Each has strengths, each has things that pieve me.
What about TOPS-20 ?
Or RiscOS ?
And OpenGenera ?
Or LynxOS ?
Or L4 ?
Linux IS a piece of crap, but in that analogy, win2k is a squirt of hot diarrhea that has been fermenting in the bowl for 10 years, just begging to be flushed. Ill take a solid **** any day.
Every operating system except OpenVMS is junk. Mainly because their logo is Jaws.
We have a dual-flush low flow toilet waiting to be installed, replacing the old toilet (which is functionally fantastic).
I do not look forward to it.
I prefer the Toto toilets over the INAX ones :PShow Image(http://www.mygreenaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/toto.jpg)
Lol what's the 2nd button from the left? A boobwash?
I look forward to my toilet while peeing.
Now in Asia...Show Image(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4138/4801509142_c8ac696131_z.jpg)
is bidet a nice thing*?
Every operating system except OpenVMS is junk. Mainly because their logo is Jaws.
I've got a little IBM "shark" storage rubber shark around here somewhere, wonder where that thing is?Show Image(http://www.xcc.com/images/webadmin/prod/1105/IBM_ESS_F20.jpg)
I've got two whole bags of little Intel astronauts lying around.
I've got two whole bags of little Intel astronauts lying around.
Who do you think you're talking to? What computer products do I have that aren't out-of-date? My AutoCad manual from 1989? Windows 2000? Office 97?
your actually using win2k? i thought that was a joke...
I love Windows 2000 SP4. It's a great operating system. It never crashes
, takes less than a second to properly shut down, and runs extremely fast. It's also compatible with modern software.
I've only got the little blue astronauts. And they're pre-Pentium.
W2K support actually ended in mid-July. A very sad month.
What are you going to do with all of them, sell them? Or let them delicately age like vintage wine.
you got any pics of those? I thought those guys were created to promote pentiums
Now that you mention it, weren't they tied into Pentium II MMX technology?
ext3 on Ubuntu, NTFS on 7.
There you go, use Ext4 or JFS instead...
I've never personally seen the Windows kernel. I don't know if anyone here has.
I look forward to my toilet while peeing.
Now in Asia...Show Image(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4138/4801509142_c8ac696131_z.jpg)
What is a "pieve of crap"?
when I was learning hacking.
What is a "pieve of crap"?
Windows ME was complete **** in every conceivable way.
It was better than Windows 98 though.
It was better than Windows 98 though.
The DOS-based Windozes:My order:
98SE > 98 > ME > 95(all)
Pre-95 is too bad to even qualify on a relative scale...
Well. If you have some older hardware, might make sense to run an older OS and application software on it. Depending on what you want to do, might be perfectly adequate. Software bloat isn't noticed if masked by newer hardware with faster processors with more memory & disk. More powerful hardware helps sell more feature laden bloated software which helps sell more powerful hardware... But you can sure see the bloat if you load the software on older hardware as it starts to crawl as it chews up the CPU but even more than that uses all the memory and starts paging & churning the hard drive.
It was better than Windows 98 though.
Windows ME was complete **** in every conceivable way.
It was better than Windows 98 though.
NO.
Well. If you have some older hardware, might make sense to run an older OS and application software on it. Depending on what you want to do, might be perfectly adequate. Software bloat isn't noticed if masked by newer hardware with faster processors with more memory & disk. More powerful hardware helps sell more feature laden bloated software which helps sell more powerful hardware... But you can sure see the bloat if you load the software on older hardware as it starts to crawl as it chews up the CPU but even more than that uses all the memory and starts paging & churning the hard drive.
Actually, I like to install linux on old hardware exactly to see that it won't crawl to a stop :) To this day it is the only OS I have seen that can run equally well on old hardware as well as new.I'm using an older laptop right now and put Linux (current version) on it figuring it would run quicker than windoze and it's acceptable, at least to me, :wink:.
