If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
life after Windows....
Floyd L. Davidson writes:
Linux specifically is the Kernel. GNU specifically is the required userland toolset. So neither is actually an operating system. FreeBSD, UNIX, Mac OS, Windows, and OS/2 are all operating systems. Linux and GNU are not. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
life after Windows....
Mxsmanic wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson writes: Linux specifically is the Kernel. GNU specifically is the required userland toolset. So neither is actually an operating system. Not until you put them together, and then it is indeed an Operating System. FreeBSD, UNIX, Mac OS, Windows, and OS/2 are all operating systems. Linux and GNU are not. Why are you trying so hard to be so asinine? RedHat, Novel, Ubuntu, Knoppix, Slackware, Debian, CentOS, Gentoo, Mandriva, PCLinuxOS, DreamLinux, Elive, Mepus, Puppy, Slax, and a couple dozen others are in fact full fledge GNU/Linux Operationg System distributions. Using your ridiculous arguments it could be said that neither the "UNIX" nor the "Windows" objects you listed are actually OS's. They are both a family of OS's, but neither term describes a specific OS any more (or less) than GNU/Linux does. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
life after Windows....
Floyd L. Davidson writes:
Not until you put them together, and then it is indeed an Operating System. So it makes little sense to promote Linux alone vs. complete operating systems. RedHat, Novel, Ubuntu, Knoppix, Slackware, Debian, CentOS, Gentoo, Mandriva, PCLinuxOS, DreamLinux, Elive, Mepus, Puppy, Slax, and a couple dozen others are in fact full fledge GNU/Linux Operationg System distributions. You illustrate my point. You've named fifteen and alluded to dozens of other versions of "Linux" that are all different. There's absolutely no hope that Linux or operating systems built with it will ever replace the desktop as long as there are a hundred different versions floating around. And, of course, all the versions are effectively proprietary, because they are all unique. Using your ridiculous arguments it could be said that neither the "UNIX" nor the "Windows" objects you listed are actually OS's. They are both a family of OS's, but neither term describes a specific OS any more (or less) than GNU/Linux does. Every version of UNIX or Windows runs complete in itself. Linux does not. There are indeed many versions of UNIX and UNIX-like operating systems, which is one of its major disadvantages. Windows is fairly limited in the number of versions it has, and all of the current versions share the same code base, with mainly features enabled or disabled within the code, or a handful of modules present or not present. Mac is even more consistent. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
life after Windows....
Mxsmanic wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson writes: Not until you put them together, and then it is indeed an Operating System. So it makes little sense to promote Linux alone vs. complete operating systems. RedHat, Novel, Ubuntu, Knoppix, Slackware, Debian, CentOS, Gentoo, Mandriva, PCLinuxOS, DreamLinux, Elive, Mepus, Puppy, Slax, and a couple dozen others are in fact full fledge GNU/Linux Operationg System distributions. You illustrate my point. You've named fifteen and alluded to dozens of other versions of "Linux" that are all different. There's absolutely no hope that Linux or operating systems built with it will ever replace the desktop as long as there are a hundred different versions floating around. And, of course, all the versions are effectively proprietary, because they are all unique. Why work so hard to be obtuse? There is nothing that makes them "effectively proprietary", and clearly if they all use a Linux kernel and GNU toolset they are not "all unique". Using your ridiculous arguments it could be said that neither the "UNIX" nor the "Windows" objects you listed are actually OS's. They are both a family of OS's, but neither term describes a specific OS any more (or less) than GNU/Linux does. Every version of UNIX or Windows runs complete in itself. Linux does not. Every single Linux distribution runs complete in itself. Yours statement is false on its face. There are bits and pieces from each UNIX or Windows that are unique to that particular version, or to one set of versions, and do not work with others. That is particularly significant with Windows because it is proprietary and one does not have open access to component parts. There are indeed many versions of UNIX and UNIX-like operating systems, which is one of its major disadvantages. That is one of the major advantages, in particular for Linux. Windows is fairly limited in the number of versions it has, and all of the current versions share the same code base, with mainly features enabled or disabled within the code, or a handful of modules present or not present. Mac is even more consistent. And you cannot find a version that precisely matches any number of special needs, and instead must try to shoehorn onto place something not intended for the purpose served. And because component parts are not openly available it is literally impossible to mix and match. But that is not the worst failing of the Microsopt model. How many completely new designs, virtually unrelated to the last set, has Microsoft produced? Each one is a start from scratch totally new can of worms to be debugged by users. And not a one of them ever came close to getting it right, on the basic idea in the first place. Apple to some degree finally left that method behind and incorporated a BSD kernel. It is only a matter of time until Microsoft also wakes up to the simple fact that it takes multiple years to develop and debug a kernel. And Vista, as one example, will probably *never* be "fixed". Instead there will come a time when Microsoft also looks around and realizes that they cannot possibly compete with development of something like Linux or FreeBSD. They need to *use* it, rather than provide fodder for fanboy people like yourself. It may take another 12-15 years, but that is where they are going to be eventually. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
life after Windows....
