PcLinux

Peter wrote:


Yeah, for that kind of thing even I'd use java, the integration is just so good. Python is nice for scripting and internet applications, and plays nicely with .net. It's also nice to have essentially self-commenting code, since Python is very easy to read. I'm beginning to see your point- he's never going to understand what it is we're talking about since he hasn't ever seriously used Linux. Wish more people realized that computers are more than web browsers and word processors. GCC
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
gcc wrote:

There is indeed more to computers than web browsers and word processors, however that is largely out of the desktop realm. As I said, for a desktop OS, Windows is perfectly fine and perfectly reliable. As a server OS Windows does ok for personal use, it sure as hell doesn't scale to enterprise class.
As for Linux, I'm well aware of what you're talking about and I'm quite familiar with "real" enterprise class operating systems. The fact remains that for normal desktop use (and you shouldn't be running web or mail or whatever servers on your desktop machine), Linux, Windows and even OS X are all adequate though I can't stand the OS X UI.
I did retrieve a spare system from the pile and will be fiddling with some of the more recent Linux stuff you mentioned.
Pete C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

    :-)
    [ ... ]

    Photoshop and "the GIMP" are both very powerful programs, and both take a while to learn enough about to really make things easy to accomplish.

    FWIW -- Solaris 10 has now been made open source. I've downloaded a lot of the source for Solaris 10. And the binaries can be downloaded for free as well. (Granted, you have to register and get a password, but there is no charge for the downloads once you have done so.) The source is a nice enhancement to the documentation as well.
    [ ... ]

    Agreed. (Though it will run slower when running from the CD-ROM -- at least what is not put into ramdisk at boot time will.)

    I know that I've been playing with unix since before Windows came out -- and one of the strong points about unix (including securing it) is that the documentation is *available* so you can know what is there that you might wish to turn off and *how* to turn it off. Windows documentation is a joke. If you need to learn how to tighten it up (and *far* too much is turned on by default), you have to pay money to take one of Microsoft's courses. That information *should* be available without having to attend a course.
    Enjoy,         DoN.
--
Email: < snipped-for-privacy@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I didn't know that solaris 10 had been made totally open, I was under the impression that they had forked the project into openSolaris and solaris 10, I'll have to check it out. GCC
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
rrr for some reason I'm losing messages here.
Allow me to just say that any time that your chief complaint against software is what its named, your argument is in serious trouble. Linux is cheaper, more powerful, and more flexible than windows. Unix (including OS X) has many of those same advantages. Windows is, therefore, the least capable of the major desktop systems- leading to my comment that "anything is better than windows". GCC
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
gcc wrote:

I've clearly indicated my issues with it go well beyond the asinine naming of many utilities.

And that is where your argument falls flat. All your claims of more capable OS only have relevance to server type applications. For a desktop OS Windows is as good as any of them and indeed better than OS X with it's hideous UI.
Pete C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pete C. wrote:

Like lack of documentation? A clearly false claim?

Right, 'cause microcontrollers are servers, as are supercomputers, as is my desktop. I'm going to ask you a few basic questions here: 1) Is Linux capable of providing the same functionality as Windows? 2) Is OS X capable of providing the same functionality as Windows? 3) Is windows capable of providing the same functionality as OS X or Linux? Basic questions, basic answers. I will remind you that the question at stake is whether windows is in fact a better operating system than any of its competitors, and that the purpose of an operating system is to bring the power of a computer to bear for programs and users. So I return to that one simple question: is windows as good at that as Linux or OS X- and the answer, quite obviously, is no. I'm beginning to sense that your basic point isn't that it is any more capable than its competitors- it's that you don't like its competitors. Those aren't the same thing, and I hope that you can see that. And OS X has an award-winning UI that is considered by many the high water mark of UI design, so you'll pardon me if I don't take your aesthetic considerations seriously. GCC
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
gcc wrote:

Claiming I said that is a false claim. I clearly indicated it was an issue with inconsistent documentation that bothered me about Linux. Inconsistent is not synonymous with a lack of documentation.

