I had my Dell laptop for 31 days. Paid 1500 for it at the time. I kept it in a backpack because I hadn't bought a computer case for it yet. I was about to travel with my friend in his car somewhere when he diecides he wants to put washer fluid into his car. I put my bag down on the side of the car and was helping him.
The person who had parked next to my friend decide to go somewhere too, so she got into her car and drove off. The only problem was that under her tire went my bag, and in my bag went my laptop.
Checking the laptop showed that only the screen was broken, everything else worked fine. I called Dell customer service and since I dind't buy the protection plan it would have cost me $700 to have it replaced.
Basically I used it as a horrible desktop for a year.
I switched from Mandrake to SuSE because I wanted to try out another Linux disto. With Mandrake, after it installed every package I'd have to go back and install other things (java, flash player, 3d support, etc.) With SuSE everything was pre-installed and when I wanted something it was already packaged on the CDs. Also everything configured perfectly the first time which just makes it much more of a joy to use.
I switched to SuSE 9.1 Professional and when the install was done I had 85% of a 6GB hard drive used up. Mandrake wouldn't ever go above 17%. So I assume SuSE gives you alot more all at once and without the headache of dependencies and all that.
But been thinking of switching to Gentoo to try it out. I was going to do that cause I thought specific compile might be faster than RPM......now I'm just confused. Anyone wanna put their two cents in on this?
I believe True Type fonts are owned/registered/copyrighted by Adobe. So once Adobe gives up the idea of making mooney off them, then we might see them on Linux.
Then again, I could be wrong.
It's quite simple: If something goes on my SCO OS I can have sompleace to go to tell my situation and ( perhaps for a price ) have it fixed/resolved. What happens if my Red Hat installation goes wrong? I seriously have this doubt that Red Hat has the ability to fix my problem and I sure as hell don't feel like paying 2 thousand dollars to become Red Hat certified.
Now I know you're going to reply with "But Linux has a user support base" and that any systems engineer worth his lick should be able to fix it. Well, how about I don't want to waste my time having my engineers fix the problem when I can have the people who know EXACTLY how the OS is built do it for me? Sure it'll cost me more, but I know that it's being solved by capable personel and not by someone who hacks at an OS on a weekend.
Linux, also, has the unfortuante ability to support multiple platforms. I know you said to ignore that, but here me out here. This is probably the worst thing I hate about the kernel. It wants to be like NetBSD, everywhere and anywhere. I don't want that. I want my OS to be built for MY system. What do I care if Linux runs on an sparc processor if I don't very well own a SunMicro Computer? DEC built that OS to run on an Alpha, and it ran VERY damn well on it. I wouldn't even consider putting linux on it for the simple reason that if I already own an Alpha computer then I already own the OS that comes with it. And a decision between owning True-64 that was specifically built for the Alpha and a kernel that was BUILT WITH FREAKING GCC-2.95 FOR CRYNG OUT LOUD then I'm going to pick the OS that was built with a real compiler as opposed to the crap that is on Linux.
I bet you're the type of person who advocates open source for the bisiness field. It think that's crap. If I use Linux/GCC (Yes, I know True-64 came with GCC but there are much better compilers out there) to do my work then the only support I'm going to receive is someone giving me a gun to shoot my brains out. If I use a Microsoft Windows/Visual Studio combination and something goes wrong you can bet your ass I'll be calling them and bitching. Of course there is BCC (Borland C Compiler) for linux, but would you really agree to that EULA?
But say you do and you get all this great support that Borland is more than happy to give you, you're still writing code for an OS that has 250 thousand different ways to do things. Each different flavor of Linux does something so slightly different that the install script has to be one million lines long and requies the effort for 200 more people than necessary. That will also happen between Sun/Hp/Free-BSD versions of UNIX, but not between versions of True-64. So instead of getting 200 linux scripters for 200 different distros for linux, you can get 100 different install options for the different version of UNIX. It doesn't sound like my point here is moot it really isn't.
