And when you actually learn that the operating system in the Mac OS X is a XNU (what's kernel is a Mach), sameway like NT (6.1) is the operating system of the Windows 7.
And when you actually learn about economy what does monopoly and dominant market position mean. You understand why EU does not go after Apple but Microsoft, because Microsoft has dominant market position and it is using it ways what is against law. And when you learn about Microsoft history, you learn that Microsoft had monopoly on PC's operating system markets and it used it against Netscape and Sun (Java) and it was against law as well.
But if you do not understand those, you never understand why what EU does, is what is needed to do to get justice.
How about having a ISP driver CD include a browsers? Why you would need a web browser when you do not have a Internet connection? How about having a ADSL, Cable or 3G modems to include browsers on driver CD.
I usually gives a new series about 6-7 episodes time to proof and build the characters.
That is the good thing on series, you can build the character in time and well. Without need to push everything out like on movies. And later the character is even better because you can just point on newer episode to history just simple small joke or tip. That was one great thing what made SG-1 so great, characters had something what keeped their personality alive even after 10 seasons.
Actually Michael Shanks was the voice of Tor. And the story was written well to bring the Jonas there who would give the rare element to build even more powerful weapons and generators. What were needed on later parts.
From beginning the Daniel Jackson Character was key element what could not be replaced.
And didn't they even on the original movie and first SG-1 episodes explained how it was better go trough by keeping breath? So you have air on your lungs, but you keep it there so stargate does not "remove" it. And it is still inside the object what is going trough;)
The gate really sense someway who or what is going trough it. Example.
On SGC side, they need to issue a close command to disengage the worm hole. And it should do it automatically after 38 minutes (+ the special cases when so did not happend).
But, when ever SG-1 is coming back from outworld hostiles behind them, the gate gets closed usually automatically after they have passed trought back to home (sometimes few bad guys gets in same time).
You could not close the wormhole from the receiver side any way (thats why the 38 minute safety limit).
That is one kind mystery all the times.
Like there are episodes where SG-1 is going trough stargate without permission. And when the first person arrives to control room, they can only see last SG-1 person go trought and gates gets closed just after it. While the person on control room just curses that he could not see the address because wormhole did disengage, even that no one did it.
Small stupid thing if wanted to pick but hey... nice stories they have.
"they couldn't nuke the ori ships like that due to shields."
I do not remember did they explain the Ori's shield technology enough, but at least it prevented the beaming nuke inside the ship. But they could do the same thing with 302's as Jack and Sam did for Anubis, they opened hyperwindow to pass the shield and shot then.
It should be easy enough to make a enough big Nuke missile what has somekind remote control to warp short period trough shield and explode inside the shield. Even causing bigger explosion.
And as far I remember, the difference with Star Trek and Stargate to the Star Wars, was that on SW you needed to calculate the route so you would not hit to the planet or star.
It was designed by typical "dead man switch" idea. It looked like you needed to press one button to close the door. That could be managed done from distance with a anykind stick or small rope and stick top of the button what allows you to drop an object over the button. What would have something bigger on it so the object would only hit that one button.
But, it was part of the story and very clear one. Even one of the oldest ideas.
Have you played Battlefield 2's mod called "Project Reality"? It gets developed by some ex-soldiers (might be still be serving) and they have got very nice touch to game and... reality to it;)
Commander is not weak at all. And same thing goes for squad leader. Without squad leader, normal players are nothing. And without squads, the whole team loose because commander can not help all teams at all.
But it follows one key function as in real world. The squad leaders are more important than platoon leaders or higer officers. Because they know their mens and their strong/weak sides and what they can do. And they know who to send to do what task, what any other officer can not know because for them all other soldiers are just pieces on the map.
My experience was that if you had a good commander, the overall game was good. If you had a shit commander, which was often, then the game was pretty bad. The problem is the ratios. You can't have everyone being the commander. What often happened was that one guy was voted in to become the commander because he was good, but then nobody else got to practice the commander role, so it was very self-reinforcing.
That was something what Tribes 2 tried to solve by giving everyone a CC (Command Center) view. Every player could see where others went and what they were doing. What were team assets status and so on. You could even remotely observe other player without being a observer.