WTF are you babbling about? Are you one of those programmer types who can't stay in context?
To clarify:
Microcontrollers are the only thing I write code on (in ASM).
Servers are what I manage every day (real ones, not PC crap).
Desktop is what I work from, not where I run server type applications from.

Yes.
Yes.
Yes for anything reasonably related to desktop use.

So now you conspicuously leave the "desktop" part out of your question eh?

And how do you justify that claim?
With claims of Windows instability? I personally witnessed a friends OS X Macbook crash numerous times while my home Windows systems haven't crashed in litterally years.
With claims of Windows insecurity? My W2K web and mail server has been running 24 x 365 x two years on cable modem and under attack daily and has not been compromised.
Care to give an example of something that Linux or OS X can do that Windows can't? And this isn't a free open source vs. have to pay for an application.

I never said Windows was more capable, I pointed out that it is just as capable for pretty much anything you could reasonably expect to do on a desktop and many server tasks as well. I'm not bashing Linux functionally (just it's inconsistent documentation and stupid names), you're bashing Windows and your claims against Windows have been nebulous or simply untrue.

OS X has a UI that wins awards from it's 10% user base and is considered a high water mark of UI design by that same 10% user base. The rest of the world thinks it's cheesy and dumbed down to a pre school level. And just for reference I hate Windows apps that try to be Mac like with cheesy stylized "organic" windows and I also hate cheesy animated junk.
Pete C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

    [ ... ]

    What, exactly, are you calling "stupid names"? Things like "awk" (a pattern matching language)? The name is derived from the initials of the three authors "Aho, Weinberger, and Kernighan". And it is *not* unique to linux. It has been with unix since at least v7 unix.
    And the reason for the short command names (mv, cp, ls, rm, etc) on unix is because early versions of unix were often stuck with ASR-33 Teletypes as terminals. They were blindingly fast (10 CPS), and the keyboard was sufficiently insensitive that you could balance a broom handle down on a key without pressing it hard enough to send a character. As a result, there was a bias towards short commands (less strain on the user's typing fingers. This set of command names persists today because it is awkward to change command names under the existing userbase.
    Granted -- linux implementations of programs (and other free source ones as well) often wind up with weird command names -- in part because all the logical ones have already been taken by earlier programs which perform similar functions. An example is the "more" program which is used to display one screenful at a time from a file, and "less" (which came along later) is a superset of "more". What would be a logical name to indicate that it is a superset? And that choice was made before linux even came into existence.
    Also -- remember that a lot of extension to the unix command set was made by the BSD project -- a bunch of college kids getting to play with the source for unix and to extend it as they saw fit. The programs which are still around from that are the ones which people discovered made life easier for the user/programmer.
    Enjoy,         DoN.
--
Email: < snipped-for-privacy@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

Naming a utility after it's authors name instead of something that actually describes it's function is stupid and unprofessional and I didn't say it was unique to Linux.

There is nothing wrong with commands abbreviated to two or three characters and indeed VMS does this exceedingly well without resorting to cryptic acronyms.

That's an example of one of the problems with the whole open source / unstructured world, and something that isn't a problem with OSes that are consistently developed by one company where the successor would also be "more" just a later version.

Again going back to my gripe about the amateurish nature of Linux.
I'll also note that the Linux bigots in this thread have touted how wonderful Linux is and how powerful it is while simultaneously trashing Windows, however they have not produced a single concrete example of how Linux is superior. Indeed most of their claims of greatness have revolved around "open source" and "free" which while not bad things do not in any way indicate a superior product.
When they produce a solid example of something you can do with Linux that you can not do with Windows then they may have something legitimate. Until then it is simple mindless Windows / Microsoft bashing.
Pete C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pete C. wrote:

Ummm, an o/s is a collection of programs, maybe sitting on top of some firmware. That's all it is.

