I remember reading an ZD (forget which mag, offhand) that was pro-linux a few years back (98 or 99) which stated something along the lines of "unlike OS/2 users, Linux users will never stoop to sending death threats" and then the author went on to cite a anectdote where an OS/2 user did exactly that.
There's liking your OS, then there's really liking your OS, I guess...
"I used to run OS/2 back..." posts, which is understandable...
With the progress of hardware in the last 4 years (since the last release of OS/2, IIRC) and software in the last 6 years (w32-wise), it doesn't IMHO make a lot of sense to run an OS which may not even support your hardware, and even if it does, is there even new software (aside from GNU & the odd shareware droppings) wich will run native on it?
What can you get from this you can't get from GNU/Linux or FreeBSD? (both support win16 apps under WINE, unless I'm mistaken)
Are there any "I've been using OS/2 since.." posters instead of "I used to use..." posters out there in/. land?
PS the pricetag is hefty for an nostolgia OS, IMHO.
Actually, I'd say that slackware is more bare-knuckled than slackware...in that you have more "ease of use" procedures/tools/whatever (eg -the ports) than does slackware, while still having the same K.I.S.S philosophy.
If I use Linux, I'll use slackware; but I try to stick w/ FreeBSD when I can (btw, I'm one of those desktop users who supposedly don't exist;))
As that (afaik) means I don't do online shopping. Since I don't do online shopping that means I get to wait until 2003 until it shows up in our local Barnes And Nobles.
Though, I have to admit that half the time the reason I bought the books was to get the cd (and spare myself the hassle of d/l'ing); but the point remains, just because there's "large audience" doesn't always mean that what's in the books is necessarily detailed.
8) Books != Better Documentation? Not necessarily true. People that write books have to sell books. Having to sell books means it has to be accepted by a large audience. Usually/Hopefully this translates into going into detail about a subject while keeping it simple enough for anyone to understand and comprehend.
In my experience, the more books there are out there, the more variable the quality tends to be. Kinda makes sense if you think about it. The market demands detail, yes; but anyone who watched Linux from 96 to now knows that as often as not the market demands "slap a brand on it and get it out the door before the fad turns cold". Christ knows how many Linux books I bought remembering the quality of my old "Using Linux" (I don't remember the full title, but it included slackware 3.1) brought them home and got lots of hype about the "linux revolution", but nothing at all in depth (a new tip here on how to set up X, a new tip there talking about KDE).
Re:GNU? "GNU" is "GNU is Not Unix" but Darwin IS
on
GNU-Darwin Goes Beta
·
· Score: 1
Actually, didn't Novell (?) sue the Regents of California so that they could no longer call 4.4BSD "Unix"? So that would mean it's NOT Unix....
Why is Linux technically called "GNU-Linux"? It's not because of the Linux kernel; it's for the GNU tools that are attached to the Linux kernel. In theory, if I built a whole toolchain and simple programs to run under the Linux kernel, and they wern't GNU tools, my distro wouldn't be "GNU-Linux", it would be something else.
It _is_ correct to refer to the package of GNU programs for Darwin/OS X as "GNU-Darwin". It has nothing to do with whether or not Darwin is GNU and everything to do with the tools being GNU. In theory, your Windows box with GNU software (If it has the full set) is now "GNU-Windows". Pretty nifty eh?
-- Terry
I don't own an Apple/BSD/GNU/Darwin system, so this is all conjecture; but I was under the impression that the "toolchain" was derived from FreeBSD, wich would place it largely under the BSD license. If that is in fact the case, then it would not be any more valid to call it GNU/Darwin then would Windows GNU/Windows (granted, you cannot rebuild windows using cygwin) or calling FreeBSD GNU/FreeBSD (where you do use GNU tools to rebuild the OS).
Point being, how is it you can call it GNU/Darwin, but not GNU/FreeBSD? Where is it you're saying the difference lies? In using GNOME? In replaceing the fileutils? Where, exactly?