The problem was that people did not understand that T2 was not about what role you played on the team, but that every player did everything.
Best teams were those where players could do everything and work together all the problems. Everyone was attacking and defending when ever it was needed. The key to everything was discussion using the game own VoIP and quick voice answers etc.
And greatest demand from the players was that they can sit down on one place over 2 minutes if needed, doing nothing when team / group leader ordered so. Sacrificing them selfs for benefits of the team.
Tribes 2 biggest problem was the players. Too complex and deep strategies were needed from players and too strong teamplay that Counter Strike and Tribes 1 won after a while.
Now there is anymore a small group of servers (about 50) and small group of players playing the free version. With hacked mainserver from www.tribesnext.com.
(So if someone wants to give a shot for game what has very deep learning curve, just download client and a patch, create profile and go to play)
P.S Great teams had Teamspeak or similar to discus and created squads on there for what then team leader or strategic commander gave orders and others followed then precisely.
The motored tracking tripod/device is really needed for star shooting (what is actually easy to manufacture itself) because over 2 second exposure makes stars leaves trails.
For normal moon shooting even tribod is not needed, becase when moon is clear, it is like shooting on earth a subject on sunlight. 1/250 with F8 ISO 100 (So you can easily shoot by hand using 300mm focal lenght). Stars can be captured too with 4-8 seconds exposure, but you end up having trails on them and moon overexposured totally only as white blurry object.
Linus however is not talking about Linux as a distro or an operating system, it's just the kernel that's too bloated in his view
You did not know that monolithic kernel is the operating system? Microkernel is just a one piece of operating system, other parts of those are the OS servers on kernel/user space. Linux kernel is the Linux operating system, they are exactly the same thing. Distribution is then a software system what use freely distributable operating system like Linux or Hurd. (Hurd is GNU's own operating system, what's use microkernel called GNU Mach).
Linux OS has not yet got forked. BSD has be forked to multiple OS's but not Linux OS, you still have only one Linux OS there. XFree has be forked to Xorg. That is true. KDE 2.x > 3.x and 3.x > 4.x are just new generations. Not forks. Same thing is with Amarok 1.x > 2.x versions. Just new generation, not a fork. Sodipodi > Inkscape is a fork. Firefox from 2.x to 3.x is again just a new generation, not a fork.
a) Monolithic operating system works fine, you can look Linux, NetBSD, SunOS and other OS's as well.
b) There is no such OS model as "hybrid kernel". That is just marketing. Even MS researchers do not call NT OS as hybrid, but microkerne-based.
c) The hybrid "kernel" has microkernel inside it, the other part of the OS code, is not just implented inside the kernel, but as modules/servers like other server-client arcitechtures. The placement of those servers is just little different, but still it is just pure microkernel-based OS, not Monolithic what is one giant binary on kernel space.
I did few days ago a system upgrade. I did not just upgrade the OS (== Linux kernel) because I needed new versions of my used applications. It was easier to just do upgrade from Mandriva 2009 > Mandriva 2009.1 (spring).
I have upgraded the system from Mandriva 2007 version. No clean install, few times upgraded to cooker when it hits to beta stage. No problems.
The last upgrade what I now did, toke at most 8 hours. It was done over 1Mbits connection and I needed to download 1010Mb. It needed over 200Mb more space after the upgrade. What came totally about littlebit over 4Gb.
I do not know exact time because I went to sleep. But I have done that many times and the Internet Connection speed is the bottleneck always. I have done full system upgrade from other computer in 30 minutes, that means I have used DVD image.
But I liked more to upgrade from internet than download first new 4.3Gb image what to use upgrade, faster and easier.
When upgrading Windows OS, you need to upgrade all the applications what comes with the NT. The whole system takes time on it by some reason. After the OS upgrade, only part of the system is upgraded. So you need to start upgrading your applications or at least checkin does they work.
Google Chrome 4.0? I just one hour ago upgraded to latest Google Chrome beta of coming 3.0 version from Google labs. (3.0.195.10). If 3.0 has not come yet out, how can they test 4.0?
"As mentioned above, Webkit isn't the most unix-like unix software being a big, monolithic program written in C++."
