Operating Systems: Choice and design

[moleque]

Basically a Linux/GNU and Free/NetBSD user here.

Mounted my laptop and was able to read the old Windows paging file. Ouch!
So much for privacy there.
Anyway, this rant- so to say- is about why I chose such Operating systems and why I plan to stay with them.

Kernel Access: I'm not to crazy about having to use reverse engineering tools to modify a kernel. If you have Windows and you can't afford to purchase source code, this is your only option. It's weakly protected by either a PNG or BMP image.

User/Admin as a "single" account. This has yet to be solved. Some Linux distros- Ubuntu- make the same fallacy by allowing sudo to be used. Both send the signal- "Come root and hack me, please."

Dynamic paging size: Another ouch. Depending on the meory amount, usage, CPU, and build, the paging size- I'm including swap in this- can be from 0 to twice the physical memory.

Modular build: You can't build Windows to your exact specification.


Security: Unless a person has the folders set to 0777, nothing can really be done on a *nix system. Even then, it would take a rooting.



Okay, here's my bitch about Linux and the BSDs.

Device access and drivers: Linux has the BSDs beat on this. However, it merely means adding or removing a line from the defaults or kernel config file in the BSDs. Can you say, "Thanks, vi"?
Linux requires kbuild, fakeroot, and you may have to wait for kernel patches.

System requirements: This will go for all OS mentioned here. All three will run at 32M for 32bit and 64M for 64bit.
NetBSD comes with a version of X. FreeBSD and Linux need to have it installed.

Newer releases and old computers: The BSDs will work with less than Linux. Trim the Kernel and build. I've seen Fedora, Suse, and Debian raise the requirements drastically in the past few years.

Services and control. Again I prefer sysctrl to SysV anyday.


Hacking: Linux by far but I am working on Making NetBSD do the same.

When mounting a BSD UFS2 or FFS from Linux, the home directories are locked. I like that.

Both can be used interchangeably. Linux binaries linked to FreeBSD or NetBSD from another partition or a compatibility layer.

Port of the BSD kernel and userland to debian and gentoo.

Using a Linux loader to install NetBSD to a game console.

http://www.ki.nu/hardware/ps3/

BSD tools to build other binaries: kBuild.

[Tiberius]

Sudo isn't a problem. You have to type a password to use it, and you can configure this so it is a completely different password to your user one.

I prefer Linux because it "just works" about 99% of the time. I started learning Java (language) on a Windows machine, and to compile it I needed to keep setting the PATH of the Java libraries, which was a pain. On Linux, the shell knows where the libraries are stored because the installation of them was automatic (it goes by a standard).

Likewise, when I install Windows on a laptop, I have to spend 3 hours hunting for drivers to get the damn thing to work. On Linux, the drivers are generic and work perfectly every time.

Linux also has handy tools to solve problems, by which I mean that in Windows if a driver fails, you often have to start messing around, reinstall it, or restart the computer. In Linux, my webcam driver sometimes fails because it's a new laptop and the driver is experimental. If this happens, I have a simple shell alias "webcam-restart" set up which does the following:

Code:

sudo rmmod uvcvideo; sudo modprobe uvcvideo quirks=16

[Kyuuketsuki]

Windows by both choice and design quite simply because they're engender ease of use, they work and they have far and away the greatest selection of decent software. My biggest issue with Windows is that it no longer feels like computing, I do like Linux (often experiment with various distros ... far and away my favorite is SuSE) and probably know quite a lot about it but none of it ever seems to gel, to make any sport of real sense to me. I don't believe Linux will ever become the OS of choice until it effectively becomes pretty much what its fans hate about Windows but, in the right hands, it remains a highly capable OS easily as powerful as Windows ... in fact, despite my "hatred" or Apple, I think Linux, UNIX, Apple OS (*nix) and Windows are all excellent OS's each with their own strengths and weaknesses.