The only thing I can give you is that Linux is more flexible. I will definitly not deny True-64 being as rigid as a frozen sloth. But I ask you this, flexible in what way? I know you can scale True-64 pretty well cause I've seen it in action. I know True-64 can be faster than linux when you cut out all the things you won't need. I use Mandrake 8.2 and True-64 on comparable systems (400MHz Aplha Vs. 400PII) and I will say that True-64 does what I want it to do faster than my Mandrake box. I KNOW admining on True-64 is alot better than Mandrake. I can hardly use linuxconf because half of it doesn't even make sense to me. Linux can't even choose between BSD4.4 and SystemV so that just makes it all the worse.
Sure Linux can support 300 different platforms, but it doesn't support one platform well enough for me. Linux dirver support is good, but it's still shit when compared to WindowsXP. If Linux would perfect itself on x86 first and then move on to somehting else, then I'd feel safer about it. On the True-64 you could be sure that everything made for that platform is supported by the OS. On top of that, sometimes Linux drivers are at version Alpha.0.0.0.0.0.01-rev1009. Does that make you feel safe at all?
To sum it up, Linux is more flexible but that doesn't mean it's better. True-64 is better as an OS on an ALPHA just as much as Solaris is better as an OS on a SPARC. I'll even go on to say that FreeBSD is a better free platform on x86 than Linux is. It's based off a closed source UNIX version.
Don't EVER say that Linux will be as good as a closed source UNIX. Might as well go on and say that Linux is better than Microsoft Windows. As much as I'd like to see Windows die, Linux will not be the OS to do it. That's why I like OSX so much, it's got money behind it and can do everything Linux/Unix can.
So that's my point by point, did it enlighten you?
Given the choice between a closed source UNIX and ANY version of Linux, I'd go with the UNIX. Unfortunatly, 90% the things that run on Linux have one hell of a time running on the various UNIX flavors (Not the mention the distinctions between Linux systems) so it leads me to take up a Linux OS.
I think it's a better idea for Caldera/SCO (I'm not sure what to call it just yet) to stay closed source on thier OS, but it's still not a problem to have the open source software ported to it. I'd 100% choose their UNIX OS for mission critical use because there is still some bias I have for open source software. I still follow the idea that open source is for development and proprietary software is for stability. Call me a wierdo, but I liked the DEC/Compaq/HP True-64 OS over Linux. It's Such a shame it's going to be replaced by HP/UX. Now I'd like to test out SCO for a little.
Apple seems to be going the right way with their OS, and if it's true about OSX eventually being ported to an x86 or X86-64 architecture then it seems to me that it can only get better.
As far as I know, the only grpahics cards that work with Apple are the Geforce MXs and the lower Raedeon cards. Imagine using a Geforce4 Ti 4600 or Raedeon 9700 while the AMD processor can sit back and let the graphics card do all the work.
On top of all that, using intel/windows side hardware *should* make the price of those Macs cheaper. If Apple locks the hardware, then it shouldn't be too hard to make your own OSX based computer (think how well DVD and CD copy protection worked, console MOD chips and that sort)
I would love to replace the WindowsXP I have now with OSX running wine or something simmilar, but then again I'm as wierd as they come:-)
What would it matter if it was on the PS3? It's not very likely that you're using pirated games, so what if they know how many times you played FFX? And as for the DVDs you can watch them on a PS2 that you sound like you own or the current DVD drive/player that you might have. Hell, if Sony knew how many hours I spent playing GT3 A-Spec they would have made it better than just updating GT2 and putting it on a DVD disc.
Then there is the non-console side. I agree 100% that there shouldn't be any type of thing like this. If they wanted to know what movies people like, then they should look at box office performance. If they want to know what computer games we play, sales should be a leading indicator.
