Jump to content

NOOBs how did hear from GNU/Linux


CrashOverride
 Share

Recommended Posts

For those who are just starting some programmer did a verry nice job by making a kind of introuction to linux for novice hackers

First you can feel free to explore

Its Windows on a Linux OS

http://www.linux-xp.com/

main_box_promo_bg7.png

Download it make it bootble and try it

I did it and its so much fun

But i must say that personally the more advanced is for me as hacker/programmer better

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, fake windows-linux. From Russia, no doubt...

yeah right. and 30 days after install :angry:

here's the full details:

Linux XP Desktop 2008 has a 30-days trial period for an estimation of comfort at work with our system and to make a decision on its use.

After a trial period of 30 day's you must register if you want to continue to work with system. You can get the Linux XP Desktop license and coupons on paid technical support in ours Internet-shops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Linux is free. FOSS! Not pay for unless you want a service contract with someone like Red Hat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*sniff sniff* whats that smell?

Oh yeah its FAIL!

Wasnt it like they coult only ask mony for support

We maintain this free software definition to show clearly what must be true about a particular software program for it to be considered free software. From time to time we revise this definition to clarify it. If you would like to review the changes we've made, please see the History section below for more information.

Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer.

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.

You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.

The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run a program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her.

The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified versions. (Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary for conveniently installable free operating systems.) It is ok if there is no way to produce a binary or executable form for a certain program (since some languages don't support that feature), but you must have the freedom to redistribute such forms should you find or develop a way to make them.

In order for the freedoms to make changes, and to publish improved versions, to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free software.

One important way to modify a program is by merging in available free subroutines and modules. If the program's license says that you cannot merge in a suitably-licensed existing module, such as if it requires you to be the copyright holder of any code you add, then the license is too restrictive to qualify as free.

In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the license, or retroactively change its terms, without your doing anything wrong to give cause, the software is not free.

However, certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free software are acceptable, when they don't conflict with the central freedoms. For example, copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that when redistributing the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms. This rule does not conflict with the central freedoms; rather it protects them.

Free software does not mean non-commercial. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important. You may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.

Whether a change constitutes an improvement is a subjective matter. If your modifications are limited, in substance, to changes that someone else considers an improvement, that is not freedom.

However, rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't substantively limit your freedom to release modified versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately. Rules that if you make your version available in this way, you must make it available in that way also can be acceptable too, on the same condition. (Note that such a rule still leaves you the choice of whether to publish your version at all.) Rules that require release of source code to the users for versions that you put into public use are also acceptable. It is also acceptable for the license to require that, if you have distributed a modified version and a previous developer asks for a copy of it, you must send one, or that you identify yourself on your modifications.

In the GNU project, we use copyleft to protect these freedoms legally for everyone. But non-copylefted free software also exists. We believe there are important reasons why it is better to use copyleft, but if your program is non-copylefted free software, it is still basically ethical.

See Categories of Free Software for a description of how free software, copylefted software and other categories of software relate to each other.

Sometimes government export control regulations and trade sanctions can constrain your freedom to distribute copies of programs internationally. Software developers do not have the power to eliminate or override these restrictions, but what they can and must do is refuse to impose them as conditions of use of the program. In this way, the restrictions will not affect activities and people outside the jurisdictions of these governments. Thus, free software licenses must not require obedience to any export regulations as a condition of any of the essential freedoms.

Most free software licenses are based on copyright, and there are limits on what kinds of requirements can be imposed through copyright. If a copyright-based license respects freedom in the ways described above, it is unlikely to have some other sort of problem that we never anticipated (though this does happen occasionally). However, some free software licenses are based on contracts, and contracts can impose a much larger range of possible restrictions. That means there are many possible ways such a license could be unacceptably restrictive and non-free.

We can't possibly list all the ways that might happen. If a contract-based license restricts the user in an unusual way that copyright-based licenses cannot, and which isn't mentioned here as legitimate, we will have to think about it, and we will probably conclude it is non-free.

When talking about free software, it is best to avoid using terms like give away or for free, because those terms imply that the issue is about price, not freedom. Some common terms such as piracy embody opinions we hope you won't endorse. See Confusing Words and Phrases that are Worth Avoiding for a discussion of these terms. We also have a list of translations of free software into various languages.

Finally, note that criteria such as those stated in this free software definition require careful thought for their interpretation. To decide whether a specific software license qualifies as a free software license, we judge it based on these criteria to determine whether it fits their spirit as well as the precise words. If a license includes unconscionable restrictions, we reject it, even if we did not anticipate the issue in these criteria. Sometimes a license requirement raises an issue that calls for extensive thought, including discussions with a lawyer, before we can decide if the requirement is acceptable. When we reach a conclusion about a new issue, we often update these criteria to make it easier to see why certain licenses do or don't qualify.

If you are interested in whether a specific license qualifies as a free software license, see our list of licenses. If the license you are concerned with is not listed there, you can ask us about it by sending us email at <licensing@gnu.org>.

If you are contemplating writing a new license, please contact the FSF by writing to that address. The proliferation of different free software licenses means increased work for users in understanding the licenses; we may be able to help you find an existing Free Software license that meets your needs.

If that isn't possible, if you really need a new license, with our help you can ensure that the license really is a Free Software license and avoid various practical problems.

Beyond Software

Software manuals must be free, for the same reasons that software must be free, and because the manuals are in effect part of the software.

The same arguments also make sense for other kinds of works of practical use — that is to say, works that embody useful knowledge, such as educational works and reference works. Wikipedia is the best known example.