My favourite OS has got to be ESX and it's small variant ESXi ... virtualisation rocks and it's the perfect virtualisation OS.

Kyu

[Tiberius]

probably know quite a lot about it

Apart from how to install stuff? At least that's the impression everyone got when Darwinian mentioned Linux.

[Meatball]

I'm a Windows guy. Being a CompSci major, I'm inevitably going to shift towards Unix. I'm familiar with it, in that I can work my way around a terminal, but I've never fully made the plunge. I've dabbled in Fedora and Ubuntu, but never really made it my primary OS.

I like Windows because I've grown up on it and it's very intuitive to me. I currently run XP as I can't be bothered to deal with Vista bullshit.

[Tiberius]

I'm a Windows guy. Being a CompSci major, I'm inevitably going to shift towards Unix. I'm familiar with it, in that I can work my way around a terminal, but I've never fully made the plunge. I've dabbled in Fedora and Ubuntu, but never really made it my primary OS.

I like Windows because I've grown up on it and it's very intuitive to me. I currently run XP as I can't be bothered to deal with Vista bullshit.

Sound like myself about 2 years ago

I started out on Ubuntu, loved the fact that I didn't have to scan for virus / spyware anymore and that I could install 99% of the programs I needed from a package manager without having to find them online first, download them, extract them, click through the installer, etc.

I work so much faster on a Linux machine than I do on a Windows machine, probably because Linux gives the user (at least root) a lot more control over what happens. If a program freezes for some reason, I can easily issue a kill command, whereas in Windows I would have been messing around in the task manager, and it may not even quit when I'm doing that.

I also love the fact that if my graphics crash (often a fatal / bluescreen in Windows) I can simply switch to a text-based view by pressing Ctrl Alt F1

[Kyuuketsuki]

Apart from how to install stuff? At least that's the impression everyone got when Darwinian mentioned Linux.

And, as usual when we "discuss" subjects like this, you miss the point ... what I clearly meant was that I know a lot of things (yes even how to install things, I just don't know everything but that much must be clear when I mentioned the various install systems I was familiar with) but none of it gelled together as my knowledge of Windows does.

Whether superior or not, the fact that Linux (or rather the components of a typical distro) is written by a multitude of different writers (which undoubtedly gives it a number of advantages), means that they all work in different way s which means that they aren't standard in interface terms. The advantage of a consistent interface is that someone can come into a new OS or application from others and be up and running with it fairly rapidly ... maybe they won't become expert quickly but they can become functional and that's a thing of value (I guarantee that on any OS and applications that embrace SAA I can rapidly do things). Windows embraces SAA much better than Linux (as a whole) and that is one its strengths ... Linux is improving in this respect and will (I have few doubts) one day achieve it. It will "be" Windows then and not what the Linux evangelists love ... LOL. You see that's what you lot don't get ... MS is there because of luck, it is there because of marketing, it is there because of wheeler dealing and dodgy tactics but the MAIN reason MS is top dog is the same reason that science is the only true philosophy.

Whether you approve or not, whether you are envious or not Windows is top dog for one primary reason ... it works and it does it bloody well.

You also ignore (whether intentionally or not I do not know) that I repeatedly say that I don't believe that any particular OS is superior, that each has strengths and weaknesses.

Kyu

[Tiberius]

The whole point of projects like Gnome, KDE, xfce is to give a standard that people adhere to. This is further enforced by groups like Ubuntu (all their programs look and feel the same).

One fallacy you make here is that the Windows interface should be the "correct" interface; that it should be the standard by which all other OS's stick to, so that when people switch from Windows to Linux, they can do so easily. The point is, the Windows interface has flaws, so this is never going to happen. This is why Gnome, KDE, etc were set up. To make a new standard interface that people can choose.

