Pretty sure I was using virtual desktops in CDE in 1995. At the time GNU/Linux had extremely limited, if any, desktops.
> CLIs, which are becoming increasingly more supported and important on both Windows and MacOS are thanks to Linux.
CLI's predate Linux by quite some time! DOS, heck Windows 1.0, was essentially a CLI application! Those 'Linux' commands are part of the GNU suite, named for various UNIX programs that they emulate.
> Developers on both Windows and MacOS depend on package management software picked up straight from Linux, such as chocolatey/scoop in the former and brew with the latter.
Can't speak for Windows, but Mac package managers have been around for longer than brew has existed and certainly as long as OS X/macOS has been in existence. Fink (2000) and Macports (2002) spring to mind. The two oldest package managers are dpkg, closely followed by FreeBSD ports in 1994. Everything else is post 2000, barring perhaps RPM and APT.
> Almost every Windows and Mac software is developed using git. Git was literally invented for writing Linux.
Git was invented not for writing Linux, but to maintain the source because BitKeeper screwed the community over. It won mindshare off the back of that because it wasn't CVS or SVN.
This comment is what is bad for Linux. A lot of us old-timers were around for all of this, and before GNU/Linux was a twinkling in the eyes of their founders. Yes, there has been a lot of positive contributions from Linux and the community, but can we please stop presenting it as some sort of panacea? It very definitely isn't.
To add to your points, since macOS is BSD derived, certainly the BSD package manager inspired it more (hence also why MacPorts is popular too from
2002 onwards)
Also, I agree with your last point. Comments like theirs are endemic of having too much of a hyper focus on what one is passionate about, and causing folks to miss seeing the bigger picture. There’s also a heavy recency bias involved.
No one outside of here much cares about the fine grained differences between GNU/Linux and Unix and they mostly shouldn't have to.
The more important part is that the general spirit (strongly buttressed by the GPL and Stallman, I'd argue, more than anything else but we can debate) represents a better and smarter way of looking at computing than letting everything we do get taken over overly greedy companies. There's some need for "capitalism" for sure, but this was the more important part.
I think it’s a bit rude to call them old and grumpy for accurately calling out inaccuracies in the other persons comments.
The GPL’nes of it all didn’t even factor into the other posters comments about feature influence, and I’d argue that it’s not a factor in influencing Windows/Mac at a regular consumer level.
Clearly the GP does as they cite it a things that they think come directly from Linux and/or it's influenced general computing. I'm just setting them straight on few things.
Pretty sure I was using virtual desktops in CDE in 1995. At the time GNU/Linux had extremely limited, if any, desktops.
> CLIs, which are becoming increasingly more supported and important on both Windows and MacOS are thanks to Linux.
CLI's predate Linux by quite some time! DOS, heck Windows 1.0, was essentially a CLI application! Those 'Linux' commands are part of the GNU suite, named for various UNIX programs that they emulate.
> Developers on both Windows and MacOS depend on package management software picked up straight from Linux, such as chocolatey/scoop in the former and brew with the latter.
Can't speak for Windows, but Mac package managers have been around for longer than brew has existed and certainly as long as OS X/macOS has been in existence. Fink (2000) and Macports (2002) spring to mind. The two oldest package managers are dpkg, closely followed by FreeBSD ports in 1994. Everything else is post 2000, barring perhaps RPM and APT.
> Almost every Windows and Mac software is developed using git. Git was literally invented for writing Linux.
Git was invented not for writing Linux, but to maintain the source because BitKeeper screwed the community over. It won mindshare off the back of that because it wasn't CVS or SVN.
This comment is what is bad for Linux. A lot of us old-timers were around for all of this, and before GNU/Linux was a twinkling in the eyes of their founders. Yes, there has been a lot of positive contributions from Linux and the community, but can we please stop presenting it as some sort of panacea? It very definitely isn't.