As I said - Windows bigots, arguments..... you just keep you Windows systems. I don't care. Let's just see how the tide of history goes. Pretty soon one thing you'll be able to do with Linux is run it on hardware that isn't connected to the net and doesn't want to tattle home to M$. I'm really looking forward to the next M$ operating system. Should be a maaaaajor incentive for people to shift to something else. And before you raise piracy as an issue, I don't. However I have heaps of computers on ships with no internet connection, or in remote places with very slow and intermittent connections.
Turning your argument around - how about you come up with one thing that you can do with Windows that can't be done with Linux or OS X? If you can't, why pay money for an o/s that you have to take blindly?
Well.....?
PDW
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

    Pardon! *I* did not say what was quoted there. (Nor *would* I!) Could you not have edited out that attribution string?
    Yes -- I know that the quoting level shows that I did not say it, *if* the programs all added quoting according to usenet conventions, but not all do.
    Enjoy,         DoN.
--
Email: < snipped-for-privacy@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DoN. Nichols wrote:

Yeah - sorry about that, missed a line with my cut.
I don't really understand the Windows bigots. Half the time I think they really don't understand that an o/s is a series of layers and the presentation layer is just the top, for most people. So Pete C likes WinXP and doesn't like Apple Aqua. BFD. If M$ had written their o/s in a modular manner, using POSIX compliance, they could have ported it to run on X easily, and then it could be run on Linux, OS X, Solaris, whatever. They never have because it's better financially to keep tight integration, and it allows for sloppy coding and all sorts of unseen hacks.
Ditto for Office. I run it under OS X - bought a Mac version - so it isn't impossible for them. Where's the Linux version? I strongly suspect there's an internal fight going on in M$ between the application sales people who want sales on all platforms and the o/s sales guys who want to avoid competing on a level playing field by keeping Office etc exclusive to their o/s. Shades of IBM in the 80's trying to avoid cannibalising their revenue streams from mainframes & minis. Ditto Ken Olsen at DEC. Look where they are now. IBM is essentially a services organisation and DEC is dead. Best thing M$ could do is get out of the o/s business and concentrate on applications, where their products are pretty good. They're going to lose the o/s war anyway.
I think M$ Office is a less buggy product than Open Office but that's because I get a lot of Office docs and the compatibility isn't all that wonderful. I'm quite happy running Office on my Mac. If I had to run Windows then I'd probably seriously look for alternatives.
PDW
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Peter wrote:

Perhaps because you can't seem to understand that I'm not a Windows bigot while you are clearly a Linux bigot. I'm merely defending Windows against false claims. As for what I like, I've noted already that most of my Windows systems are running W2K, not XP. I'm not a trendy lemming who blindly "upgrades" without a good reason.

And the point of this statement? You seem to be confusing the UI and OS, like the Mac lemmings do. If Microsoft wanted to sell a UI to run on someone else's OS they certainly could do so, however they choose to sell an OS with their UI.

Why would Microsoft want to spend money to produce a Linux version of Office and then sell a couple hundred copies? Linux bigots aren't about to shell out $500 for Microsoft Office to run on their Linux system, they'll use Open Office for free and claim it's better.

I think you're missing the fact that one of the failings of Linux is it's lack of a services organization. Also why should Microsoft get out of the OS business where they are clearly not loosing and are indeed generating substantial revenue? Do you honestly think their OS business is in any way taking resources away from their other operations?

And why would you look for alternatives if you had to run MS Office on Windows? What is so glaringly bad about Windows that you'd do anything to avoid it? Don't want to spend the modest $ for it? Believe the bogus hype about crashes every 10 minutes? What is so bloody bad about Windows? In all my years of Windows experience it has been perfectly functional and reliable. Your arguments are rather like the Ford vs. Chevy vs. Dodge arguments, and equally without merit.
Pete C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Right- lack of choice, lack of options, lack of reconfigurability.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
gcc wrote:

The same complaints would apply to Apple which you seem to like. They don't produce a separate UI to run on others OSes either yet somehow it's ok for them?
Pete C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pete C. wrote:

... yeah, actually, they do- OS X runs the X server, which is what all Linux GUIs run on top of, allowing people to choose whatever they want. Aqua just didn't run off of PPC, which it now does. Can't get it for free, of course, but you can run it just fine. And I think calling them "lemmings" could probably be construed as "bashing"...
GCC
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
gcc wrote:

I never indicated I didn't bash Apple, their claims of inventing just about everything (like the GUI, the PDA, the portable music player and many others) which are all false, and the lemmings who blindly follow them.
Pete C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pete C. wrote:

Wrong. I'm a unix bigot. Not the same thing. Linux is merely one variant. My firs tpick of unix variants is still Solaris, because I generally measure the system uptime from when I commission a machine to when I decommission it some 3 or 4 years later.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa. I do nothing of the kind. You Windows guys do because the UI is so tightly integrated into the OS it's difficult to tell where one starts and the other stops. Apple is also guilty of this albeit to a lesser extent, because they also provide a full fledged X Windows code tree as well. Where's Microsoft's?
And of course, with X the UI is a matter of end user choice. Unlike M$.
Funny thing is, I don't mind M$'s UI - at least the Win2K one. I don't think all that much of Apple's. The single menu toolbar on top of the screen is damn annoying. So I'm not a UI bigot by any means. I most definitely do separate out consideration of the underlying OS from the pretty presentation layer. That's why I avoid Windows.
If Microsoft wanted to sell a UI to run on

Right, that's the point. Judging by their arguments in court WRT their inability to separate out *applications* like Web browsers from their OS, one wonders just how much cross dependencies there actually is hidden. But - I don't care.

Yep, that explains why I have a copy of MS Office on my Mac, of course. You're 100% correct.

Dunno. I'm not privy to their internal stuff, nor do I really care. As for not losing, time will tell. I think that they will lose. The absolute *best* you can say about Windows now is that it's not much worse than Linux. It certainly isn't superior in any way, so why pay money for it? The next version is gonna take *even more* CPU, memory and disk space to run. That's really gonna encourage people to upgrade, isn't it? Not to mention all the 'tattle home' fatures. You have no idea how much of a PITA that can be. We'll never run it simply because of that. Why? Try reinstalling stuff aboard a ship in mid ocean when there's no net connection because a HDD has died, or a motherboard has and you've swapepd the HDD to another machine. No thanks.

Buggy, missing half the tools I use. No decent telnet client, no X Windows, no ssh client or server daemon, no sftpd. No Apache server. No postgresql server, or mysql, or any other rdbms. No remote admin as standard including no VNC. If you're Joe Average running a word processor, spreadsheet & Web browser, you won't care. As a developer of 'always on' code, I do. ATM on this Mac I have another Mac console running in a minimised window using VNC, telnet sessions to 2 Solaris machines, more telnet sessions to a couple of Linux machines, this Web browser and an email client. The other Mac is running a long database insertion routine and acting as a test server for some new socket level code I'm writing, with the client end running on one of the Linux machines which is also connected to 2 terminal servers via tcp/ip over satellite links to serial instruments down boreholes.

Gotta be joking, I have an enormous hardware & software budget. I can have anything I want. We do have a couple XP systems about just so my guys have some familiarity with them. Most of the techs have dual-boot laptops with Win2K and Linux. I'm the only one with a Mac but I do most of the software development in Java.
Believe the bogus

Win2K is pretty stable. Which is why I still have one server running it, mainly because there's an app that only runs under Windows.
What is so bloody bad about

As a desktop system, perhaps - for you.
Your arguments are rather like the Ford vs.

No, more like a comparison of a Trabant with a 4WD truck. You're happy with your Trabant and that's fine. Really.
I used to do this to the Apple bigots too. Then Jobs got a clue, threw away their entire POS o/s, installed a new one and their market share is increasing. Windows isn't. To me, an o/s is a tool just like a programming language is. I've learnt & forgotten over 30 computer languages in my career, including scripting languages. Nothing lasts forever and a tool is only the best until something more powerful comes along. The fact is, the unix type operating systems are more powerful tools at a much cheaper cost of entry than is Windows. If that power isn't any use to you, you won't care. History moves along regardless.
PDW
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Peter wrote:

Well, I measure uptime on most of my VMS systems in years as well. As for my personal Windows systems, the two that are up 24 x 365 have never crashed, the only reason they haven't had years of contiguous up time has been for periodic patches once or twice when I've reconfigured power and UPSs and of course when I've added or reconfigured some hardware.