I doubt the main reason Windows is top dog is because of marketing. I think there is more evidence to suggest that they got to the PC market early with something that indeed, did work. However because of this the competition was reduced, and was further reduced by Microsoft when they signed deals to get Windows by default on every computer. If this had never happened, people would have to install their own OS onto a computer when they bought it, and Linux would have thrived as the free choice that people could try before installing. Look at what happened when Dell decided to sell laptops with Linux pre-installed! Sales rocketed The same can be seen with the Eee PC.

I disagree that there are no superior OS', and I think you probably think the same despite what you say. You choose an OS because you think it is the best one. I just happen to think your reasons are completely wrong.

[Rob]

the MAIN reason MS is top dog is the same reason that science is the only true philosophy.

What? o.o

The MAIN reason they're the top dog now is they managed to create a better system than CP/M in the 80s. 20 odd years of proprietary lock in later and here we are.

Linux is improving in this respect and will (I have few doubts) one day achieve it. It will "be" Windows then and not what the Linux evangelists love ... LOL.

And thats fine, the magical thing about linux is if you dont like the direction a distro is going you can always switch. I highly doubt the likes of Slacks, Arch and Gentoo will ever be geared to the average person.

---

Whether you approve or not, whether you are envious or not Windows is top dog for one primary reason ... it works and it does it bloody well.

If that's what you call working then I want to work for you

Jest aside, it really doesn't matter what's on top with market share. At the end of the day it effects nothing.

[Kyuuketsuki]

The whole point of projects like Gnome, KDE, xfce is to give a standard that people adhere to. This is further enforced by groups like Ubuntu (all their programs look and feel the same).

Oh yeah, that's why there's so many fucking variants ... silly me, of course it all makes sense now

One fallacy you make here is that the Windows interface should be the "correct" interface; that it should be the standard by which all other OS's stick to, so that when people switch from Windows to Linux, they can do so easily. The point is, the Windows interface has flaws, so this is never going to happen. This is why Gnome, KDE, etc were set up. To make a new standard interface that people can choose.

DON'T put words into my mouth ... I never said it was "The correct" anything, I said Windows embraces SAA and by and large that is true. Recently MS has moved away from it with MS Office and there are well published reasons why that is so.

Fact is that Linux ISN'T as easy to switch to you as you think and I find it kinda ironic that the open source community has to copy what MS does ti make a real impact.

I doubt the main reason Windows is top dog is because of marketing. I think there is more evidence to suggest that they got to the PC market early with something that indeed, did work. However because of this the competition was reduced, and was further reduced by Microsoft when they signed deals to get Windows by default on every computer. If this had never happened, people would have to install their own OS onto a computer when they bought it, and Linux would have thrived as the free choice that people could try before installing. Look at what happened when Dell decided to sell laptops with Linux pre-installed! Sales rocketed The same can be seen with the Eee PC.

Again Adrian, please don't misquote me ... I clearly said the main reason was "it worked worked well" not that it was marketing.

What is, is ... what might have been is just sour grapes

I disagree that there are no superior OS', and I think you probably think the same despite what you say. You choose an OS because you think it is the best one. I just happen to think your reasons are completely wrong.

And you'd be wrong ... yes I choose Windows and I DO think it's the superior OS BUT here's the rub, I only think it's the superior OS FOR ME and that IS NOT quite the same thing is it? You see there's a difference in our focus, the thing that makes you the Linux evangelist and me not the Windows one, and that is that when someone expresses issues with Windows you leap in and brandishing a virtual saber city, "Try Linux" and NEVER the opposite. OTOH when someone expresses the opposite I stay out and only get involved when someone is evangelizing (which Moleque was clearly doing in his OS design thread) or attacking Windows AND I will recommend Linux to others (have even done so in this forum).

The difference is you hate or have contempt for Windows and those who use it ... I don't hate Linux, I think it (and the OSS effort) is great and am constantly drawn back to it and my contempt is reserved for those who evangelize it. What's more I use OSS all the time my one application weakness being MS Office which I am sorry to say beats all comers IMO.

Kyu