It's also hard if you read the manpages (prolly the wrong ones, but WTF) or if you read the web-site, follow the online instructions and still get error messages up the yin-yang when you manage to finally get it to run.
While it may not be "rocket science", it IS a waste of time wich FreeBSD, Linux and Winders do not make me go through for, really, no reason than being albe to say "if you can't figure this out, you're obviously not as l33t as we are".
As far as the X compilation goes, I tarded out on that (admittedly, compiling X intimdates the F*k out of me, personally speaking).
And to the person saying "show me the benchmarks", no. First off, there are no benchmarks, and second off, I was saying "From My Point Of View..". So, you've stated your POV ("works great here, less filling"). Bravo, bully for you...please, by all means use it then. That has nothing to do w/ the original question; wich was "why would anyone use FreeBSD when there is NetBSD?". If I use *BSD (wich is becoming rarer these days, though who knows about the future), I go w/ FreeBSD for the reasons I stated in my previous post.
Basioally, FreeBSD takes care of alot of grunge work so that I can spend more time using my computer as opposed to setting up my computer.(reading manpages, configuring DHCP tho almost every other OS does so automatically, compiling X, etc etc)
Use what you want; I still stand w/ the reasons I stated for why I won't.:):)
I have no idea about other platforms; but my experience recently w/ NetBSD on the i386 platform left a bad (not bitter, unpleasent, kinda like fish) taste in my mouth.
Here's the things I did not like, from my POV...
setting up DHCP is a huge PITA under NetBSD, it's automatic under FreeBSD
There is no (practical) Xfree86 4.x under NetBSD (you have to set arcane options when you re-compile X from scratch); FreeBSD includes X 4.x as an optional package
FreeBSD is optimized for the x86 platform and shows it when contrasted against NetBSD.
I would say that using solaris on an x86 (even on an 500mhz) feels quite a bit like kicking a whale; when the tide is low, I could swear it even has the same smell....
(Mind you, I'm basing that on 2.6; wich was around *before* the 500mhz puters were...I think of what it must be like to have run it on then-contemporary hardware. I think I need to see a doctor about my foot now:)
Slashdot Mirror
I remember reading an ZD (forget which mag, offhand) that was pro-linux a few years back (98 or 99) which stated something along the lines of "unlike OS/2 users, Linux users will never stoop to sending death threats" and then the author went on to cite a anectdote where an OS/2 user did exactly that.
There's liking your OS, then there's really liking your OS, I guess...
"you get what you pay for", a statement that seems highly dubious WRT ecomstation...
"I used to run OS/2 back ..." posts, which is understandable...
/. land?
With the progress of hardware in the last 4 years (since the last release of OS/2, IIRC) and software in the last 6 years (w32-wise), it doesn't IMHO make a lot of sense to run an OS which may not even support your hardware, and even if it does, is there even new software (aside from GNU & the odd shareware droppings) wich will run native on it?
What can you get from this you can't get from GNU/Linux or FreeBSD? (both support win16 apps under WINE, unless I'm mistaken)
Are there any "I've been using OS/2 since.." posters instead of "I used to use..." posters out there in
PS the pricetag is hefty for an nostolgia OS, IMHO.
and popcorn and enjoy the show. :):)
At least that's how I feel about it. :):)
(on the other hand, with out XFree86, it isn't flying on modern hardware either...at least what I've tried; is 9.0 really going to be any better?)
Actually, I'd say that slackware is more bare-knuckled than slackware...in that you have more "ease of use" procedures/tools/whatever (eg -the ports) than does slackware, while still having the same K.I.S.S philosophy.
;))
If I use Linux, I'll use slackware; but I try to stick w/ FreeBSD when I can (btw, I'm one of those desktop users who supposedly don't exist
I'll wait until 3.1 too; it's the same version that I started out on w/ windows, and that taught me all I need to know about that "OS". ;);)
As that (afaik) means I don't do online shopping. Since I don't do online shopping that means I get to wait until 2003 until it shows up in our local Barnes And Nobles.