Well, it is actually most Unix-like software. Why?
The Unix OS's are/were monolithics. Single binary on the kernel space. The whole OS was called sometimes as well "the kernel" or "the Core" or "Master program".
On -70's there came new idea of way to build OS. Make it modular, server-client arcitechture. So born the microkernel.
While monolithic kernel is the whole OS (Linux, BSD's, SunOS and so on), the microkernels were just kernels (Mach, GNU Mach and so on) of the OS (Minix, Hurd, NT and so on) what were build from Microkernel+OS Servers.
And on late 90's, almost all OS's were build around microkernel. So everyone tought that OS is kernel + something on user space. They forgot the whole monolithic structure what is still used on many OS's, like on Linux (kernel). And by twisting the history and truth, some people even started call Linux just the kernel and GNU/Linux as the OS, like Linux would be microkernel. Yeah, right... and many people falled for that propaganda without knowing truth that Linux kernel is the Linux operating system. Now because of marketing propaganda, you need to say "LInux kernel" and not just "Linux" so people understands you speak from Linux. And not one from it's distribution (or all of them). Stupid!
So, the Unix original idea was one monolithic software, what you could get talk to each others with pipes and so on. The OS is/were monolithic, all the systemsoftware are/is monolithic and the whole software system was very modular and flexible.
It works on almost all distributions what just has needed depencies. Do not market Ubuntu again as somekind special distribution (it has less users than Fedora, wonder why... http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/SourceGuru/~3/4YJnJ4snkn0/ )
As in example, you can find the uzbl from Mandriva (cooker) repository as well, if you want to try it.
MS-DOS what starts from PC-DOS (the original PC operating system) and MS-DOS 1.0. When the Windows came the Windows 1.0 - 3.11 was just the window manager top of the MS-DOS operating system. Windows 95 was the first Windows what got integrated MS-DOS operating system to itself. The windows 95 turn to be partically the operating system itself. Windows 98 and Windows ME were both as well the MS-DOS operating system line, even that IE and Explorer were integrated to the MS-DOS OS. Windows ME was last OS of the MS-DOS line.
Windows CE was other MS operating system. It is still in use in GPS and other devices and it has own small version history as well from compact devices to cellphones. The Windows CE was used to develop the Windows Mobile what you can find today on cellphones. Windows Mobile and Windows CE are close to each others. Actually the Windows Mobile use the Windows CE as it's operating system. Windows Mobile is little bit like Windows 1.0 - 3.11 for it.
Then the third OS what Microsoft has, is the NT. The NT from 3.0 to 6.1 NT 4.0 was released same time as windows 95. Windows NT 5.0 was the Windows 2000. Windows XP was NT 5.1 and it was based to Windows 2000 but mixed with technologies from Windows 9x (MS-DOS) OS.
After Windows NT 5.1 came Windows NT 5.2 (XP mediacenter) and then NT 6.0 what was Windows Vista's Operating System. Now we are going on the NT series 6.1 what is the OS what is used to run the Windows 7. Even that Windows 7 name is "Seven". It is the NT OS series 6.x. Same thing is with the Server edition. Windows 2008 R2 has the NT 6.1
MS has few development OS's as well what are not on product lines. Singularity and BigTop. Both are microkernel based OS's and Singularity is just great technology demo currently. Free to use in Universities but not allowed to customize or use it in commercial work.
Well, it does not matter what structure you have used to build your OS. It will come down if the kernel comes. The problem really is huge on monolithic OS's, like Linux and *BSD. One giant OS in kernel space what includes all drivers and other parts. The theory is that modular OS, build with microkernel would be much safer and stable. Idea is great but problem is that you can even do same kind things on monolithic OS to protect it's kernel and drivers from each other.
Most OS crashes comes because the driver crash. Because monolithic OS has drivers inside itself. You are "totally" in deep shit. But if you get driver bugs cleaned away, no problems...
Well, kernel bug brings down whole OS and all the applications running top of it. But the kernel is usually most secure and stable. Most errors comes from drivers.
And that is the problem with the monolithic OS's. One bug in the driver or any other part of the OS, brings it down. But even it is about monolithic OS, it can be as secure as microkernel-based OS's like Hurd, Minix or NT.
