Cloud vs Local

sp331yi

Well-Known Member
Credits
4,614
Sabayon was tried by me 2-3 years ago. Main thing I can see as a downside is the necessity for a fast internet connection, otherwise portage can be cumbersome, IMHO. Anaconda installer is used. It works is all I can say. It's an interesting intriguing distro. Here is a review from 2018. Call it an Intro to Gentoo.
 


Credits
253
If perhaps you are worried about "corporate interests" invading Linux, remember that Microsoft is now a Platinum Member of The Linux Foundation (where Linus Torvalds collects a paycheck). This makes BSD look much more appealing and worth the effort to learn something new, something with a different kernel.
 

sp331yi

Well-Known Member
Credits
4,614
If perhaps you are worried about "corporate interests" invading Linux, remember that Microsoft is now a Platinum Member of The Linux Foundation (where Linus Torvalds collects a paycheck). . . .
Let's see the source, please, cuz it's (not surprising) news to me!
Reminds me of pimps, if it's true -- disgusting! Give us a URL.
 
Credits
253
Let's see the source, please, cuz it's (not surprising) news to me!
Reminds me of pimps, if it's true -- disgusting! Give us a URL.
Is your Google broken? Fine, but which part do you doubt?

Microsoft joined the Linux Foundation in 2016.
Source 1: TechCrunch article
Source 2: The Linux Foundation

Linus Torvalds is paid by The Linux Foundation for his kernel development. (Sorry, tax returns not available.)
1. "Currently, the Linux Foundation sponsors Torvalds so he can work full-time on improving Linux." (source: Wikipedia)
2. "The Linux Foundation, the home of Linux creator Linus Torvalds and lead maintainer Greg Kroah-Hartman, provides a neutral home where Linux kernel development can be protected and accelerated for years to come." (source: The Linux Foundation)

BSD does not use the Linux kernel.
1. "FreeBSD maintains a complete system, i.e. the project delivers a kernel, device drivers, userland utilities, and documentation, as opposed to Linux only delivering a kernel and drivers, and relying on third-parties for system software" (Source: Wikipedia)
2. "A typical BSD consists of a kernel and all of the packages that it needs to get things done." (Source: It's FOSS)
3. "Unlike Linux, however, which exists as a standalone kernel project, the BSD kernels often are part of a larger project—they aren't independent of the distro." (Source: Stack Exchange)

Now I must go. Goldberry is waiting!
 

wizardfromoz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Gold Supporter
Credits
4,771
Old Tom (& welcome, Tolkien fan :)) just a heads up, if you are new and have less than 20 posts or so under your belt, and insert a link, it will be held up as a potential spammer and come across my desk for approval.

Given I am in Australia, you may be waiting hours.

Cheers

Chris Turner
wizardfromoz
 

sp331yi

Well-Known Member
Credits
4,614
Then take 5 seconds and insert the link yourself unless what wiz says holds on e up. Basic training where I come from. Your audience is worldwide as arochester likes to remind members.

Thanks, wiz for the info on UEFI. I'm not afraid to say I never have used it. Saves me from borking an even worhless laptop like a Toshiba! (referencing coderlen's totally mess of a hard drive)

Big ego? I'll shoot is down with too much provocation. No place for such here IMHO.
Gotta lay low anyway. Might as well go out with a bang!
 

f33dm3bits

Gold Member
Gold Supporter
Credits
3,487
well all i know is i don't fancy freeBSD having looked at it; would certainly consider gentoo or other OS if there is some +ve feedback especially from another slack user
I would only try Gentoo if Arch disappeared. I don't like the idea of having to compile everything from source because it taking a long time to install packages and kernels as well as updating them. That's what I like about Arch, having bleeding edge software without having to compile everything from source and having full control over your system from the start of installation.

But back to topic, like I mentioned in my first post in this topic I don't see it happening that any Linux distribution will become cloud only based and requiring an internet connection to use. Yes everything is going to cloud and containerization, but desktop systems will still be needed to connect to those services. And yes I use one cloud service myself but that's just because I've had a bad experience of losing all my photos which I had on my mobile phone. This happened when a custom android rom upgrade failed me and when restoring from my backup my phone was still useless and refused to boot.
 
Last edited:
Credits
253
Then take 5 seconds and insert the link yourself unless what wiz says holds on e up.
Do you doubt him too? I know how this forum works. Apparently you do not.


Thanks, wiz for the info on UEFI. I'm not afraid to say I never have used it.
So apparently you don't know much about modern Linux either? I understand. I'm an old fellow myself. But I do try to read up on tech news and keep up with the times. Would you like some links to news sites that can help?

