Yo, buddy. I use Unix for work and server purposes all the time. Don't go telling me about operating systems. Windows is very much a real computer OS and there is no reason they can't make command line tools.
The new shell I heard about supposedly can access any.NET object (read any major system in future Windows OSs) in an object oriented fashion. Such a shell would in fact be well beyond the current UNIX shells and it would be integrated into the actuall language runtime of the system. A facinating idea.
I use both Windows and Unix, and would very much enjoy better Unix like functionality on Windows so I wouldn't have to dual boot my home machine.
I misunderstood your previous post it seems. I thought you were claiming that Linux is more powerfull and stable than Windows. I agree that UNIX is much more usefull for scientific computations. I'm not arguing that Linux is more popular than Windows for many of these things.
I'm only arguing that Linux is not neseccarily more powerfull or stable than Windows. It could be, but no one has shown any evidence either way.
Myself, I use UNIX exclusivly at work, and very much like it.
I really hope MS is planning to use these tests to implement missing features into Windows.
The thing I dislike most about windows is the lack of a decent command line. If Windows had a full command line environment similar to Unix, I'd really love it. And no, cygwin and friends don't cut it. I'd like much more unix compatability than that. Not to mention something more integrated into the OS so that it runs similar to a UNIX as well.
I heard such features are coming. That would be slick.
Were they to compare raw computing power and stability, they would lose-- and they know that.
Really? This statement is thrown about as if it's as obvious as stateing hte sky is blue. But do you really have proof of this?
I can do everything with my Windows box that I can do with my BSD box. It's also JUST as stable. Neither system crashes for me. I leave both on 24/7.
This is the same as all open source claims to fame. Another good one is that open source has less bugs. I've not found this to be true. If you compare closed source with open source software of equal complexity both seem to have plenty of bugs. Sure, the open source bugs are fixed immediately, in CVS, but no doubt so are the closed source bugs. Neither are particularly usefull to me as an end user. I don't want to run development code. And even when fixes are backported, open source software tends to cause me to recompile.
I'd really like to see the open source community provide the proof of their claims as they continually chide others for not haveing.
LOTR is in no way over publicized. LOTR movies are the *only* movies me and my freinds care and can't wait too see. LOTR is not based off some lame video game who's major feature is it's main character's breasts.
The next generation of Windows is suppposed to include a GPU accelerated compositor similar to OS X's. As far as I know, that's the only one though.
Of interest may also be Xr/Xc. It's not accelrated, but it does have functionality similar to Quartz (Display Postscript). Presumably it *could* be accelerated, so people say. Sorry I couldn't find a better link. There are actual spec docs floating around somewhere on the web.
Oh, did you know that OS X uses runtime statistics to predict what program you will use next and actually preload the binary?? Another one of it's many little tweaks.;)
Hmm. So we actually agree then. The only difference is our experiences. I like UNIX way of things as well, but find Linux to be a rather poor implementation of it.
I admit, the improvments in 2.6 are great, but at the same time many of those improvments have been present in other systems for years. Even in other free systems. I don't think Linux's track record warrents the amount of praise it gets. More and more I have had freinds who try Linux and end up complaining since it doesn't live up to the hype.
It would definatly be interesting to do a real comparison between Windows and Linux. You are very right that it would be very difficult to do though.
So in the end, why are we arguing again?
I think the original poster who completely misrepresented Windows stability got ignored.
Get real. I don't lie about those things. There might be people exaggerating the instability problems with Windows. I wouldn't know, I gave up on Microsoft years ago, and I haven't used Windows since (at least not on any of my own computers).
You seem to be exaggerating the stability of Linux though. And you jumped into a thread where someone was greatly exaggerating the instability of Windows. I was mearly pointing out that Linux is equally unstable, or rather Windows is equally stable. Since you've not used Windows for years, you really are not in a position to comment on that. I use both Linux and Windows on a daily basis.
And as for your reasons for using Linux. That's fine. I'm not trying to convince you not to use Linux. Certainly not everyone shares your reasons, nor agrees with some of them. I don't find Linux to be particularly well designed. What's my evidence? Aside from my experience using different systems, take the latest 2.5 series. See all those great changes? The massive improvments? Well, those are *all* deficiencies and attempts to repear poor design choices in the *current* series of stable Linux kernels.
