Jack; Bill does not have me under his voodoo magic.... If someone prefers to run Windows, that is a choose that they make. You have a right to pooh pooh Windows all you want. I have 3 SuSE servers running 6.4 and 2 W2k servers. Both have been VERY reliable. I have had problems with neither. I have done stupid things on the SuSE servers that have caused me as much grief and the on W2K. In fact both servers right now have 30+ days on continuous running time (uptime). I believe that most people just have a intense dislike for Bill and M$. If that is the case, then lets look at the what I consider facts. The Unix model has been around for 30+ years. I believe that NT has been around for 10 years, maybe 11 years. The Unix model was considered very radical when it was proposed at AT&T (remember that EVIL organization). If I remember my history right, they were given a machine that was being or had been decommissioned from use to start. I also remember that for years, Unix sat in the same place that Windows is now, pooh poohed as an operating system. It has been in the last 15 years that Unix has gained acceptance outside the Universities, Colleges and development companies. So when you are pooh poohing a new OS, it does good to reflect on the history of the one that you are using. Unix has come a long way, and will go along way. I see immense improvements in Windows, and believe that they will mature into one of many viable options out there.... Go ahead and flame me... I have put on my fire retardant underwear... :) -- Kirk Moore EPM - Release Management environments - STL's 425-965-6543 (desk) 425-797-9092 (pager) Black holes are created when God divides by zero!
---------- From: Jack Barnett[SMTP:jbarnett@axil.netmate.com] Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 9:36 AM To: Derek Fountain; SuSE English Subject: Re: [SLE] Fundamental differences
Advocacy. If someone asks "why, specifically, is Linux better designed than Windows?" I want the answers to hand.
First, what market are you talking about, the desktop or server market. They are differant and not one in the same. It is like "which is better a tractor or a car". Well now that depends if you are talking about driving an hour to work or plowing a field.
On the desktop, NT is pretty stable. Everyone's got horror stories, but for the most part it'll run for days or weeks just doing Word, Excel and IE. W2K is supposed to be better, and after a few patches - sorry, service packs - it will be. So stability is a drum the Linux community will not be able to beat much longer.
1) Not everyone has $5000 bucks to shell out for a "desktop" operating system. No "normal consumer" is going to pay $2000+ bucks to get NT over 98. Sure in the server market, maybe. But not (in your words) "On the desktop". Everyday forks (ie. people that don't work in the computer industry) can't afford to be spending that type of money so they can have a 60 uptime on Word97. They will either have to go with Windows98 (more then or likely) or with another OS like Linux or BeOS (less likely).
Desktop usability is largely subjective and people will argue until blue in the face about which is better. Same with extend and embrace over openness. Windows is now a network enabled OS. The implementation might be a kludge, but the GUI hides that to most desktop users. No clear Linux advantage here.
"desktop usability" have you checked out KDE, Gnome or Enlightenment recently? The Linux "GUI Desktop" can be tweaked out to look just like your kludge windows GUI, but with cleaner code and more stability.
The "it runs on older hardware" is wearing thin too, at least on the desktop. Have you tried KDE or GNOME on a 486?
No. Have your tried building a linux router out of a 386? Have you tried> building a W2K router out of a 386? Hrm, pay $500 of this cool looking Web Ramp ISDN router or spend $10 at a flea market and build a just as fast router from Linux?
We have the choice, which is a good thing, but in practise the low end window managers don't realistically compete with Windows.
Have you checked out IceWM lately? I used it all the time on a 486 and it was a ton faster then Windows95 and Windows98 won't even install on it.
But no one can argue that the modularised and network transparent design of X is worse than the kernel level graphics of Windows and the horrific Terminal Server kludge, so that's one thing we can push. The ability to connect and disconnect both local and remote disks to your directory tree at will is another thing: no doubt that that's better than tying devices to C:, D:, etc
I have no idea what you talking about here. But for the record there is NFS that can mount remote drives, and oh yea there is a bunch of options you can tweak out so you don't get really slow access to remote media.
I was pondering the question, and my responses dried up there. Hence the question.
I just think you are a troll. Learn some about CS and operating systems. Come back in a while when Bill doesn't have you under his voodoo magic.
Jack
Where is this question leading ?
What are the fundamental differences between Linux and Windows these days? I can think of graphics, which is totally different, and disks/mount points which are handled differently. With Windows becoming network-ed (albeit badly), what genuine differences does that leave for the Linux community to exploit?
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq
facts. The Unix model has been around for 30+ years. I believe that NT has been around for 10 years, maybe 11 years. The Unix model was
Actually NT isn't even that old. It originated from OS/2's Kernel of course, but the first release was in 1993. So it is, as you say a very unmature operating system compared to Unix's 31 year old history... -Tim ----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy R. Butler Universal Networks Information Tech. Consultant Christian Web Services Since 1996 ICQ #12495932 AIM: Uninettm An Authorized IPSwitch Reseller tbutler@uninetsolutions.com http://www.uninetsolutions.com ===================== "Solutions that Work" =====================
considered very radical when it was proposed at AT&T (remember that EVIL organization). If I remember my history right, they were given a machine that was being or had been decommissioned from use to start. I also remember that for years, Unix sat in the same place that Windows is now, pooh poohed as an operating system.
It has been in the last 15 years that Unix has gained acceptance outside the Universities, Colleges and development companies. So when you are pooh poohing a new OS, it does good to reflect on the history of the one that you are using. Unix has come a long way, and will go along way. I see immense improvements in Windows, and believe that they will mature into one of many viable options out there....
Go ahead and flame me... I have put on my fire retardant underwear... :)
-- Kirk Moore EPM - Release Management environments - STL's 425-965-6543 (desk) 425-797-9092 (pager)
Black holes are created when God divides by zero!