Have a nice day. :)
 

f33dm3bits

Gold Member
Gold Supporter
Credits
3,487
Firstly I don't see why you all think that GNU/Linux distributions will at one point be cloud based only and unusable without an internet connection. Let's just leave out all the ones with graphical installers, if you look at the installations guides of Gentoo, Arch, and Slackware. Do you think these distributions are fit to be cloud only just by looking at their installation process? Also looking at the Philosophy of each of these distributions, Gentoo, Arch, and Slackware, I don't see anything that points out that they would become cloud based. These distributions are all focused on their users and communities. Also remember the time Ubuntu introduced a feature that sent all the searches users did in Ubuntu to the cloud and the data was used to give users amazon ads. It was possible to disable/remove this feature, the community complained and it was removed from the default installation.
 

dos2unix

Well-Known Member
Credits
1,697
Firstly I don't see why you all think that GNU/Linux distributions will at one point be cloud based only and unusable without an internet connection. Let's just leave out all the ones with graphical installers, if you look at the installations guides of Gentoo, Arch, and Slackware. Do you think these distributions are fit to be cloud only just by looking at their installation process? Also looking at the Philosophy of each of these distributions, Gentoo, Arch, and Slackware, I don't see anything that points out that they would become cloud based.
I actually agree with you here, but as you said, I would divide "workstation" systems from "server" systems. (Usually most systems are a little of both, but you know what I mean).
I doubt the servers that are usually used by corporations will ever have cloud dependencies.
(Although I manage a few hundred servers in the cloud right now).

Having said that, our developers are already pretty "integrated" into the cloud architecture. (i.e. github, vsts, Azure build pipeline CICD, cloud based data storage (rather than local).... hopefully these won't become so common it changes "the common philosophy".

What I am more concerned with is... "desktop" apps.. vs "cloud" apps.
But you bring up another good point here, one of the great things about Linux is what I would call "focused distro's". (I don't know if that's the correct term). But for example, one distro focuses on hacking tools, another distro focuses on multimedia applications, another distro focuses on privacy, etc...

Hopefully if it came to the point when it was necessary, there would be a few distro's that focused on being "cloud free".
 

LorenDB

Active Member
Credits
1,016
Firstly I don't see why you all think that GNU/Linux distributions will at one point be cloud based only and unusable without an internet connection.
I actually don't think that it will happen. Let's hope not. I'm just expressing my views on a hypothetical situation.
Hopefully if it came to the point when it was necessary, there would be a few distro's that focused on being "cloud free".
I figure that it will happen. There will always be a few people like us who are opposed to the cloud-based model, and certainly at least one of them will create a distro.
 
Credits
253
Hopefully if it came to the point when it was necessary, there would be a few distro's that focused on being "cloud free".
I'm sure you are right. We still have distros clinging to 32-bit architecture, and SysV init, and Legacy BIOS/MBR bootloaders. For now.

Your rant makes plain that you see the tendencies of those "corporate interests" to move as much to the clouds as the consumers and markets will bear. Progress! (Sarcasm!) They want your money. Ever changing, always upgrading, never satisfied, just keep paying and paying. The subscription model was a stroke of genius from their perspective. Red Hat is as good of an example as any.

But the future is not written yet. Another technology may come along to upset the cloud crowd. Or a cloud crises could appear (security maybe?) that would motivate consumers and markets to turn away from this model. But the "corporate interests" will not likely care. The big boys will be in the thick of it, ready to sell you the next new latest-greatest model. Just keep paying.
 

Vrai

Well-Known Member
Credits
2,416
Sabayon was tried by me 2-3 years ago. Main thing I can see as a downside is the necessity for a fast internet connection, otherwise portage can be cumbersome, IMHO. Anaconda installer is used. It works is all I can say. It's an interesting intriguing distro. Here is a review from 2018. Call it an Intro to Gentoo.
I used to run Sabayon years ago. I rather liked it :)
 

Vrai

Well-Known Member
Credits
2,416
Let's see the source, please, cuz it's (not surprising) news to me!
Reminds me of pimps, if it's true -- disgusting! Give us a URL.
This guy has quite a lot to say about it:

Try this in https://duckduckgo.com - many, many hits
site:http://techrights.org linux foundation
 

Vrai

Well-Known Member
Credits
2,416
This is somewhat relevant to the topic (I think)'
"How CloudLinux Plans to Keep CentOS 6 Alive"
CentOS reaches end of life this coming November of 2020, and some organizations have yet to migrate to a newer, longer supported version. CloudLinux has decided to make a service available that intends to keep CentOS 6 alive for a long period of time, until 2024! If your organization is having difficulty migrating, this may be an option worth looking into.
 


Members online


Top