I have an old 1200 MHz laptop that I've treated to an Arch Linux install running LXDE. It beats every other distro I've tried to run on it (Ubuntu, Fedora, Mint, Debian, even VectorLinux and Crunchbang). Usually 240p YouTube is a no-go, but with Arch I can watch 360p and it's smooth. XVid is also no problem. H264 needs beefier hardware.Same experience here. Arch Linux has allowed for a proper introduction to the UNIX way of doing things, and I absolutely love it. I love working on a computer more than ever before.
You do not learn how a Linux works by using GUI configuration tools. That's why it's been said that "Linux is ****, stuff breaks and then you may have to get down to the command line". This is true, but you were supposed to START at the command line. Editing a .conf file is so elegant, I can't believe I didn't see it like this before. Addiction has set in.
Relying on complex tools to manage and build your system is going to hurt the end users. [...] "If you try to hide the complexity of the system, you'll end up with a more complex system". Layers of abstraction that serve to hide internals are never a good thing. Instead, the internals should be designed in a way such that they NEED no hiding.
I've got to a stage whereby I can install and configure Arch on a system quicker than I can try and make Ubuntu work the way I want it to.
Linux =/= Linux. If you put the latest vanilla Ubuntu on an old computer and expect it to run well, it won't. Lots of unnecessary daemons, lots of enterprise features and stuff like SELinux which, while nice in theory, won't be necessary for the average user and will slow things down substantially.
I have an old 1200 MHz laptop that I've treated to an Arch Linux install running LXDE. It beats every other distro I've tried to run on it (Ubuntu, Fedora, Mint, Debian, even VectorLinux and Crunchbang). Usually 240p YouTube is a no-go, but with Arch I can watch 360p and it's smooth. XVid is also no problem. H264 needs beefier hardware.
You do not learn how a Linux works by using GUI configuration tools. That's why it's been said that "Linux is ****, stuff breaks and then you may have to get down to the command line". This is true, but you were supposed to START at the command line. Editing a .conf file is so elegant, I can't believe I didn't see it like this before. Addiction has set in.
I'm with Shawn Stanford and 8_INCH_FLOPPY on this one that Windows ME was complete **** in every conceivable way.
Comparing Windows 98 and ME is like comparing cat and dog poop.
It ran pretty well off of 80MB. You'll be surprised. What I did was I made sure the installation was as clean as possible, and it wasn't nearly as slow as I expected.
MW has a fascination with poop. (http://geekhack.org/showpost.php?p=239135&postcount=107)
It was complete ****, but it still beat Windows 98.
oh, and MW, when you install an OS that doesnt DO ANYTHING (which is windows in general), that's not considered "running".
Linux fanboy much?
Linux fanboy much?
Hell, Ill indulge your troll attempt.
It's only fanboyism if I'm wrong, which I am not.
Zomg ch_123 you're so clever! Hey, I can use Google too!
You the man now, dawg.
The point never had anything to do with footprint. It had to do with you claiming Windows is an OS that doesn't do anything. Which is stupid and wrong. That's all, broseph.
1200 Mhz will run Windows 2000 or XP great. So will a 600Mhz CPU. And a 120Mhz can run them OK.
How well would Arch Linux run off a 160Mhz system with 80MB of RAM? That computer system ran Windows XP pretty well.
And unlike Windows, the bundled software is actually usable...
What??? No. Win98SE was pretty good.
win2k and lower are absolutely useless out of the box
win2k and lower are absolutely useless out of the box
Bwah? 2K is a decently stable server platform out of the box, includes TCP/IP and a rtf/doc reader.
win2k and lower are absolutely useless out of the box, and to expand on their functionality is to increase their footprint significantly.
Case in point, can I run windows sans GUI?
Ofcource if ms officially started bundling any more software than what they are now, I'd wager that we'd see some interesting anti-trust lawsuits.You are comparing apples to melons. Microsoft controls who can bundle their software, with GNU/Linux, this is not the case. They vouched to make their software free*, so everyone who wants to make a distro can do so at any time.