And even if they did find out you were using illegal software they couldn't point you out of a crowd.....they could make the hardware stop working......that's a scary thought
Slashdot Mirror
I had my Dell laptop for 31 days. Paid 1500 for it at the time. I kept it in a backpack because I hadn't bought a computer case for it yet. I was about to travel with my friend in his car somewhere when he diecides he wants to put washer fluid into his car. I put my bag down on the side of the car and was helping him. The person who had parked next to my friend decide to go somewhere too, so she got into her car and drove off. The only problem was that under her tire went my bag, and in my bag went my laptop. Checking the laptop showed that only the screen was broken, everything else worked fine. I called Dell customer service and since I dind't buy the protection plan it would have cost me $700 to have it replaced. Basically I used it as a horrible desktop for a year.
I switched from Mandrake to SuSE because I wanted to try out another Linux disto. With Mandrake, after it installed every package I'd have to go back and install other things (java, flash player, 3d support, etc.) With SuSE everything was pre-installed and when I wanted something it was already packaged on the CDs. Also everything configured perfectly the first time which just makes it much more of a joy to use.
:-)
I switched to SuSE 9.1 Professional and when the install was done I had 85% of a 6GB hard drive used up. Mandrake wouldn't ever go above 17%. So I assume SuSE gives you alot more all at once and without the headache of dependencies and all that.
Hope that helped
But been thinking of switching to Gentoo to try it out. I was going to do that cause I thought specific compile might be faster than RPM......now I'm just confused. Anyone wanna put their two cents in on this?
Seen it a hundred times at least. Can't get enough of it :-D
I love it cause it's EEEVVVIIIILLLLLLL!!
I believe True Type fonts are owned/registered/copyrighted by Adobe. So once Adobe gives up the idea of making mooney off them, then we might see them on Linux.
Then again, I could be wrong.
It's quite simple: If something goes on my SCO OS I can have sompleace to go to tell my situation and ( perhaps for a price ) have it fixed/resolved. What happens if my Red Hat installation goes wrong? I seriously have this doubt that Red Hat has the ability to fix my problem and I sure as hell don't feel like paying 2 thousand dollars to become Red Hat certified.
Now I know you're going to reply with "But Linux has a user support base" and that any systems engineer worth his lick should be able to fix it. Well, how about I don't want to waste my time having my engineers fix the problem when I can have the people who know EXACTLY how the OS is built do it for me? Sure it'll cost me more, but I know that it's being solved by capable personel and not by someone who hacks at an OS on a weekend.
Linux, also, has the unfortuante ability to support multiple platforms. I know you said to ignore that, but here me out here. This is probably the worst thing I hate about the kernel. It wants to be like NetBSD, everywhere and anywhere. I don't want that. I want my OS to be built for MY system. What do I care if Linux runs on an sparc processor if I don't very well own a SunMicro Computer? DEC built that OS to run on an Alpha, and it ran VERY damn well on it. I wouldn't even consider putting linux on it for the simple reason that if I already own an Alpha computer then I already own the OS that comes with it. And a decision between owning True-64 that was specifically built for the Alpha and a kernel that was BUILT WITH FREAKING GCC-2.95 FOR CRYNG OUT LOUD then I'm going to pick the OS that was built with a real compiler as opposed to the crap that is on Linux.
I bet you're the type of person who advocates open source for the bisiness field. It think that's crap. If I use Linux/GCC (Yes, I know True-64 came with GCC but there are much better compilers out there) to do my work then the only support I'm going to receive is someone giving me a gun to shoot my brains out. If I use a Microsoft Windows/Visual Studio combination and something goes wrong you can bet your ass I'll be calling them and bitching. Of course there is BCC (Borland C Compiler) for linux, but would you really agree to that EULA?
But say you do and you get all this great support that Borland is more than happy to give you, you're still writing code for an OS that has 250 thousand different ways to do things. Each different flavor of Linux does something so slightly different that the install script has to be one million lines long and requies the effort for 200 more people than necessary. That will also happen between Sun/Hp/Free-BSD versions of UNIX, but not between versions of True-64. So instead of getting 200 linux scripters for 200 different distros for linux, you can get 100 different install options for the different version of UNIX. It doesn't sound like my point here is moot it really isn't.