Floyd L. Davidson writes:
There is nothing that makes them "effectively proprietary" ... When they are built and supported by a single entity, they are effectively proprietary. ... and clearly if they all use a Linux kernel and GNU toolset they are not "all unique". Then why aren't they identical? Every single Linux distribution runs complete in itself. A distribution is not Linux. And you cannot find a version that precisely matches any number of special needs, and instead must try to shoehorn onto place something not intended for the purpose served. Most people don't have special needs, and they don't require an exact match for any of their needs. They just require a simple tool to do a number of straightforward tasks. The best solution for that is Windows, because it is relatively easy to use, and there are many applications available for it. A Mac provides slightly greater ease of use, but at the expense of a much smaller choice of applications. Linux provides neither, and thus is not even on the radar. But that is not the worst failing of the Microsopt model. It isn't a Microsoft model, it is a standard business model that companies in IT have been using since the machines were invented. How many completely new designs, virtually unrelated to the last set, has Microsoft produced? Nobody in IT has ever produced a completely new design of anything. It is only a matter of time until Microsoft also wakes up to the simple fact that it takes multiple years to develop and debug a kernel. Microsoft has known that for a long time, which is why current operating systems use essentially the same kernel developed for Windows NT more than a decade ago. The details change, but rewrites are prohibitively expensive, even for Microsoft. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
life after Windows....
In message , Floyd L. Davidson
writes Mxsmanic wrote: Floyd L. Davidson writes: Not until you put them together, and then it is indeed an Operating System. So it makes little sense to promote Linux alone vs. complete operating systems. RedHat, Novel, Ubuntu, Knoppix, Slackware, Debian, CentOS, Gentoo, Mandriva, PCLinuxOS, DreamLinux, Elive, Mepus, Puppy, Slax, and a couple dozen others are in fact full fledge GNU/Linux Operationg System distributions. You illustrate my point. You've named fifteen and alluded to dozens of other versions of "Linux" that are all different. There's absolutely no hope that Linux or operating systems built with it will ever replace the desktop as long as there are a hundred different versions floating around. And, of course, all the versions are effectively proprietary, because they are all unique. Why work so hard to be obtuse? There is nothing that makes them "effectively proprietary", and clearly if they all use a Linux kernel and GNU toolset they are not "all unique". Actually they are as are the VERY many version of the GNU tools. There is a web site that list the top 100 (of over 1000) *DIFFERENT* Linux distributions. There are almost as many *DIFFERENT* sets of GCC tools There was a recent report on how GCC compilers handled volatile and they were all wrong but wrong in different ways. Also they are "proprietary" as they have restrictive licenses to use them. Using your ridiculous arguments it could be said that neither the "UNIX" nor the "Windows" objects you listed are actually OS's. They are both a family of OS's, but neither term describes a specific OS any more (or less) than GNU/Linux does. Every version of UNIX or Windows runs complete in itself. Linux does not. Every single Linux distribution runs complete in itself. Yours statement is false on its face. No... It is correct. Linux does need drivers and other things that may or may not be in the package. Also you may need updates etc. Then again the same is true to some extent for windows. There are bits and pieces from each UNIX or Windows that are unique to that particular version, or to one set of versions, and do not work with others. That is particularly significant with Windows because it is proprietary and one does not have open access to component parts. It is not more restrictive on Windows as it is on Linux. Open access to the parts is irrelevant in this case There are indeed many versions of UNIX and UNIX-like operating systems, which is one of its major disadvantages. That is one of the major advantages, in particular for Linux. Actually it is a MAJOR disadvantage. Windows is fairly limited in the number of versions it has, and all of the current versions share the same code base, with mainly features enabled or disabled within the code, or a handful of modules present or not present. Mac is even more consistent. And you cannot find a version that precisely matches any number of special needs, Such as? and instead must try to shoehorn onto place something not intended for the purpose served. And because component parts are not openly available it is literally impossible to mix and match. CRAP. The MAJOR problem with Linux is that it comes with Religion But that is not the worst failing of the Microsopt model. How many completely new designs, virtually unrelated to the last set, has Microsoft produced? Ditto Linux? It is only a matter of time until Microsoft also wakes up to the simple fact that it takes multiple years to develop and debug a kernel. That also applies to Linux. BTW I have a SIL3 Kernel.. Actually I can get 2 of them There is no way Linux can get anywhere near that. OTOH Windows would not attempt it either. And Vista, as one example, will probably *never* be "fixed". Instead there will come a time when Microsoft also looks around and realizes that they cannot possibly compete with development of something like Linux or FreeBSD. It is doing VERY well at the moment. Linux is only used by Geeks and very few others. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
life after Windows....