And I believe that the star of the next 10 years will come to be the MS Singularity.
This is only according to those stricken with Linus's so-called Microsoft-Hater Disease. It is my understanding that both of those companies *and* apple offered to hook them up with stuff and were declined. Why? Politics
It was not a politics. It was about technology and purposes of the device. Windows XP and Mac OS X required both too much from the hardware to run well long days. Both didn't have good GUI to offer and they both have lots of problems about security and openess. The OLPC project was not just push laptops to third world. Idea was that they can actually fix them and develop them as they need.
Idea was to give them tools to get the fish, not just give them the fish what to eat. MS and Apple did not try to help other worlds, they saw markets there and wanted to gain big share on that because they fight about market shares.
If you do not remember, let me remind you about what Microsoft and Intel did. When the OLPC was released, MS and Intell both whined about how the OLPC is just a joke and it does not have good CPU (OLPC was using AMD's CPU, it's biggest competitor!) or good OS (OLPC use Linux OS and use Fedora distribution to deliver software). Both companies lobbed countries that they would not buy OLPC. Why? Because if generating countries next generation will learn Linux instead Windows, they are doomed on those countries almost right away.
You should know that MS and Intel has always worked together. Since the IBM made PC they have be used to stand together for same goal. They both support each other and they gain lots of marketshares by that.
Intel did not just end up speaking about how lousy the AMD CPU for tha OLPC was. They developed own ClassMate computer to compete with OLPC. It was not about giving best tools to learn. But gaining a market share and get profit from it!
And when the OLPC was released, after that Classmate, many other computer manufacturers got idea to do own. Asus came up with EeePC. With it it gained soon biggest marketshare on developed world. After that Acer and others came up and got biggest selling shares.
Even this is typed with sub-notebook and I would not own this if there would not be the OLPC in the first place. Even that Sub-notebook was sold even 90's by Toshiba Libretto, it was doomed idea for markets.
Now the minilaptop prices are up again. There was idea to be under 200-300 bucks laptop for simple job. Now they are easily 500 and even 600 euros, what makes about 700-800 dollars easily. You can even get cheap laptop with 15.4" screen and celeron CPU with 2Gb RAM and windows Vista under 250 euros. That is about 350 dollars. (Ok, instead 9h battery, you get 1.5, 1024x600 size resolution you get 1280x800).
The OLPC project is great and it got very nice start. But to give something for generating worlds what will end up them to be independent and not needing our help about technology, is very priceless. That is something what Intel, MS and many others could not let to happend.
have you tought what would happend if India or China would turn to be use Linux OS (kernel) and build own distribution for it (like Red Flag) and actually get it to markets? China has more Internet users than US has citizens... that is something what makes MS to be afraid. Thats why MS is happy if Windows is even sold out as piracy versions because it keeps people hooked to Windows and so on Windows "world".
The OLPC biggest problem was that it was fighting against windmills, about the ethics and markets. Not about technology. There was nothing wrong about technology to choose Linux OS (kernel) and the Fedora for packaging software and building up own GUI, Sugar. But their mistake was that they were trying to bring freedom to countries. And then they stepped to MS (and Intel) toes and that could not happend.
That is very typical western idea to "help" people what MS and Intell use as tactics. Western countries push products to developing countries to gain generating markets. They sell there stuff w
The price is not the problem. But that I am counted as +1 in MS statics. I am one client more for MS/OEM's to use against Linux as proof that Windows is sold and wanted more than Linux.
And about getting refund of Windows License, it is not worth of the fighting with MS here about 10 euros. It takes few months to get refund and even then I am not removed from the OEM's register that I did not buy windows but linux version.
It is almost impossible to vote with the wallet on the current market situation because MS controls everything. If there just would be even _possibility_ to select Linux version, many would do so. But because every amount of Linux versions are non-existing or so limited that it takes very long time to get such, it is win-win situation for MS every way.
Slashdot Mirror
And when you actually learn that the operating system in the Mac OS X is a XNU (what's kernel is a Mach), sameway like NT (6.1) is the operating system of the Windows 7.