Though, I have to admit that half the time the reason I bought the books was to get the cd (and spare myself the hassle of d/l'ing); but the point remains, just because there's "large audience" doesn't always mean that what's in the books is necessarily detailed.
In my experience, the more books there are out there, the more variable the quality tends to be. Kinda makes sense if you think about it. The market demands detail, yes; but anyone who watched Linux from 96 to now knows that as often as not the market demands "slap a brand on it and get it out the door before the fad turns cold". Christ knows how many Linux books I bought remembering the quality of my old "Using Linux" (I don't remember the full title, but it included slackware 3.1) brought them home and got lots of hype about the "linux revolution", but nothing at all in depth (a new tip here on how to set up X, a new tip there talking about KDE).
Actually, didn't Novell (?) sue the Regents of California so that they could no longer call 4.4BSD "Unix"? So that would mean it's NOT Unix....
I don't own an Apple/BSD/GNU/Darwin system, so this is all conjecture; but I was under the impression that the "toolchain" was derived from FreeBSD, wich would place it largely under the BSD license. If that is in fact the case, then it would not be any more valid to call it GNU/Darwin then would Windows GNU/Windows (granted, you cannot rebuild windows using cygwin) or calling FreeBSD GNU/FreeBSD (where you do use GNU tools to rebuild the OS).
Point being, how is it you can call it GNU/Darwin, but not GNU/FreeBSD? Where is it you're saying the difference lies? In using GNOME? In replaceing the fileutils? Where, exactly?
Don't worry, Microsoft is working on your behalf to elimenate it. :D
Micro$oft is not only in bed w/ the PC makers; but they're also making PC themselves....
It's also hard if you read the manpages (prolly the wrong ones, but WTF) or if you read the web-site, follow the online instructions and still get error messages up the yin-yang when you manage to finally get it to run. While it may not be "rocket science", it IS a waste of time wich FreeBSD, Linux and Winders do not make me go through for, really, no reason than being albe to say "if you can't figure this out, you're obviously not as l33t as we are". As far as the X compilation goes, I tarded out on that (admittedly, compiling X intimdates the F*k out of me, personally speaking). And to the person saying "show me the benchmarks", no. First off, there are no benchmarks, and second off, I was saying "From My Point Of View..". So, you've stated your POV ("works great here, less filling"). Bravo, bully for you...please, by all means use it then. That has nothing to do w/ the original question; wich was "why would anyone use FreeBSD when there is NetBSD?". If I use *BSD (wich is becoming rarer these days, though who knows about the future), I go w/ FreeBSD for the reasons I stated in my previous post. Basioally, FreeBSD takes care of alot of grunge work so that I can spend more time using my computer as opposed to setting up my computer.(reading manpages, configuring DHCP tho almost every other OS does so automatically, compiling X, etc etc) Use what you want; I still stand w/ the reasons I stated for why I won't. :):)
I have no idea about other platforms; but my experience recently w/ NetBSD on the i386 platform left a bad (not bitter, unpleasent, kinda like fish) taste in my mouth.
Here's the things I did not like, from my POV...
setting up DHCP is a huge PITA under NetBSD, it's automatic under FreeBSD
There is no (practical) Xfree86 4.x under NetBSD (you have to set arcane options when you re-compile X from scratch); FreeBSD includes X 4.x as an optional package
FreeBSD is optimized for the x86 platform and shows it when contrasted against NetBSD.
Just my opinion...
I would say that using solaris on an x86 (even on an 500mhz) feels quite a bit like kicking a whale; when the tide is low, I could swear it even has the same smell....
:)
(Mind you, I'm basing that on 2.6; wich was around *before* the 500mhz puters were...I think of what it must be like to have run it on then-contemporary hardware. I think I need to see a doctor about my foot now