But as I said. I don't care if you like Linux or use Linux or if you like Windows or not or whatever else. I'm just trying to add perspective to a Linux biased thread that is continuing to spread misinformation about Windows and Linux.
When Windows 9x was dominant. I'd agree that it was a crashy piece of *beep*. In comparison Linux was great. But times have changed. Software has evolved. Linux supports more now, has third part drivers, and is no where near as stable as it once was. In a similar vein, Windows is no longer the beast that was the 9x series. It is easily comparible to Linux in terms of stability. Any percieved additional instability in Windows is no doubt do the the huge amount of non-certified drivers, and massive selection of exotic hardware that Windows supports.
We are talking about VMWare, which should have been able to run without additional drivers at all. Part of the reason it doesn't is probably the IA32 design, that simply makes virtualization more difficult than it ought to be. However if you throw such stuff into your kernel, you simply cannot expect it to be as stable as it used to be.
Sure. Ok. But sometimes you need to throw such stuff into your kernel. Now, a microkernel design could actually allow you to do this without risking your system. But that's a whole other story. The point is that Windows is no more unstable than Linux. Third party drivers can crash both. Hardware can cause both to be unstable. Yet I continually hear people go on and on about the mythical stability of Linux and the perpetual crashing of Windows. If the Linux community would stop lying every time they open their mouth they would probably get a whole lot more respect.
As for bugs, with Windows or other proprietary systems the bug fixing is supposed to be taken care of for you. For the most part it is. It's unreasonable to expect a company to know who to pay to get Linux bugs fixed.
As Linux becomes more popular and supports more hardware, crashes and other bugs will become more and more frequent. This is an enevitable trait of large software systems. This is why Sun and IBM and Apple restirct the hardware they support.
Sure, and don't blame Windows for it's crashes either then. Those are all caused by bad drivers as well.
As for the ATA raid drivers, a lot of people have this hardware. Many motherboards come equiped with ATA raid devices. Sure sure, you could use Linux software raid, but then you can't have more than one OS on the same computer cooperate.
Again, the point is that Linux is no more stable than Windows. Bad drivers cause both to crash. Those drivers are not always closed source either.
As for the SMP + SCSI, this is extremely common server hardware. The fact that both RedHat and Gentoo did not work correctly without recompiling the kernel reflects very poorly on Linux. I believe with one particular kernel (2.4.21) I had kernel panics. Check the kernel mailing list. Known bug. Redhat at least didn't panic, but running with 30% system load at all times is not my idea of a quality system. After my freind removed a bunch of stuff from the kernel the load issue went away. But I still don't know what option caused this load. And it's not my job to figure it out and file a bug report either. That is supposed to be Redhat's job. That's why they are charging for the distribution.
Too me, all of this shows that Linux is not ready for enterprise use. Running Windows under VMware on Linux is not going to gain you anything. Bad drivers will still cause your system to crash. End users are not interested nor capable of degugging these things. They don't know how to file bugs. Even people who do, in enterprise applications, don't want to. They want to pay to have no bugs.
Debian has crashed on me. Probably the VMware drivers.
Gentoo crashed on me. ATA raid drivers, the open source ones. The closed source ones work flawlessly.
Redhat and Gentoo were both also super poor on a freinds machine. Dual proc. Gentoo crashed. SMP + SCSI is a no no under Linux in some kernels. Redhat worked, but had 30% system load on both processors.
Linksys router of mine (runs Linux it turns out) is continually flaky and crashy.
Apple uses something called Quartz to do graphics. Their X layer is merely a compatability tool so you can run all your unix applications easily. It acutally runs on top of Quartz and as a result it's faster than any other X server.
No, this is very very far from what DragonflyBSD is trying to do. Just because the project want's to make an updated package manager doesn't mean it's anything like Debain.
If anything, the packaging system is a cross between Debian's and Apple's (in the sense that packages are versioned and multiple versions can coexist in the system).
The rest of the system is completely different. It's not glibc based, it's not GPL, it's not paranoid about commercial software, and the big changes are in the kernel. Debian is not in the kernel business.