And when you actually learn about economy what does monopoly and dominant market position mean. You understand why EU does not go after Apple but Microsoft, because Microsoft has dominant market position and it is using it ways what is against law. And when you learn about Microsoft history, you learn that Microsoft had monopoly on PC's operating system markets and it used it against Netscape and Sun (Java) and it was against law as well.
But if you do not understand those, you never understand why what EU does, is what is needed to do to get justice.
How about having a ISP driver CD include a browsers? Why you would need a web browser when you do not have a Internet connection?
How about having a ADSL, Cable or 3G modems to include browsers on driver CD.
I usually gives a new series about 6-7 episodes time to proof and build the characters.
That is the good thing on series, you can build the character in time and well. Without need to push everything out like on movies. And later the character is even better because you can just point on newer episode to history just simple small joke or tip. That was one great thing what made SG-1 so great, characters had something what keeped their personality alive even after 10 seasons.
Actually Michael Shanks was the voice of Tor. And the story was written well to bring the Jonas there who would give the rare element to build even more powerful weapons and generators. What were needed on later parts.
From beginning the Daniel Jackson Character was key element what could not be replaced.
And didn't they even on the original movie and first SG-1 episodes explained how it was better go trough by keeping breath? So you have air on your lungs, but you keep it there so stargate does not "remove" it. And it is still inside the object what is going trough ;)
The gate really sense someway who or what is going trough it.
Example.
On SGC side, they need to issue a close command to disengage the worm hole. And it should do it automatically after 38 minutes (+ the special cases when so did not happend).
But, when ever SG-1 is coming back from outworld hostiles behind them, the gate gets closed usually automatically after they have passed trought back to home (sometimes few bad guys gets in same time).
You could not close the wormhole from the receiver side any way (thats why the 38 minute safety limit).
That is one kind mystery all the times.
Like there are episodes where SG-1 is going trough stargate without permission. And when the first person arrives to control room, they can only see last SG-1 person go trought and gates gets closed just after it. While the person on control room just curses that he could not see the address because wormhole did disengage, even that no one did it.
Small stupid thing if wanted to pick but hey... nice stories they have.
"they couldn't nuke the ori ships like that due to shields."
I do not remember did they explain the Ori's shield technology enough, but at least it prevented the beaming nuke inside the ship. But they could do the same thing with 302's as Jack and Sam did for Anubis, they opened hyperwindow to pass the shield and shot then.
It should be easy enough to make a enough big Nuke missile what has somekind remote control to warp short period trough shield and explode inside the shield. Even causing bigger explosion.
And as far I remember, the difference with Star Trek and Stargate to the Star Wars, was that on SW you needed to calculate the route so you would not hit to the planet or star.
It was designed by typical "dead man switch" idea. It looked like you needed to press one button to close the door. That could be managed done from distance with a anykind stick or small rope and stick top of the button what allows you to drop an object over the button. What would have something bigger on it so the object would only hit that one button.
But, it was part of the story and very clear one. Even one of the oldest ideas.
Have you played Battlefield 2's mod called "Project Reality"? It gets developed by some ex-soldiers (might be still be serving) and they have got very nice touch to game and... reality to it ;)
Commander is not weak at all. And same thing goes for squad leader. Without squad leader, normal players are nothing. And without squads, the whole team loose because commander can not help all teams at all.
But it follows one key function as in real world. The squad leaders are more important than platoon leaders or higer officers. Because they know their mens and their strong/weak sides and what they can do. And they know who to send to do what task, what any other officer can not know because for them all other soldiers are just pieces on the map.
My experience was that if you had a good commander, the overall game was good. If you had a shit commander, which was often, then the game was pretty bad. The problem is the ratios. You can't have everyone being the commander. What often happened was that one guy was voted in to become the commander because he was good, but then nobody else got to practice the commander role, so it was very self-reinforcing.
That was something what Tribes 2 tried to solve by giving everyone a CC (Command Center) view. Every player could see where others went and what they were doing. What were team assets status and so on. You could even remotely observe other player without being a observer.
The problem was that people did not understand that T2 was not about what role you played on the team, but that every player did everything.
