I'd say it's a shame running Solaris on x86. I've tried installing Solaris 8 on my old Duron, and it actually doesn't work. It fails during the installation, printing a kerneldump on the screen...:|
Running Solaris on an x86 is like running Windows 3.11 on a Pentium 4. Solaris is built FOR and runned BY 64-bit systems.
What's your opinion?
You're absolutely right about this - let's say - "OSS paradox". There's a great need for simplicity and unity in the GUI-corner of the complex GNU/Linux-world. KDE and Gnome are two very nice user environments right now, but if GNU/Linux is supposed to attract - for instance - my dad or mother, the system must be built upon a more monolithic structure and philosophy of development. - But that's the diametrical opposite of the original Linux-/OSS-model (the bazaar), which attracts us. Those who're really into computers and dig the shell and compiler all day.:)
That's also why Linux is never going to rule the desktop. If Mac OS X got ported to i386, they really could attract a lot of users. But then again, Microsoft would stop porting their programs to the OS. As I see it right now, Mac OS is the only really alternative for average users when looking at OS'es for the desktop.
As long as I may dig my Blackbox, I don't care about the rest.:)
In my opinion Microsoft could really make a better OS that today's Windows XP by removing all the extra features and applications such as MSN Messenger, Media Player and Internet Explorer. Maybe they could also extend the functionality of CMD.EXE, but maybe that's just utopia?:)
I people want the software, they should be able to order an inexpensive CD-set from Microsoft or download it from their website instead. By doing it would be possible for Microsoft to acquire a much larger group of users.
Anyway, I use FreeBSD... I prefer devils, not windows...:)
Ever heard of the ReactOS project? (http://www.reactos.com/). It is a group of kernel hackers trying to develop an OS which looks and acts like Windows NT (mainly the kernel architecture...)
If those guys actually could get the source code and build up a stable, nice-looking NT-like OS only with a commandline, then I'd switch to this OS!
It it possible with a Duron-based system instead? I know, K6 is a very old and slow processor-design, but anyway it is 100% Intel-compatible... maybe it could be my motherboard or disk-subsystem? (IDE, onboard)
Yes, Microsoft really rapes the harddrives of your computer with these incompatible solutions and filesystem standards. But as usual, it's a very common Microsoft-stratetegy - unfortunately.
Apropos Solaris...
I have a copy of Intel Solaris 8 (acquired at CeBIT 2001) at home. I've tried to install it onto my AMD K6-II machine, but the kernel "crashes" during my installation tries. That really disappointed me! Are there any sites on the internet or books, which can help me solve this problem?
I think you should try to install the FreeBSD-partition slice onto a primary partition. The partition contains all subslices, which the system is installed onto (/,/usr,/var etc.).
I have absolutely no experiences (XP:) with FreeBSD on laptops - the hardware acceleration for for instance X might be a problem (console should run fine).
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say it's a shame running Solaris on x86. I've tried installing Solaris 8 on my old Duron, and it actually doesn't work. It fails during the installation, printing a kerneldump on the screen... :|
Running Solaris on an x86 is like running Windows 3.11 on a Pentium 4. Solaris is built FOR and runned BY 64-bit systems.
What's your opinion?
You're absolutely right about this - let's say - "OSS paradox". There's a great need for simplicity and unity in the GUI-corner of the complex GNU/Linux-world. KDE and Gnome are two very nice user environments right now, but if GNU/Linux is supposed to attract - for instance - my dad or mother, the system must be built upon a more monolithic structure and philosophy of development. - But that's the diametrical opposite of the original Linux-/OSS-model (the bazaar), which attracts us. Those who're really into computers and dig the shell and compiler all day. :)
That's also why Linux is never going to rule the desktop. If Mac OS X got ported to i386, they really could attract a lot of users. But then again, Microsoft would stop porting their programs to the OS. As I see it right now, Mac OS is the only really alternative for average users when looking at OS'es for the desktop.
As long as I may dig my Blackbox, I don't care about the rest. :)
In my opinion Microsoft could really make a better OS that today's Windows XP by removing all the extra features and applications such as MSN Messenger, Media Player and Internet Explorer. :)
:)
Maybe they could also extend the functionality of CMD.EXE, but maybe that's just utopia?
I people want the software, they should be able to order an inexpensive CD-set from Microsoft or download it from their website instead.
By doing it would be possible for Microsoft to acquire a much larger group of users.
Anyway, I use FreeBSD... I prefer devils, not windows...
Ever heard of the ReactOS project? (http://www.reactos.com/). It is a group of kernel hackers trying to develop an OS which looks and acts like Windows NT (mainly the kernel architecture...)
If those guys actually could get the source code and build up a stable, nice-looking NT-like OS only with a commandline, then I'd switch to this OS!
What do you other guys think?
It it possible with a Duron-based system instead? I know, K6 is a very old and slow processor-design, but anyway it is 100% Intel-compatible... maybe it could be my motherboard or disk-subsystem? (IDE, onboard)
... I'll look at it!
Thanks for the urls
Regards
Yes, Microsoft really rapes the harddrives of your computer with these incompatible solutions and filesystem standards. But as usual, it's a very common Microsoft-stratetegy - unfortunately.
...
Apropos Solaris
I have a copy of Intel Solaris 8 (acquired at CeBIT 2001) at home. I've tried to install it onto my AMD K6-II machine, but the kernel "crashes" during my installation tries. That really disappointed me! Are there any sites on the internet or books, which can help me solve this problem?
I think you should try to install the FreeBSD-partition slice onto a primary partition. The partition contains all subslices, which the system is installed onto (/, /usr, /var etc.).
I have absolutely no experiences (XP :) with FreeBSD on laptops - the hardware acceleration for for instance X might be a problem (console should run fine).
Regards