Slashdot Mirror
55 Operating Systems On A PowerBook
OttoMagick writes "I found an article called 'Many Systems on One Machine' over at Kernelthread.com that shows over 55 operating systems running on a 17inch Powerbook. The article includes screenshots and descriptions of each system, and also hacks and tips on getting the nasty ones installed. The author Amit Singh (the Hanoimania guy, covered earlier on Slashdot) explains his reasons for all this in a related FAAQ (frequently asked + anticipated questions) ... In all a very interesting read, specially the FAAQ, where he calls the setup "the iPod of operating systems". Now thats an Apple Power User! I wonder what Steve Jobs would say if he sees people doing such things to his machines!!"
He lists Windows 1-3 in that list... those aren't OSes. And he left out Microsoft BOB if he's going to count <Windows 95 as OSes.
It seems he's running a lot of those operating systems in Virtual PC. Is it just me or does that seem like cheating? I was expecting him to have all those operating systems installed natively.
His experience installing many operating systems does not necessarily mean he's an expert on which ones are best for doing work. I'm sure he hasn't tried to be productive in all 55 operatings systems.
I noticed that on the list there are just
FreeBSD
NetBSD
OpenBSD,
but every Windows & Dos version released, like, ever. I consider that either non-consistent and/or cheating. Either include every release of non-MS-systems as well or then just single representation from each product line. Pick one from each series: MS-DOS, Windows 3.x, Windows 9x/ME, Windows NT.
Running 55 types of Linux, all utilizing the same kernel version, can hardly qualify as "different OSs"
I don't get it. This guy just figured out Virtual PC. So what? That's what it does, let you run other OSes.
I've probably run way over 55 systems on my PC over the years. Looking at his list, I've tried most of these, including the ones he couldn't get working. How is this a story? Because it's on a Mac with emulation?
No offense, but his feat gets him into the typical Slashdot geek club, but not much else.
I'm not normally an irrational zealous dickhead, but I figure "When in Rome..."
- Mobius
- O3one
Happily, he did mention my hobby OS.Emulators like VirtualPC and Bochs are a really nice way to play with operating system code without having to worry about screwing up your machine.
A friend who's got a tibook mentiond recently that the only v. of linux that doesn't void Apple's warranty is Yellow Dog.
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
Maybe it is, he's only booting into one OS. The rest are running virtually...
Rocket science is easy. Neurosurgery, now *that's* difficult.
I don't understand what is the idea behind this? The Mac is a Mac, if you want Windows, buy a IBM clone.
I'd say it's not only cheating, but pure idiocy when you install systems that could run natively (like freeBSD, Linux or netBSD under VirtualPC).
The thing is this guy is just using Virtual PC. Beign no particular fan of it, this rates real high in my so-what-meter... *rolls_eyes*
First, a disclaimer of sorts. The guy is obviously a geek, what other reason does he need?
Now, surely it would have been nice to see them all installed natively, but one of the beauties of VPC is it's ability to run multiple OSes at the same time. Could that have been achieved if all these OSes were installed natively? With the possible exception of Linux->MacOnLinux, the answer is no. Emulation of some sort is necessary.
I would like to see if the other *nixes, the ones that are available for the PPC architecture, could be installed, but I don't think they could be run in tandem with OS X.
'Course, I don't really know jack-squat. I'm such a wannabe...
(tig)
Ignorance and prejudice and fear
Walk hand in hand
I'm sure /. covered this when it came out, but this kid got 37 different OSes to run NATIVE on one machine.
Now this may be somewhat off-topic but I'm tired of people trying to use the front page of Slashdot to try to launch their favourite pet jargon. There is no such FLA as FAAQ. Why can't a single A service both "Asked" and "Anticipated"? I mean 4 FAAQ's sake!!
Karma police, I've given all I can, it's not enough, I've given all I can, but we're still on the payroll.
Why?
It's quite obvious that the powerbook with Virtual PC runs Windows, in almost any flavor they threw at it. Why buy another computer to do what they are already doing with their powerbook?
While everyone seems to be pointing out that having the x86 emulated OSes or multiple versions of Windows is 'cheating,' what about Windows 1.01 - 3.1?
Those aren't OSes, but graphical shells on top of DOS. It's like listing DOS Shell as one...
Isn't what you are referring to actually a simulation? Emulation would be far easier. I'm thinking simulation means do it exactly the same way as the real thing, whereas emulation is more of a black box "as long as the outputs match on the same inputs" thing.
This comment is guaranteed*
*not guaranteed
I'm just glad he included that Solaris tip in there. Recently downloaded v9 and wanted to play with it, but couldn't find any info on fixing that hang on installation "486 detected" problem.
:)
It's installing nicely now copying mini-root to the HD.
THANKS!
Whatever many of you may think about him "cheating" or whatnot using an emulator, this is a great way to learn other OS's. You wanna learn basic hacking? Test security exploits? Install an ancient RH6 or something on it and play with Nessus. Old games, old software... it never has to die. Emulation is a seriously useful tool and maybe the only way some people can exposure to other systems.
-Don.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
First, Mac OS X has one personality (by the traditional Mach definition), and that's BSD. Carbon and Cocoa are basically just very large collections of related libraries and headers that provide Mac-like and NextStep-like programming interfaces, respectively. Oh, and Cocoa has the whole Objective C runtime (and/or Java), but that's still very much running on top of BSD.
That's not saying that there aren't parts of Carbon or Cocoa that use Mach messaging directly, as there probably are a few places (IOKitLib comes to mind), but those are still just library functions; they just happen to talk to Mach behind BSD's back.
If they were truly separate personalities, I couldn't have written an application a few weeks ago that uses raw BSD socket (UDP networking) and file I/O combined with QuickDraw graphics, QuickTime musical instruments, text-to-speech, and Quartz 2D rendering. About the only thing I didn't stick in was Cocoa, but I have added calls to random BSD functions into Cocoa apps on occasion for grins.
Second, Mach technically can be considered an OS. It provides levels of functionality similar to that of an embedded OS. In much the same way, the Linux kernel is an OS. Not a very useful OS by itself, mind you, unless a kernel web server is your cup of tea, but I digress.
The point is that if I wanted to do so, I could write a very full featured application that ran entirely on Mach, so long as it was a version of Mach that included some built-in driver functionality (as most recent versions do). The BSD layer presents a nice personality for programming so that you don't have to do crazy things like managing your own filesystem or blitting your own sprites to the framebuffer. It is not, however, strictly necessary.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Sheeze. There are plenty of other things that Mac could be emulating.
Isn't what you are referring to actually a simulation? Emulation would be far easier.
Actually, emulation would not be easier, it would be impossible.
The very definition of the word "emulate" makes it impossible to emulate a processor that does not yet exist.
And yes, what he's talking about would be a simulation. You CAN constuct a simulation of a theoretical future device, but by definition you can't emulate something until it's already been built.