Any kind of work can be free, and the definition of free software has been extended to a definition of free cultural works applicable to any kind of works.

Open Source?

Another group has started using the term open source to mean something close (but not identical) to free software. We prefer the term free software because, once you have heard that it refers to freedom rather than price, it calls to mind freedom. The word open never refers to freedom.

History

From time to time we revise this Free Software Definition to clarify it. Here we provide a list of those modifications, along with links to illustrate exactly what changed, so that others can review them if they like.

Version 1.77: Clarify that all retroactive changes to the license are unacceptable, even if it's not described as a complete replacement.

Version 1.74: Four clarifications of points not explicit enough, or stated in some places but not reflected everywhere:

"Improvements" does not mean the license can substantively limit what kinds of modified versions you can release. Freedom 3 includes distributing modified versions, not just changes.

The right to merge in existing modules refers to those that are suitably licensed.

Explicitly state the conclusion of the point about export controls.

Imposing a license change constitutes revoking the old license.

Version 1.57: Add "Beyond Software" section.

Version 1.46: Clarify whose purpose is significant in the freedom to run the program for any purpose.

Version 1.41: Clarify wording about contract-based licenses.

Version 1.40: Explain that a free license must allow to you use other available free software to create your modifications.

Version 1.39: Note that it is acceptable for a license to require you to provide source for versions of the software you put into public use.

Version 1.31: Note that it is acceptable for a license to require you to identify yourself as the author of modifications. Other minor clarifications throughout the text.

Version 1.23: Address potential problems related to contract-based licenses.

Version 1.16: Explain why distribution of binaries is important.

Version 1.11: Note that a free license may require you to send a copy of versions you distribute to the author.

There are gaps in the version numbers because there are many other changes that do not affect the substance of the definition at all. Instead, they fix links, add translations, and so on. If you would like to review the complete list of changes, you can do so on our cvsweb interface.

hmmm interesting

BTW time like apps are fully hackble u guys know that right

but i had 30 days to unstalled it after one week so didnt need the 30

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.
Yeah, that was my point. So long as you include the changes and license along with the changes when you re-distribute it, but I still won't pay for a copy of linux that looks and works like XP. Thats why I have xp and linux seperate. I'd much rather throw a Vista glass theme on on KDE(Similar to the BackTrack theme) and keep linux as linux.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok maybe my posting in here was a bit rash and hasty.

In any case Digip pretty much summed up my opinion in his above posting by mentioning windows skins and more importantly linux is free.

How much of a n00b would you have to be to use the linux-xp o.s instead of something like ubuntu? Hell most hardcore linux users nick name the shit n00buntu due to it being so user friedly and forgiving for a nix o.s.

Besides if you are so para about making the switch use VMware or Virtual box to ease the transition which once again is FREE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...so why wouldn't I just run Windows?

Because as the OP states int the title of the thread, were "NOOBs". But yeah, I have to ask the same question, because I'm thick like that. I must be a NOOB as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok maybe my posting in here was a bit rash and hasty.

In any case Digip pretty much summed up my opinion in his above posting by mentioning windows skins and more importantly linux is free.

How much of a n00b would you have to be to use the linux-xp o.s instead of something like ubuntu?

Well Your question is quiet clear and understandable.

I mean if you want to learn than learn it the hardcore way, totally agree.

But u can imagine that there might be other and thereby maybe better ways to develop a better learning path.

And maybe this is not really 100% what we are searching for as info gathering machines.

But I personally think it’s a step in the right direction.

For novice people who want to start kind of going on to another OS this might be a fine solution.

Tough I think that going for UBUNTO would result in a better knowledge’s and understanding of the OS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What i can see you can do all the stuff in Ubuntu with a little bit of time on hand? I have one tule, never pay for Linux, only for the extra support... As soon as Jaunty comes out (means next weekend) i will switch 2 of three of my machine to Jaunty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hex maybe because you aint a greedy bastard and would offer your shit up for free. XD

oh yah... tis true, I do give out my shit 4 free :D

lawl! oh btw shonen, my ftp is back up for the day if you want! ill send you the link again.

yah you really cant say though for the people who are comfortable with windows, cause for the most part, fact of the matter is, if people are too comfortable with windows (or they arent comfortable with any os.. i mean the people scared to mess up their computer) they arent going to mess with linux reguardless if it looks just like vista or xp.

And why did I setup KDE to look like xp?

heh. I punked out my wife when her computer was down for a week, so she would use linux :P

didnt work, but good try though

"Where the hell is internet explorer on your computer?!" I heard a few times...

yah.. Never was able to ween her from the IE. She'll come around sooner or later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yah, i should have just changed the icon for firefox, and installed the i.e. 6 theme (great mod if your workplace doesnt want anything but ie on their machines)

dont forget the ie tab add-on. works great if you want to use firefox but your webmail server is microsoft exchange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
For novice people who want to start kind of going on to another OS this might be a fine solution.

Tough I think that going for UBUNTO would result in a better knowledge’s and understanding of the OS

Making an os look like another defeats the purpose, you aren't learning or even experiencing it. You just end up with 'okay.. what's the diffence other than I can't run the programs I'm used to'. (Like in redhat 9 where kde and gnome were packaged looking exactly the same). I became a linux convert back in December when I tried ubuntu for the first time (my first nix distro) and it was just so much easier and made much more sense to me than windows. If ubuntu had looked like windows, I would probably still be using windows. I would think that ubuntu was just a broken windows... and I would be very sad with my spyware infested, virus ridden, fragmented, top-heavy, blue-screened xp running laptop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...