is what you mean with "stand alones".

I think everyone is over looking one of the main uses of the *nix's
SERVERS, granted as Im writing this Ive only read the first to pages but I doubt on the 3rd anyone, (other than me) realized what Linux/Unix are most commonly used for. Which brings up another point, if Linux/Unix were for only programmers (and reallty, the stanard computer user is to used to the GUIs brought to you by Win and Mac, they would die if they saw Linx/Unix, or DOS for that matter.) There would still be a market, you need to write security and such to keep 'hackers' (please, dont get into a flame war over my using the word hackers) out and your comp safe.

Well, we're unanimous about Macs, at least.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Silvercord
I mean, can you actually change the operating system yourself? That doesn't seem possible to do.

---

But you can.

That's one of the main bonuses of Open Source operating systems over Windows, etc.

Edit -> Compile -> Reboot

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Silvercord
I just don't see how that process would work. I mean, how can you change the operating system while it is running?

---

You don't change it WHILE it is running. I think all you have to do is go thru a couple million lines of source code, make the change you want, recompile the OS, and reinstall it. It's as simple as that!

Quote:

---

Not necessarily. There are compilers that are capable of generating binaries for systems other than what the compiler runs on. It's called a cross-compiler

---

but why would you make an OS just to program on anyway? Any OS is fine to program with. It is easier to develop for the same platform you are running most of the time anyway.

Oh shut up already!

Damn, first you were the programmer that insisted it's not possible to edit the kernel for linux.
Then you insult people who are trying to help. Ignorant and a jerk.

Can't we just get along :).

Seriously, flame threads will be closed sooner or later.

....Everyone take a deep breath please.

This is a great debate and I don't want to have to close it because people are flaming, or heavily edit it for that matter because that's just as bad.

this is all I wanted to know:

Quote:

---

I just don't see how that process would work. I mean, how can you change the operating system while it is running?

---

That's a concise question, I don't see how I deserved to be told to shove my ignorance up my as$, I don't see how I was insisting anything, but whatever, I'm doing the mature thing by deleting my posts, and that speaks for itself.

EDIT: for kermi and mods, I didn't deserve being insulted like that, and I want an apology from vVv, but I doubt I'll get it.

I want you to nip it in the bud, just as everyone else does, and I deleted those posts you quoted just for that reason.

EDIT:
Last post for me just to help me vent (I usually don't get worked up about things but this time I did)

Quote:

---

I mean, can you actually change the operating system yourself? That doesn't seem possible to do.
...
I just don't see how that process would work. I mean, how can you change the operating system while it is running?

---

I still don't see how these posts warranted vVv telling me to shove it up my as$, I just want someone to say he was wrong for doing it, and that I did the right thing by deleting my threads (so the mods wouldn't have to delete this thread and ruin it for everyone).
fin

He wasnt wrong, the way you asked your questions was liek telling us its not possible even though, it is and you dont know what the hell your talking about, you should apologize to the people who tried to help.

The general consensus seems to be for Linux, UNIX, BSD etc:rolleyes: Amazing how nobody has voted for mac, personally I've never used one.

Seeing that Mac has just resently moved to a UNIX base, it's still uncharted for many people.