Not a desktop version, but you can get something close to a base CLI linux install with server 2008 core http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Server_2008#Server_Core (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Server_2008#Server_Core)
You are somewhat correct in saying that Linux is more modular by design. This is mostly because it shares the UNIX design philosophy. Microsoft has demo'd a 25MB windows 7 CLI build running as a web server. I think if they wanted to enter the embedded market they probably could dedicate a few tens of millions of dollars and get the code refactored to compete with Linux w.r.t modularization. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNsS_0wSfoU#t=3m30s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNsS_0wSfoU#t=3m30s)
Windows with a proper repository of useful software and a package manager to go with it would actually be awesome.
Unless they use things like DirectX, .NET, Java, etc. The amount of crap you need to get a working windows system is ridiculous.
Windows already has a repository of useful software (it's called the majority of software built today) and the package manager is the built-in installer. Unlike Linux, Windows doesn't need a repository, because it doesn't come in all these different flavors like Linux. And at least with Windows, you don't have to worry so much about package dependencies...everything is typically nicely bundled.
Win2K had PAE support, which allowed it to support something like 64GB of RAM. Later 32-bit versions of Windows restricted this functionality to server versions only. Linux has the same functionality available as far as I know.
Windows Update, maaaaaaaan.
*runs*
2008 core is ridiculous. That is still a GUI, Why draw GUI elements at all? Because windows sysadmins are afraid of text?
You still get all the problems associated with GUIs - unnecessary memory usage, and the potential stability/security issues, and having to run the appropriate drivers which cause more of the aforementioned resource/security/stability issues
Yep, *nix has modularity, Windows just sucks balls.
What they said time after time was that MinWin was just the basic kernel that they were going to use in Windows 7 and 2008 Server R2.
I wouldn't boast about it needing 25MB of RAM, especially given that you can get a GUI Linux desktop running in about 16MB of RAM, and probably not much more for a proper web server running on top of a CLI linux installation with the appropriate user land utils.
Embedded? There are real embedded systems that run in kilobytes of RAM that do real things. Still wouldn't boast about needing 25MB to run a castrated http server on top of a DOS-like shell.
and therein lies the downfall of Windows. Because the user is tasked with getting all their software from all over hell's half acre, instead of a trusted resource, the stupider end of the user base inevitably winds up with a hosed system, be it through the installation of malicious software, or just plain poorly written ****.
Thats quite comical. Unfortunately your rant is not based on reality. CSRSS.exe(win32 subsystem) is one of the most stable pieces of code in Windows. Windows Safe mode relies on it. As far as drivers go you can choose not to install any graphics drivers.
The UNIX spec has nothing to do with kernel modularity. Also the Linux kernel is anything but modular. Its a giant binary blob. Thats the reason there is never going to be a stable kernel ABI layer for many things such as display drivers. Something that NT had about 17 years ago.
You're mistaken. MinWin is *already* in Windows 7 and server 2008. They're refactoring their codebase and while they're not going to make a new product with it they're using it to build a complete OS - aka Windows.
Thats it? Got any more refutations for imaginary points that I never made?
Unlike Linux, Windows doesn't need a repository, because it doesn't come in all these different flavors like Linux.
I read somewhere that the debate in the early 60s at IBM between a 6-bit or 8-bit byte almost caused fistfights in the hallways at Old Armonk...
This is true. But, you can have a similar problem on the Linux side of things too. In the future its possible that hundreds and thousands of software vendors would want users to install software through their own repository. And guess what - The same problem of not having a sufficiently vetted white-list appears.
Its just a matter of scale. If tommorow all the commercial software on windows was available on Linux, who is going to employ people to test and verify that the software doesn't contain malware? Heck even if it was all magically open sourced, who is going to sift through all that code and verify that its kosher?
Dependencies are a problem in windows. Java, that is a dependency. .NET framework is a dependency. Python, perl, ruby ... all dependencies. The difference is that you are used to dealing with them. Doesn't make them any better, in fact, it's far worse. Often prebuilt binaries on a windows box try to bundle in the required libraries, add ons etc. This is really haphazard and can lead to software conflicts, duplicate versions, leftover registry **** etc etc.
All GOOD package managers for nix handle all this in stride.