The only thing I can give you is that Linux is more flexible. I will definitly not deny True-64 being as rigid as a frozen sloth. But I ask you this, flexible in what way? I know you can scale True-64 pretty well cause I've seen it in action. I know True-64 can be faster than linux when you cut out all the things you won't need. I use Mandrake 8.2 and True-64 on comparable systems (400MHz Aplha Vs. 400PII) and I will say that True-64 does what I want it to do faster than my Mandrake box. I KNOW admining on True-64 is alot better than Mandrake. I can hardly use linuxconf because half of it doesn't even make sense to me. Linux can't even choose between BSD4.4 and SystemV so that just makes it all the worse.
Sure Linux can support 300 different platforms, but it doesn't support one platform well enough for me. Linux dirver support is good, but it's still shit when compared to WindowsXP. If Linux would perfect itself on x86 first and then move on to somehting else, then I'd feel safer about it. On the True-64 you could be sure that everything made for that platform is supported by the OS. On top of that, sometimes Linux drivers are at version Alpha.0.0.0.0.0.01-rev1009. Does that make you feel safe at all?
To sum it up, Linux is more flexible but that doesn't mean it's better. True-64 is better as an OS on an ALPHA just as much as Solaris is better as an OS on a SPARC. I'll even go on to say that FreeBSD is a better free platform on x86 than Linux is. It's based off a closed source UNIX version.
Don't EVER say that Linux will be as good as a closed source UNIX. Might as well go on and say that Linux is better than Microsoft Windows. As much as I'd like to see Windows die, Linux will not be the OS to do it. That's why I like OSX so much, it's got money behind it and can do everything Linux/Unix can.
So that's my point by point, did it enlighten you?
Given the choice between a closed source UNIX and ANY version of Linux, I'd go with the UNIX. Unfortunatly, 90% the things that run on Linux have one hell of a time running on the various UNIX flavors (Not the mention the distinctions between Linux systems) so it leads me to take up a Linux OS.
I think it's a better idea for Caldera/SCO (I'm not sure what to call it just yet) to stay closed source on thier OS, but it's still not a problem to have the open source software ported to it. I'd 100% choose their UNIX OS for mission critical use because there is still some bias I have for open source software. I still follow the idea that open source is for development and proprietary software is for stability. Call me a wierdo, but I liked the DEC/Compaq/HP True-64 OS over Linux. It's Such a shame it's going to be replaced by HP/UX. Now I'd like to test out SCO for a little.
Apple seems to be going the right way with their OS, and if it's true about OSX eventually being ported to an x86 or X86-64 architecture then it seems to me that it can only get better. As far as I know, the only grpahics cards that work with Apple are the Geforce MXs and the lower Raedeon cards. Imagine using a Geforce4 Ti 4600 or Raedeon 9700 while the AMD processor can sit back and let the graphics card do all the work. On top of all that, using intel/windows side hardware *should* make the price of those Macs cheaper. If Apple locks the hardware, then it shouldn't be too hard to make your own OSX based computer (think how well DVD and CD copy protection worked, console MOD chips and that sort) I would love to replace the WindowsXP I have now with OSX running wine or something simmilar, but then again I'm as wierd as they come :-)
What would it matter if it was on the PS3? It's not very likely that you're using pirated games, so what if they know how many times you played FFX? And as for the DVDs you can watch them on a PS2 that you sound like you own or the current DVD drive/player that you might have. Hell, if Sony knew how many hours I spent playing GT3 A-Spec they would have made it better than just updating GT2 and putting it on a DVD disc.
Then there is the non-console side. I agree 100% that there shouldn't be any type of thing like this. If they wanted to know what movies people like, then they should look at box office performance. If they want to know what computer games we play, sales should be a leading indicator.
And even if they did find out you were using illegal software they couldn't point you out of a crowd.....they could make the hardware stop working......that's a scary thought