Best teams were those where players could do everything and work together all the problems. Everyone was attacking and defending when ever it was needed. The key to everything was discussion using the game own VoIP and quick voice answers etc.
And greatest demand from the players was that they can sit down on one place over 2 minutes if needed, doing nothing when team / group leader ordered so. Sacrificing them selfs for benefits of the team.
Tribes 2 biggest problem was the players. Too complex and deep strategies were needed from players and too strong teamplay that Counter Strike and Tribes 1 won after a while.
Now there is anymore a small group of servers (about 50) and small group of players playing the free version. With hacked mainserver from www.tribesnext.com.
(So if someone wants to give a shot for game what has very deep learning curve, just download client and a patch, create profile and go to play)
P.S Great teams had Teamspeak or similar to discus and created squads on there for what then team leader or strategic commander gave orders and others followed then precisely.
The motored tracking tripod/device is really needed for star shooting (what is actually easy to manufacture itself) because over 2 second exposure makes stars leaves trails.
For normal moon shooting even tribod is not needed, becase when moon is clear, it is like shooting on earth a subject on sunlight. 1/250 with F8 ISO 100 (So you can easily shoot by hand using 300mm focal lenght). Stars can be captured too with 4-8 seconds exposure, but you end up having trails on them and moon overexposured totally only as white blurry object.
Linus however is not talking about Linux as a distro or an operating system, it's just the kernel that's too bloated in his view
You did not know that monolithic kernel is the operating system? Microkernel is just a one piece of operating system, other parts of those are the OS servers on kernel/user space. Linux kernel is the Linux operating system, they are exactly the same thing. Distribution is then a software system what use freely distributable operating system like Linux or Hurd. (Hurd is GNU's own operating system, what's use microkernel called GNU Mach).
Projects where this has happened before:
Linux OS has not yet got forked. BSD has be forked to multiple OS's but not Linux OS, you still have only one Linux OS there.
XFree has be forked to Xorg. That is true. KDE 2.x > 3.x and 3.x > 4.x are just new generations. Not forks. Same thing is with Amarok 1.x > 2.x versions. Just new generation, not a fork. Sodipodi > Inkscape is a fork. Firefox from 2.x to 3.x is again just a new generation, not a fork.
a) Monolithic operating system works fine, you can look Linux, NetBSD, SunOS and other OS's as well.
b) There is no such OS model as "hybrid kernel". That is just marketing. Even MS researchers do not call NT OS as hybrid, but microkerne-based.
c) The hybrid "kernel" has microkernel inside it, the other part of the OS code, is not just implented inside the kernel, but as modules/servers like other server-client arcitechtures. The placement of those servers is just little different, but still it is just pure microkernel-based OS, not Monolithic what is one giant binary on kernel space.
Wow, you really must have very Hi-Tech computer to run all those at same time! Do you use virtualdesktops or multiple monitors?
I did few days ago a system upgrade. I did not just upgrade the OS (== Linux kernel) because I needed new versions of my used applications. It was easier to just do upgrade from Mandriva 2009 > Mandriva 2009.1 (spring).
I have upgraded the system from Mandriva 2007 version. No clean install, few times upgraded to cooker when it hits to beta stage. No problems.
The last upgrade what I now did, toke at most 8 hours. It was done over 1Mbits connection and I needed to download 1010Mb. It needed over 200Mb more space after the upgrade. What came totally about littlebit over 4Gb.
I do not know exact time because I went to sleep. But I have done that many times and the Internet Connection speed is the bottleneck always. I have done full system upgrade from other computer in 30 minutes, that means I have used DVD image.
But I liked more to upgrade from internet than download first new 4.3Gb image what to use upgrade, faster and easier.
When upgrading Windows OS, you need to upgrade all the applications what comes with the NT. The whole system takes time on it by some reason. After the OS upgrade, only part of the system is upgraded. So you need to start upgrading your applications or at least checkin does they work.
Google Chrome 4.0? I just one hour ago upgraded to latest Google Chrome beta of coming 3.0 version from Google labs. (3.0.195.10). If 3.0 has not come yet out, how can they test 4.0?
"As mentioned above, Webkit isn't the most unix-like unix software being a big, monolithic program written in C++ ."