All the dependencies you mentioned you typically install once (in both Linux and Windows) and fuggedaboutit (until you have to upgrade). Those aren't the dependencies I'm talking about. I'm talking about package-level dependencies due to the way binaries are created in Linux. For example, you want to install a package only to find out it depends on 6 other packages. THat kidn of stuff is very confusing for people coming from the Windows world where most things are quite nicely bundled. Actually I've never had software conflicts or duplicate version issues in either system. In Windows you do have the issue of leftover registry entries hanging around but it's a trade-off I'm willing to live with. Linux's lack of ease of installing pretty much everything is one of it's biggest weaknesses IMHO. I've yet to see a GUI package manager in Linux that isn't confusing and you can't expect people to use the command line to install,update,etc. I agree that when you know how to do this, it's a pretty slick system. But too confusing for new users. In the end it's all about usability anyway - that's what makes or breaks your software.
keyboardlover, making a point that is absolutely, unquestionably factual and that I agree with?
I think hell froze over...
There will always be 1% of the market that uses Linux on the Desktop.
I believe in diversity and so do Canadian magazine editors.Show Image(http://www.adrants.com/images/fun_guide_photoshop_disaster.jpg)
But given that most decent package managers automate the dependency handling without any user intervention, what's the issue? It's not that much more different than installing, for example, a game under Windows which tells you during installation that you need to install DirectX, a multiplayer client, an anti-hack utility and some audio/video codecs.
GUIs are particularly problematic in the case of Windows because of how entangled into the working of the OS they are.
And if you don't install drivers, you're still using whatever default drivers that Windows has. How else would the GUI with that command prompt window work?
It certainly appears that the lack of modularity in Windows is at least partially to do with the Windows OS architecture, so it's fair to say that Unix enjoys better inherent modularity over Windows. Either way, in practice just about any Unix-based system is miles ahead of Windows in terms of modularity, so it's something of a moot point.
Also, if the NT display driver architecture has been such a success for 17 years, how come they seem to change it every second release?
I said that MinWin was the underlying kernel being used in Windows 7 and Server 08 R2. You reply with "No, you're wrong, it's being used in Windows 7 and Server 2008". Apparently I'm missing your subtle genius here.
Well, you were the one who was talking about the great MS kernel that takes up 25MB of RAM, and how it could be the basis for embedded systems, so if you are so offended by your own ideas, I suggest keeping them to yourself.
I think the problem isn't just Linux, but also a problem with C/C++ in that it isn't really supported by a modern application framework that handles dependencies nicely, like Java or .NET. As such, Java packages do tend to be the easiest to install in both operating systems. The package dependency issue I'm referring to is similar to the DLL-Hell days of COM C/C++ on Windows systems. If you've worked on stuff like this, and worked on C/C++ applications in Linux, you know that these two environments are just as frustrating for developers and why.
It is true that Win32 subsystem is almost entirely in kernel mode as compared to Xwindows. However thats not sufficient reason to assume anything. Its a different design. Xwindows has its drawbacks too. Since it shares memory space with other user-loadable binaries, and I've seen this happen quite a few times, a rogue app can take down Xwindows (and all other running applications) while keeping the OS working (a hollow victory when faced with possible data loss from crashing the other running apps).
I think the issue is customization is not a necessary condition for a OS to be modular. One philosophy is that when writing desktop operating systems for mass usage you want to keep the number of possible configurations to a small amount to allow software developers to target the platform. They can write software assuming X,Y,Z, components are always going to be present. And subsequently you don't have to re-train your support staff to handle all possible configurations while troubleshooting. Thats fine for your average user but for power users its a major downer not being able to customize the OS.
I didn't word that correctly. :D What I meant to say was MinWin *is* Windows 7 & WS2008. There is no separate kernel from the "normal" Windows kernel.
Um, I merely pointed out a fact which surprises people - Which is that NT can be made to run on a much smaller resource budget. I didn't realize that it could be taken as trumpeting from the rooftops.
One question, why the hell do you have to install DirectX every time you install a new game? This is $#%# retarded. Why the hell should you waste space and time reinstalling the same thing over and over again.
Well, I disagree. But I am not a fanboi of either operating system. Can you say the same?