In message , Mxsmanic
writes Floyd L. Davidson writes: There is nothing that makes them "effectively proprietary" ... When they are built and supported by a single entity, they are effectively proprietary. Then Windows is NOT proprietary by that measure. And you cannot find a version that precisely matches any number of special needs, and instead must try to shoehorn onto place something not intended for the purpose served. Most people don't have special needs, and they don't require an exact match for any of their needs. They just require a simple tool to do a number of straightforward tasks. True. The best solution for that is Windows, because it is relatively easy to use, and there are many applications available for it. And almost everyone knows at least two people who can do informal windows support. A Mac provides slightly greater ease of use, but at the expense of a much smaller choice of applications. Generally yes but it does have the main group of program people need (I use MS Office on my PPC Macs. However in certain areas the MACS have extremely good software support. In a few areas better than the PC Linux provides neither, and thus is not even on the radar. Linux is a mess. OK for Geeks but not for the average punter. But that is not the worst failing of the Microsopt model. It isn't a Microsoft model, it is a standard business model that companies in IT have been using since the machines were invented. Now you are bringing reality into it... :-) You have to Remember that FOSS invented it's own rules an and gets very upset when the rest of the bit bad business world won't play by them. How many completely new designs, virtually unrelated to the last set, has Microsoft produced? Nobody in IT has ever produced a completely new design of anything. True. Thank god I work in embedded systems not IT :-) It is only a matter of time until Microsoft also wakes up to the simple fact that it takes multiple years to develop and debug a kernel. Microsoft has known that for a long time, which is why current operating systems use essentially the same kernel developed for Windows NT more than a decade ago. The details change, but rewrites are prohibitively expensive, even for Microsoft. The Kernel is not the problem it is all the boat ware that is added on top of most OS. That tends to be where the problems lie. There are only a few OS kernel models (Refer to the Tananbaum/torviolds debate) and they are well understood. It is what the whole OS does that is the problem -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
life after Windows....
Chris H writes:
Then Windows is NOT proprietary by that measure. Remember that the next time someone accuses Microsoft of monopolistic practices. And almost everyone knows at least two people who can do informal windows support. Also, yes. I sometimes do impromptu Windows support for people at work, since I'm more competent than the so-called IT staff. Generally yes but it does have the main group of program people need (I use MS Office on my PPC Macs. However in certain areas the MACS have extremely good software support. In a few areas better than the PC Which areas? I've considered using a Mac many times, but the price always puts me off. Not only that, but after being beholden to Microsoft for an operating system for so many years, I'm not sure I wish to tighten the yoke further with a vendor that controls both hardware and software. Linux is a mess. OK for Geeks but not for the average punter. Agreed. Now you are bringing reality into it... :-) I prefer reality to emotion and religion. The Kernel is not the problem it is all the boat ware that is added on top of most OS. That tends to be where the problems lie. There are only a few OS kernel models (Refer to the Tananbaum/torviolds debate) and they are well understood. It is what the whole OS does that is the problem Or the solution, depending on the merits of the overall design. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
How to troll, the Mxsmanic way!
An explanation I wrote a while back on Mxsmanic's trolling technique in
the photography newsgroups: http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/msg/737ae6eefc6efa89 Msxmanic admits to trolling, & explains why he does it: http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/msg/77b4d6d707b566f6?hl=en Hopefully, this might help people avoid wasting their time trying to talk to MsxManiac. -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
life after Windows....
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... Also, yes. I sometimes do impromptu Windows support for people at work, since I'm more competent than the so-called IT staff. You mean you've got a proper job? -- William Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
life after Windows.... | Sam O'Var | Europe | 1313 | April 20th, 2009 06:51 PM |
life after Windows.... | White Spirit | Air travel | 13 | March 31st, 2009 08:59 AM |
life after Windows.... | Mxsmanic | Air travel | 56 | March 30th, 2009 12:49 PM |
life after Windows.... | White Spirit[_2_] | Air travel | 7 | March 28th, 2009 08:29 AM |