---------- From: Jack Barnett[SMTP:jbarnett@axil.netmate.com] Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 9:36 AM To: Derek Fountain; SuSE English Subject: Re: [SLE] Fundamental differences
Advocacy. If someone asks "why, specifically, is Linux better designed than Windows?" I want the answers to hand.
First, what market are you talking about, the desktop or server market. They are differant and not one in the same. It is like "which is better a tractor or a car". Well now that depends if you are talking about driving an hour to work or plowing a field.
On the desktop, NT is pretty stable. Everyone's got horror stories, but for the most part it'll run for days or weeks just doing Word, Excel and IE. W2K is supposed to be better, and after a few patches - sorry, service packs - it will be. So stability is a drum the Linux community will not be able to beat much longer.
1) Not everyone has $5000 bucks to shell out for a "desktop" operating system. No "normal consumer" is going to pay $2000+ bucks to get NT over 98. Sure in the server market, maybe. But not (in your words) "On the desktop". Everyday forks (ie. people that don't work in the computer industry) can't afford to be spending that type of money so they can have a 60 uptime on Word97. They will either have to go with Windows98 (more then or likely) or with another OS like Linux or BeOS (less likely).
Desktop usability is largely subjective and people will argue until blue in the face about which is better. Same with extend and embrace over openness. Windows is now a network enabled OS. The implementation might be a kludge, but the GUI hides that to most desktop users. No clear Linux advantage here.
"desktop usability" have you checked out KDE, Gnome or Enlightenment recently? The Linux "GUI Desktop" can be tweaked out to look just like your kludge windows GUI, but with cleaner code and more stability.
The "it runs on older hardware" is wearing thin too, at least on the desktop. Have you tried KDE or GNOME on a 486?
No. Have your tried building a linux router out of a 386? Have you tried> building a W2K router out of a 386? Hrm, pay $500 of this cool looking Web Ramp ISDN router or spend $10 at a flea market and build a just as fast router from Linux?
We have the choice, which is a good thing, but in practise the low end window managers don't realistically compete with Windows.
Have you checked out IceWM lately? I used it all the time on a 486 and it was a ton faster then Windows95 and Windows98 won't even install on it.
But no one can argue that the modularised and network transparent design of X is worse than the kernel level graphics of Windows and the horrific Terminal Server kludge, so that's one thing we can push. The ability to connect and disconnect both local and remote disks to your directory tree at will is another thing: no doubt that that's better than tying devices to C:, D:, etc
I have no idea what you talking about here. But for the record there is NFS that can mount remote drives, and oh yea there is a bunch of options you can tweak out so you don't get really slow access to remote media.
I was pondering the question, and my responses dried up there. Hence the question.
I just think you are a troll. Learn some about CS and operating systems. Come back in a while when Bill doesn't have you under his voodoo magic.
Jack
Where is this question leading ?
What are the fundamental differences between Linux and Windows these days? I can think of graphics, which is totally different, and disks/mount points which are handled differently. With Windows becoming network-ed (albeit badly), what genuine differences does that leave for the Linux community to exploit?
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq
Sorry for blending all the quotes together but I'm not sure who wrote what-)
considered very radical when it was proposed at AT&T (remember that EVIL organization). If I remember my history right, they were given a machine that was being or had been decommissioned from use to start. I also remember that for years, Unix sat in the same place that Windows is now, pooh poohed as an operating system.
AT&T was legally forbidden from selling Unix for years. OTOH it could give it away so the Universities got it. Best of all the schools could get src code licenses which led us to BSD. Was Unix looked down at by the gods of IBM mainframes? Sure but by the early 80's [1982???] Radio Shack was selling Xenix based systems. Multiuser running on a 68000. I'd argue Unix was like Linux intially. A small system that allowed the orginal programmers to have thier own machines. The other thing was that companies like DEC were making good money selling thier OS for the machines they shipped so they lacked any incentive to push Unix. By the time the government let AT&T sell Unix it had gotten so fractured that nobody could push it hard enough to matter.
It has been in the last 15 years that Unix has gained acceptance outside the Universities, Colleges and development companies. So when you are pooh poohing a new OS, it does good to reflect on the history of the one that you are using. Unix has come a long way, and will go along way. I see immense improvements in Windows, and believe that they will mature into one of many viable options out there....
Personally I doubt it. I'm sure it will be better but it won't be up to the standard that it could be. I loved hearing Gates tell a reporter that the DOJ was killing Microsoft innovation. That Microsoft wouldn't be able to bring voice recongition to windows because of the DOJ. Meanwhile I'm holding a four year old copy of OS/2 4.0 with voice built in. If it wasn't for application support I would much rather run OS/2 then windows/98.
No. Have your tried building a linux router out of a 386? Have you tried> building a W2K router out of a 386? Hrm, pay $500 of this cool looking Web Ramp ISDN router or spend $10 at a flea market and build a just as fast router from Linux?
Actually I've been having a similar discussion with somebody else. Personally the price of new machines have gotten so low that buying an old machine is a very marginal choice IMHO. I'd pay $50 for a pentiumn that I knew would run Linux but I wouldn't pay any more. I woudldn't pay anything for a machine I wasn't certain could run Linux without upgrades. Parts for those older machines aren't cheap. $500 US? For a router? Around here you could get a pretty nice new machine that could handle a lot more then just routing. Nick -- Nick Zentena "The Linux issue," Wladawsky-Berger explained, "is whether this is a fundamentally disruptive technology, like the microprocessor and the Internet? We're betting that it is." -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq
participants (3)
-
Kirk.Moore＠PSS.Boeing.com -
tbutler＠uninetsolutions.com -
zentena＠hophead.dyndns.org