KL, can you provide actual evidence/example of what you are insisting is correct? Because I know for a fact what you are saying is not the case.
It maybe that the last time you used Linux was with early versions of Redhat which did not in fact resolve any dependencies. Still, does not make what you're saying right.
How is the dependency 'issue' under Linux different to that under Windows? From what you've said, it appears the same issues affect the two equally.
Show me, not with words, an example of this problem you speak of.
Although these repositories are often huge it is not possible to have every piece of software in them, so dependency hell can still occur. In all cases, dependency hell is still faced by the repository maintainers. Examples of these systems include Apt, Yum, Urpmi, ZYpp, Portage, Pacman and others.
Dependency hell is a colloquial term for the frustration of some software users who have installed software packages which have dependencies on specific versions of other software packages [1]. This was mainly attributable to old Linux package managers. Current package managers have largely solved this problem by automatically resolving and downloading dependencies.
Emphasis my own. So, again, you are saying dependency hell still occurs in modern linux distributions? Show me.
No, I'm saying that in terms of the user's perspective, the package managers in linux make installing dependencies confusing. More so than in the majority of Windows application installs, where everything is nicely packaged. What the user experiences, is a result of how well the operating system's package management/install tool handles such dependencies (or the package that's being installed itself). The issues are a result of all those things.
What? Confusing how? The user is not asked anything nor does he see anything, dependencies are handled automagically. You have tried Ubuntu, how can you not know this.
What? Confusing how? The user is not asked anything nor does he see anything, dependencies are handled automagically. You have tried Ubuntu, how can you not know this.
You're not making much sense, sorry man :)
That's not true in all cases. It all depends on the structure of the package you're installing. I'm sorry I can't name a package off the top of my head to give you as an example. But I know that it happens and I've seen these issues.
I'm sure even if you search Ubuntu's forum (install/build section probably) you'll see many examples of what I'm talking about.
Well that was correct, in the Windows COM days (before .NET).
Not anymore. Windows has cleaned up their operating system and application framework a lot since those days.
Linux still needs to catch up...
I call BS. With Linux you have variety, some good, some crap, some ok. It's up to the individual or distro to choose which one (preferred web browser anyone?).
In a perfect world everyone uses .NET, but this is not a perfect world and everyone doesn't use .NET
And what Linux frameworks are you talking about? If you mention xlib, I'll just point you to MFC. Both are equally terrible (I've programmed using both).
And in terms of software development tools, Linux is just less of a pain in the ass. Sure there's is Visual Studio's for Windows, but that is a major piece of bloatware (debugger is good, but you're not always debugging, build system is absolute crap in comparison to say SCONs or CMake).
I still don't know what KL is talking about tho :) That's why I kept asking for an example. We've gone from installation, to dependencies, to linking and search paths and who knows what else.
What I'm asking is what is the problem you are referring to? Dependencies that are not satisfied at install time? That's the repository maintainers' problem, not the users'.
I'm not understanding - what exactly are you referring to here? Variety of what?
Just talking about Linux frameworks in general. Java and .NET are much easier to work with in my experience.
By bloat, you seem to be referring to features. Those features, in my experience, only speed up development time. Especially VS 2010 (which is what I currently use).
What makes SCONx or CMake any better than MSBuild? It's not the builder so much as the framework IMO. Builders just build what they're told to; they're not very smart tools.
For example, with CMake I can build a project with 4 separate library dependencies in about 5 lines of script/code.
The equivalent in a typical build file for Visual Studios is in the kilobytes of xml. It's complicated enough that you almost have to use the GUI to change it. Again requiring me to start up Visual Studios again rather than just changing, say a build target.
Secondly, try to create this build file from scratch. Another giant pain in the ass.
Whereas CMake or SCons I can just create the build file on any computer/text editor and just drop it in. When it's 5 lines of script, why the hell should I have to wait for VS to load when I would already be done the changes, in say notepad.
the package managers in linux make installing dependencies confusing.
How?
What packages were they? I've used Ubuntu and Debian for god knows how many years, and the only time I've ever seen stuff like that was when I was playing around with unstable repos. For mainline stuff, I've never seen it happen.