Well, it is actually most Unix-like software. Why?
The Unix OS's are/were monolithics. Single binary on the kernel space. The whole OS was called sometimes as well "the kernel" or "the Core" or "Master program".
On -70's there came new idea of way to build OS. Make it modular, server-client arcitechture. So born the microkernel.
While monolithic kernel is the whole OS (Linux, BSD's, SunOS and so on), the microkernels were just kernels (Mach, GNU Mach and so on) of the OS (Minix, Hurd, NT and so on) what were build from Microkernel+OS Servers.
And on late 90's, almost all OS's were build around microkernel. So everyone tought that OS is kernel + something on user space. They forgot the whole monolithic structure what is still used on many OS's, like on Linux (kernel).
And by twisting the history and truth, some people even started call Linux just the kernel and GNU/Linux as the OS, like Linux would be microkernel. Yeah, right... and many people falled for that propaganda without knowing truth that Linux kernel is the Linux operating system. Now because of marketing propaganda, you need to say "LInux kernel" and not just "Linux" so people understands you speak from Linux. And not one from it's distribution (or all of them). Stupid!
So, the Unix original idea was one monolithic software, what you could get talk to each others with pipes and so on. The OS is/were monolithic, all the systemsoftware are/is monolithic and the whole software system was very modular and flexible.
It works on almost all distributions what just has needed depencies. Do not market Ubuntu again as somekind special distribution (it has less users than Fedora, wonder why... http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/SourceGuru/~3/4YJnJ4snkn0/ )
As in example, you can find the uzbl from Mandriva (cooker) repository as well, if you want to try it.
Microsoft had three OS.
MS-DOS what starts from PC-DOS (the original PC operating system) and MS-DOS 1.0. When the Windows came the Windows 1.0 - 3.11 was just the window manager top of the MS-DOS operating system. Windows 95 was the first Windows what got integrated MS-DOS operating system to itself. The windows 95 turn to be partically the operating system itself. Windows 98 and Windows ME were both as well the MS-DOS operating system line, even that IE and Explorer were integrated to the MS-DOS OS. Windows ME was last OS of the MS-DOS line.
Windows CE was other MS operating system. It is still in use in GPS and other devices and it has own small version history as well from compact devices to cellphones. The Windows CE was used to develop the Windows Mobile what you can find today on cellphones. Windows Mobile and Windows CE are close to each others. Actually the Windows Mobile use the Windows CE as it's operating system. Windows Mobile is little bit like Windows 1.0 - 3.11 for it.
Then the third OS what Microsoft has, is the NT. The NT from 3.0 to 6.1
NT 4.0 was released same time as windows 95. Windows NT 5.0 was the Windows 2000.
Windows XP was NT 5.1 and it was based to Windows 2000 but mixed with technologies from Windows 9x (MS-DOS) OS.
After Windows NT 5.1 came Windows NT 5.2 (XP mediacenter) and then NT 6.0 what was Windows Vista's Operating System. Now we are going on the NT series 6.1 what is the OS what is used to run the Windows 7.
Even that Windows 7 name is "Seven". It is the NT OS series 6.x. Same thing is with the Server edition. Windows 2008 R2 has the NT 6.1
MS has few development OS's as well what are not on product lines. Singularity and BigTop. Both are microkernel based OS's and Singularity is just great technology demo currently. Free to use in Universities but not allowed to customize or use it in commercial work.
Well, it does not matter what structure you have used to build your OS. It will come down if the kernel comes. The problem really is huge on monolithic OS's, like Linux and *BSD. One giant OS in kernel space what includes all drivers and other parts. The theory is that modular OS, build with microkernel would be much safer and stable. Idea is great but problem is that you can even do same kind things on monolithic OS to protect it's kernel and drivers from each other.
http://www.usenix.org/publications/login/2006-04/openpdfs/herder.pdf
Most OS crashes comes because the driver crash. Because monolithic OS has drivers inside itself. You are "totally" in deep shit. But if you get driver bugs cleaned away, no problems...