So Microsoft only offers a single UI, so what? Their UI is sufficiently configurable for my tastes. As long as I can disable the Apple-esque stuff like animation's, hiding files and file extensions and other stupid stuff I'm perfectly happy with it.

See above.

I'm also perfectly happy with the CDE and indeed like it's consistency across platforms. I don't however get bent out of shape that Microsoft doesn't offer the CDE since once adjusted to my tastes I'm perfectly happy with the Windows UI.

I think the point is that it isn't just a web browser anymore, it's taken over the roll of file system browser as well. I also am highly offended by demands that Microsoft should not be allowed to include whatever it wants in it's products or be forced to bundle competitors products with it's own. That is in my opinion unconscionable.
If the public doesn't want to use what Microsoft bundles they are free to select other products and install them and they should not expect competitive products to come bundled. When you buy a car do you expect the manufacturer to load the truck with third party add ons just because you might prefer that gaudy Grant steering wheel to the stock one?

I'm not a bean counter, but I strongly suspect that the cost of producing a Linux or generic Unix version of MS Office would far exceed the sales revenue of such a product. Indeed were Microsoft to start selling said Linux / Unix Office suite I expect there would be all kinds of uproar about Microsoft trying to take over the Linux / Unix world.

I doubt they will loose. I don't think they're making much inroads into the midrange space, they seem to have pretty well plateaued in the general office support space. I doubt they will loose that or the desktop arena in the business world and by extension since most people work in the business world they are likely to also use Windows at home vs. something different.

Yep and I expect both will continue to evolve and that comparison will remain pretty consistent.

As does each new version of just about everything on just about every platform.

Yep since if you haven't noticed, PCs have been getting more and more powerful for the same price and storage has been getting astronomically large while it's prices keep falling. I paid a whopping $0.25 / GB recently for 400GB of Seagate disk.

Think firewall.

Not sure what variety of ship you're talking about, but you will have a full time high speed Internet connection readily available in short order. It's out now, full two way sat via active tracking phased array antenna for a couple grand. Going on all the new "Luxury coach" RVs now (also does sat TV). Given a relatively short amount of time there will be hardly any boat large enough to be called a ship that doesn't have it. Rather like nearly all the semis with sat links to dispatch.

I think you are sorely mistaken. Pretty much everything you mentioned is indeed available for Windows. Yes some of it is from third parties. Yes you have to pay for most of it.
I run an X windows server on windows from WRQ. I've also used eXcursion in the past. I've used SSH clients on Windows (forget which one) and I have some mysql component linked in with MS Access that I use occasionally. I have also used VNC on Windows to manage remote Unix systems and Windows has it's own remote management console should you want to manage Windows systems.

The Windows PC sitting next to this one is on a VPN connection to the corporate network, I have telnet sessions (WRQ Reflections client) on a number of VMS systems. I don't have any active at the moment but I've had VNC sessions active to AIX and Solaris systems. I have MS Outlook doing it's thing with an Exchange server as well as MS Office Communicator. So what you're doing on you machine is by no means unique to your Mac or a Unix system.

So you avoid MS just because you don't like them. Since it's not the cost and it's no a limitation of not being able to do something with their OS and various third party products.

I thought Linux could run all those evil Windows applications so I didn't have to use Windows? Again I had no stability issues with NT, 95 or 98 either,

As a desktop system, as a small scale server, as whatever I've needed it to do.

Nope Ford vs. Chevy vs. Dodge. You've just got that over hyped hemi (which has little in common with the old hemi) and you're just going around thumping your hemi chest while others in their Fords and Chevys continue to drive around doing the exact same things you do in your Dodge.

Same here. Indeed I bought one friend the OS X upgrade so she could at least run a real operating system even if she insisted on that terrible UI.

Exactly which is why I don't hop on the trendy anti establishment OS of the year bandwagon. Windows works perfectly fine so I will continue to use it until I find some compelling reason to use something else and cost just isn't a compelling reason for me.

Once again no articulation of what this mysterious power is. Pretty much everything mentioned has an equivalent on Windows so I don't see any extra power.
Pete C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.