I just installed EndeavorOS on an HP Spectre360 that’s roughly 2 years old. I am honestly surprised at how easy it went. If you google it, you’ll get a lot of “lol good luck installing linux on that” type posts - so I was ready for a battle.

Turned off secure boot and tpm. Booted off a usb stick. Live environment, check. Start installer and wipe drive. Few minutes later I’m in. Ok let’s find out what’s not working…

WiFi check. Bluetooth check. Sound check (although a little quiet). Keyboard check. Screen resolution check. Hibernates correctly? Check. WTF I can’t believe this all works out the box. The touchscreen? Check. The stylus pen check. Flipping the screen over to a tablet check. Jesus H.

Ok, everything just works. Huh. Who’d have thunk?

Install programs, log into accounts, jeez this laptop is snappier than on windows. Make things pretty for my wife and install some fun games and stuff.

Finished. Ez. Why did I wait so long? Google was wrong - it was cake.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    52·
    7 months ago

    That’s kind of true, but MacOS and Mac OSX are 2 different things. What is based on BSD is the MAC OSX that came out in 2001 AFAIK.

    And BSD was interrupted for 2 years because of copyright disputes with AT&T. If that hadn’t happened, BSD would be the longest continuous OS today, and probably way more significant than it is.

    I don’t consider MAC OSX as part of BSD, just like Android isn’t part of Linux Desktop, but only uses the Linux kernel. OSX took parts of BSD and shielded it behind a proprietary wall, because the BSD license offer no protection from that. So they become separate projects the moment they enter the Apple domain.

    Problem here is when people mix up the use of the word Linux as an OS with Linux the kernel. I am 100% sure OP meant Linux as a Desktop OS like GNU/Linux or something like Free desktop according to freedesktop.org. Using his experience with EndeavorOS as an example.

    But you are right, it can be said Unix/BSD has an even longer running time, but it has been somewhat problematic and interrupted because of AT&T and SCO and Novell.

    • lemmyreader@lemmy.mlEnglish
      4·
      7 months ago

      I don’t consider MAC OSX as part of BSD, just like Android isn’t part of Linux Desktop, but only uses the Linux kernel. OSX took parts of BSD and shielded it behind a proprietary wall, because the BSD license offer no protection from that. So they become separate projects the moment they enter the Apple domain.

      Check : What happened to the open source Apple Darwin OS then ?

      tl;dr : Darwin OS is kind of obsoleted.

      Up to Darwin 8.0.1, released in April 2005, Apple released a binary installer (as an ISO image) after each major Mac OS X release that allowed one to install Darwin on PowerPC and Intel x86 systems as a standalone operating system.[12] Minor updates were released as packages that were installed separately. Darwin is now only available as source code. As of January 2023, Apple no longer mentions Darwin by name on its Open Source website and only publishes an incomplete collection of open-source projects relating to macOS and iOS.

    • drspod@lemmy.ml
      3·
      7 months ago

      That’s kind of true, but MacOS and Mac OSX are 2 different things

      Then Windows 3.0 and Windows 11 are two different things, so by that metric you can’t include Windows either.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        2·
        7 months ago

        Good catch, I guess that’s mostly true, but Windows NT was an evolution of Windows that mainly got rid of the DOS legacy. Which after Windows NT ran on a compatibility layer, where Windows 3 ran on DOS directly.
        It’s a bit of a grey area. But I’d say windows NT was a continuation of Windows that shared almost the entire API from Windows 3.0.
        The old “System n” OS was also called MAC OS. And the switch to OSX was a completely new OS where the old MAC OS software ran on a compatibility layer.

        I guess it can be seen either way.

      • oo1@lemmings.worldEnglish
        2·
        7 months ago

        I’d agree with that.

        I think the windows NT lineage should be considered separately from the MS-DOS based ones (pre win 2000).

        So I’d say MS-Dos family died with windows 2000. and the current windows lineage traces back to the early windows NT business oriented stuff - not back through windows 95.

        • lemmyvore@feddit.nlEnglish
          3·
          7 months ago

          So I’d say MS-Dos family died with windows 2000.

          Did you mean Windows Me?

          2000 was NT-based.

          • oo1@lemmings.worldEnglish
            2·
            7 months ago

            yeah, that’s what i meant; 2000 killed off the old one.

            I forgot about Me though - never used it.

    • Norah (pup/it/she)@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      2·
      7 months ago

      Let’s get even more technical with MacOS X then. Which, btw, doesn’t exist anymore as macOS 11 was released in 2020 (tho it still maintains the BSD-legacy in the same way Windows 10 does the NT legacy). It is based on the NeXTSTEP operating system from NeXT Computers, who Apple bought in the 90s to famously also bring Steve Jobs back into the fold. The initial release of NeXTSTEP occurred in 1989, pre-dating Windows and Linux…

    • lemmyvore@feddit.nlEnglish
      2·
      7 months ago

      If that hadn’t happened, BSD would be the longest continuous OS today, and probably way more significant than it is.

      Or if the GNU project had used the BSD kernel instead of deciding to make their own from scratch.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        1·
        7 months ago

        Yes BSD just hasn’t had much luck, I have no idea why the GNU project didn’t use the BSD kernel? They say the Linux kernel was the final piece to make it a complete OS. But AFAIK BSD existed with a kernel way before that.

        • lemmyvore@feddit.nlEnglish
          2·
          7 months ago

          https://web.archive.org/web/20200330150337/http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050727225542530

          Stallman wanted to use TRIX initially but it was considered too limited for the goals of GNU.

          BSD was considered too but some of the Berkeley crowd were uncooperative because they secretly planned to make a commercial version (BSDi).

          In the the end he compromised on Mach.

          Thomas Bushnell:

          RMS was a very strong believer – wrongly, I think – in a very greedy-algorithm approach to code reuse issues. My first choice was to take the BSD 4.4-Lite release and make a kernel. I knew the code, I knew how to do it. It is now perfectly obvious to me that this would have succeeded splendidly and the world would be a very different place today.

          RMS wanted to work together with people from Berkeley on such an effort. Some of them were interested, but some seem to have been deliberately dragging their feet: and the reason now seems to be that they had the goal of spinning off BSDI. A GNU based on 4.4-Lite would undercut BSDI.

          So RMS said to himself, “Mach is a working kernel, 4.4-Lite is only partial, we will go with Mach.” It was a decision which I strongly opposed. But ultimately it was not my decision to make, and I made the best go I could at working with Mach and doing something new from that standpoint.

          This was all way before Linux; we’re talking 1991 or so.

          From “The Daemon, the GNU and the Penguin” by Dr. Peter H. Salus.

          • Buffalox@lemmy.world
            1·
            7 months ago

            Interesting, I just don’t get that last line, Linux came out in 1991, so how is 1991 way before Linux?

            I’m not sure either, that if the GNU project had managed to make a decent kernel, that it would have made the world a different place today. At least not for the better.
            The Linux kernel is the most successful piece of open software ever made, and it’s GPL like GNU. I am far from sure another kernel would have been equally successful either technologically or in benefiting all sorts of computers.

            • lemmyvore@feddit.nlEnglish
              2·
              7 months ago

              Linux started in 1991 but initially it was just one student’s project. It was only considered mature in 1994, by which time there were over 100 people working on it, lots of software was ported to it, the first distributions came out, and it officially hit version 1.0.

              A working, established kernel in 1991 would have given the GNU project a 3 year head start. I’m also unsure if the combination of GPL userland and BSD kernel would have been ideal but 3 years can mean a lot in tech.