1. People using Linux make more money, and save more money as well.
2. I've never heard of a Windows Beer Hike - guess after spending money for Windoze, there's nothing left.
3. Linux users are sensible - they really meet real people, and do real things - not NetMeetings, Virtual tours...
Windows users don't need beer hikes. They can afford to drink beer every day, and socializing is commonplace rather a once a year event.
See, there are these things called bars. Full of Windows users, you should visit one sometime.
Every common file transfer protocal is avaliable for Windows. FTP, SFTP, SCP, CVS, RSYNC, SMB (Samba), and a quick search of google shows that NFS is also avaliable.
This ask slashdot has no real problem. Rather, they are trying their hardest to convince themselves there is a problem.
Actually, gcc is the only *required* GPL program. I think all the other parts of a BSD system are BSD licensed. This includes libc, ash, and even a vi clone.
It is less clear that a compiler is really a core part of an OS. It may be required to be practical, but I have an openbsd box on old hardware without a compiler! It's very usable!
Yeah, I recently installed Linux on a dual P-III SCSI system. Tried a bunch of different kernels as well, but the damn thing keeps using up 30% of each processor for system tasks... at idle even!
I checked all the processes, nothing taking up time. If I actually had a choice, I'd have used FreeBSD. A friend of mine runs a fairly large website with a LOT of traffic. It was crawling on redhat 8. He switched to FreeBSD and it's now able to handle the load easily.
The confusing thing is, everyone always tells me Linux has great SMP! Oh well.
But on a side note, I'd *never* want to replace the FreeBSD kernel with Linux. There *is* a reason I use FreeBSD after all. Part of it is the user space and system integration, but a lot of it is the kernel.
Slashdot Mirror
Yo, buddy. I use Unix for work and server purposes all the time. Don't go telling me about operating systems. Windows is very much a real computer OS and there is no reason they can't make command line tools.
.NET object (read any major system in future Windows OSs) in an object oriented fashion. Such a shell would in fact be well beyond the current UNIX shells and it would be integrated into the actuall language runtime of the system. A facinating idea.
The new shell I heard about supposedly can access any
I use both Windows and Unix, and would very much enjoy better Unix like functionality on Windows so I wouldn't have to dual boot my home machine.
I misunderstood your previous post it seems. I thought you were claiming that Linux is more powerfull and stable than Windows. I agree that UNIX is much more usefull for scientific computations. I'm not arguing that Linux is more popular than Windows for many of these things.
I'm only arguing that Linux is not neseccarily more powerfull or stable than Windows. It could be, but no one has shown any evidence either way.
Myself, I use UNIX exclusivly at work, and very much like it.
I really hope MS is planning to use these tests to implement missing features into Windows.
The thing I dislike most about windows is the lack of a decent command line. If Windows had a full command line environment similar to Unix, I'd really love it. And no, cygwin and friends don't cut it. I'd like much more unix compatability than that. Not to mention something more integrated into the OS so that it runs similar to a UNIX as well.
I heard such features are coming. That would be slick.
Were they to compare raw computing power and stability, they would lose-- and they know that.
Really? This statement is thrown about as if it's as obvious as stateing hte sky is blue. But do you really have proof of this?
I can do everything with my Windows box that I can do with my BSD box. It's also JUST as stable. Neither system crashes for me. I leave both on 24/7.
This is the same as all open source claims to fame. Another good one is that open source has less bugs. I've not found this to be true. If you compare closed source with open source software of equal complexity both seem to have plenty of bugs. Sure, the open source bugs are fixed immediately, in CVS, but no doubt so are the closed source bugs. Neither are particularly usefull to me as an end user. I don't want to run development code. And even when fixes are backported, open source software tends to cause me to recompile.
I'd really like to see the open source community provide the proof of their claims as they continually chide others for not haveing.
Your same post about LOTR??
;)
Don't step on holy ground man.
LOTR is in no way over publicized. LOTR movies are the *only* movies me and my freinds care and can't wait too see. LOTR is not based off some lame video game who's major feature is it's main character's breasts.
hehe
:)
exactly
Probably stop is implied by *not* issuing a command.
If you don't think, it don't go.
I was patched yesterday in fact. Automatically I might add (with confirmation from me of course).
The next generation of Windows is suppposed to include a GPU accelerated compositor similar to OS X's. As far as I know, that's the only one though.
Of interest may also be Xr/Xc. It's not accelrated, but it does have functionality similar to Quartz (Display Postscript). Presumably it *could* be accelerated, so people say. Sorry I couldn't find a better link. There are actual spec docs floating around somewhere on the web.
Oh, did you know that OS X uses runtime statistics to predict what program you will use next and actually preload the binary?? Another one of it's many little tweaks. ;)
OS X is just sweet. :)
Agreed. The primary reason I'd look at a Powerbook is OS X. No other operating system can come close to comparing.
Hmm. So we actually agree then. The only difference is our experiences. I like UNIX way of things as well, but find Linux to be a rather poor implementation of it.
I admit, the improvments in 2.6 are great, but at the same time many of those improvments have been present in other systems for years. Even in other free systems. I don't think Linux's track record warrents the amount of praise it gets. More and more I have had freinds who try Linux and end up complaining since it doesn't live up to the hype.
It would definatly be interesting to do a real comparison between Windows and Linux. You are very right that it would be very difficult to do though.
So in the end, why are we arguing again?
I think the original poster who completely misrepresented Windows stability got ignored.
Get real. I don't lie about those things. There might be people exaggerating the instability problems with Windows. I wouldn't know, I gave up on Microsoft years ago, and I haven't used Windows since (at least not on any of my own computers).
You seem to be exaggerating the stability of Linux though. And you jumped into a thread where someone was greatly exaggerating the instability of Windows. I was mearly pointing out that Linux is equally unstable, or rather Windows is equally stable. Since you've not used Windows for years, you really are not in a position to comment on that. I use both Linux and Windows on a daily basis.
And as for your reasons for using Linux. That's fine. I'm not trying to convince you not to use Linux. Certainly not everyone shares your reasons, nor agrees with some of them. I don't find Linux to be particularly well designed. What's my evidence? Aside from my experience using different systems, take the latest 2.5 series. See all those great changes? The massive improvments? Well, those are *all* deficiencies and attempts to repear poor design choices in the *current* series of stable Linux kernels.
But as I said. I don't care if you like Linux or use Linux or if you like Windows or not or whatever else. I'm just trying to add perspective to a Linux biased thread that is continuing to spread misinformation about Windows and Linux.
When Windows 9x was dominant. I'd agree that it was a crashy piece of *beep*. In comparison Linux was great. But times have changed. Software has evolved. Linux supports more now, has third part drivers, and is no where near as stable as it once was. In a similar vein, Windows is no longer the beast that was the 9x series. It is easily comparible to Linux in terms of stability. Any percieved additional instability in Windows is no doubt do the the huge amount of non-certified drivers, and massive selection of exotic hardware that Windows supports.
We are talking about VMWare, which should have been able to run without additional drivers at all. Part of the reason it doesn't is probably the IA32 design, that simply makes virtualization more difficult than it ought to be. However if you throw such stuff into your kernel, you simply cannot expect it to be as stable as it used to be.
Sure. Ok. But sometimes you need to throw such stuff into your kernel. Now, a microkernel design could actually allow you to do this without risking your system. But that's a whole other story. The point is that Windows is no more unstable than Linux. Third party drivers can crash both. Hardware can cause both to be unstable. Yet I continually hear people go on and on about the mythical stability of Linux and the perpetual crashing of Windows. If the Linux community would stop lying every time they open their mouth they would probably get a whole lot more respect.
As for bugs, with Windows or other proprietary systems the bug fixing is supposed to be taken care of for you. For the most part it is. It's unreasonable to expect a company to know who to pay to get Linux bugs fixed.
As Linux becomes more popular and supports more hardware, crashes and other bugs will become more and more frequent. This is an enevitable trait of large software systems. This is why Sun and IBM and Apple restirct the hardware they support.
"Probably the VMware drivers."
So don't blame Linux for that.
Sure, and don't blame Windows for it's crashes either then. Those are all caused by bad drivers as well.
As for the ATA raid drivers, a lot of people have this hardware. Many motherboards come equiped with ATA raid devices. Sure sure, you could use Linux software raid, but then you can't have more than one OS on the same computer cooperate.
Again, the point is that Linux is no more stable than Windows. Bad drivers cause both to crash. Those drivers are not always closed source either.
As for the SMP + SCSI, this is extremely common server hardware. The fact that both RedHat and Gentoo did not work correctly without recompiling the kernel reflects very poorly on Linux. I believe with one particular kernel (2.4.21) I had kernel panics. Check the kernel mailing list. Known bug. Redhat at least didn't panic, but running with 30% system load at all times is not my idea of a quality system. After my freind removed a bunch of stuff from the kernel the load issue went away. But I still don't know what option caused this load. And it's not my job to figure it out and file a bug report either. That is supposed to be Redhat's job. That's why they are charging for the distribution.
Too me, all of this shows that Linux is not ready for enterprise use. Running Windows under VMware on Linux is not going to gain you anything. Bad drivers will still cause your system to crash. End users are not interested nor capable of degugging these things. They don't know how to file bugs. Even people who do, in enterprise applications, don't want to. They want to pay to have no bugs.
Here's some more evidence then.
Debian has crashed on me. Probably the VMware
drivers.
Gentoo crashed on me. ATA raid drivers, the open source ones. The closed source ones work flawlessly.
Redhat and Gentoo were both also super poor on a freinds machine. Dual proc. Gentoo crashed. SMP + SCSI is a no no under Linux in some kernels. Redhat worked, but had 30% system load on both processors.
Linksys router of mine (runs Linux it turns out) is continually flaky and crashy.
Ring ring.
Zork the Almighty, meet cluestick.
Apple uses something called Quartz to do graphics. Their X layer is merely a compatability tool so you can run all your unix applications easily. It acutally runs on top of Quartz and as a result it's faster than any other X server.
Click.
What about Linux crashes and your offline again until it reboots?
That's what tends to happen for me.
It's still the child of a deamon though. In fact, much of UNIX was created by satan. I like heat myself, and just love the little deamon. ;)
Of course, if you really want to be free of satan's influence there is always Jesux!
Uh oh, Lucifer is gonna make me suffer for giving a link to the enemies operating system! *runs and hides*
No, this is very very far from what DragonflyBSD is trying to do. Just because the project want's to make an updated package manager doesn't mean it's anything like Debain.
If anything, the packaging system is a cross between Debian's and Apple's (in the sense that packages are versioned and multiple versions can coexist in the system).
The rest of the system is completely different. It's not glibc based, it's not GPL, it's not paranoid about commercial software, and the big changes are in the kernel. Debian is not in the kernel business.
1. People using Linux make more money, and save more money as well. 2. I've never heard of a Windows Beer Hike - guess after spending money for Windoze, there's nothing left. 3. Linux users are sensible - they really meet real people, and do real things - not NetMeetings, Virtual tours ...
Windows users don't need beer hikes. They can afford to drink beer every day, and socializing is commonplace rather a once a year event.
See, there are these things called bars. Full of Windows users, you should visit one sometime.
Umm. This is clearly a troll, but I'll bite.
Every common file transfer protocal is avaliable for Windows. FTP, SFTP, SCP, CVS, RSYNC, SMB (Samba), and a quick search of google shows that NFS is also avaliable.
This ask slashdot has no real problem. Rather, they are trying their hardest to convince themselves there is a problem.
Perhaps you should take your own advice.
Actually, gcc is the only *required* GPL program. I think all the other parts of a BSD system are BSD licensed. This includes libc, ash, and even a vi clone.
It is less clear that a compiler is really a core part of an OS. It may be required to be practical, but I have an openbsd box on old hardware without a compiler! It's very usable!
Yeah, I recently installed Linux on a dual P-III SCSI system. Tried a bunch of different kernels as well, but the damn thing keeps using up 30% of each processor for system tasks... at idle even!
I checked all the processes, nothing taking up time. If I actually had a choice, I'd have used FreeBSD. A friend of mine runs a fairly large website with a LOT of traffic. It was crawling on redhat 8. He switched to FreeBSD and it's now able to handle the load easily.
The confusing thing is, everyone always tells me Linux has great SMP! Oh well.
Yo, it's called Gentoo.
But on a side note, I'd *never* want to replace the FreeBSD kernel with Linux. There *is* a reason I use FreeBSD after all. Part of it is the user space and system integration, but a lot of it is the kernel.