Well, kernel bug brings down whole OS and all the applications running top of it. But the kernel is usually most secure and stable. Most errors comes from drivers.
http://www.usenix.org/publications/login/2006-04/openpdfs/herder.pdf
And that is the problem with the monolithic OS's. One bug in the driver or any other part of the OS, brings it down. But even it is about monolithic OS, it can be as secure as microkernel-based OS's like Hurd, Minix or NT.
And I believe that the star of the next 10 years will come to be the MS Singularity.
And here is the part: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA4Xx5Noxyo
This is only according to those stricken with Linus's so-called Microsoft-Hater Disease. It is my understanding that both of those companies *and* apple offered to hook them up with stuff and were declined. Why? Politics
It was not a politics. It was about technology and purposes of the device. Windows XP and Mac OS X required both too much from the hardware to run well long days. Both didn't have good GUI to offer and they both have lots of problems about security and openess. The OLPC project was not just push laptops to third world. Idea was that they can actually fix them and develop them as they need.
Idea was to give them tools to get the fish, not just give them the fish what to eat. MS and Apple did not try to help other worlds, they saw markets there and wanted to gain big share on that because they fight about market shares.
If you do not remember, let me remind you about what Microsoft and Intel did. When the OLPC was released, MS and Intell both whined about how the OLPC is just a joke and it does not have good CPU (OLPC was using AMD's CPU, it's biggest competitor!) or good OS (OLPC use Linux OS and use Fedora distribution to deliver software). Both companies lobbed countries that they would not buy OLPC. Why? Because if generating countries next generation will learn Linux instead Windows, they are doomed on those countries almost right away.
You should know that MS and Intel has always worked together. Since the IBM made PC they have be used to stand together for same goal. They both support each other and they gain lots of marketshares by that.
Intel did not just end up speaking about how lousy the AMD CPU for tha OLPC was. They developed own ClassMate computer to compete with OLPC. It was not about giving best tools to learn. But gaining a market share and get profit from it!
And when the OLPC was released, after that Classmate, many other computer manufacturers got idea to do own. Asus came up with EeePC. With it it gained soon biggest marketshare on developed world. After that Acer and others came up and got biggest selling shares.
Even this is typed with sub-notebook and I would not own this if there would not be the OLPC in the first place. Even that Sub-notebook was sold even 90's by Toshiba Libretto, it was doomed idea for markets.
Now the minilaptop prices are up again. There was idea to be under 200-300 bucks laptop for simple job. Now they are easily 500 and even 600 euros, what makes about 700-800 dollars easily. You can even get cheap laptop with 15.4" screen and celeron CPU with 2Gb RAM and windows Vista under 250 euros. That is about 350 dollars. (Ok, instead 9h battery, you get 1.5, 1024x600 size resolution you get 1280x800).
The OLPC project is great and it got very nice start. But to give something for generating worlds what will end up them to be independent and not needing our help about technology, is very priceless. That is something what Intel, MS and many others could not let to happend.
have you tought what would happend if India or China would turn to be use Linux OS (kernel) and build own distribution for it (like Red Flag) and actually get it to markets? China has more Internet users than US has citizens... that is something what makes MS to be afraid. Thats why MS is happy if Windows is even sold out as piracy versions because it keeps people hooked to Windows and so on Windows "world".
The OLPC biggest problem was that it was fighting against windmills, about the ethics and markets. Not about technology. There was nothing wrong about technology to choose Linux OS (kernel) and the Fedora for packaging software and building up own GUI, Sugar. But their mistake was that they were trying to bring freedom to countries. And then they stepped to MS (and Intel) toes and that could not happend.
That is very typical western idea to "help" people what MS and Intell use as tactics. Western countries push products to developing countries to gain generating markets. They sell there stuff w
The price is not the problem. But that I am counted as +1 in MS statics. I am one client more for MS/OEM's to use against Linux as proof that Windows is sold and wanted more than Linux.
And about getting refund of Windows License, it is not worth of the fighting with MS here about 10 euros. It takes few months to get refund and even then I am not removed from the OEM's register that I did not buy windows but linux version.
It is almost impossible to vote with the wallet on the current market situation because MS controls everything. If there just would be even _possibility_ to select Linux version, many would do so. But because every amount of Linux versions are non-existing or so limited that it takes very long time to get such, it is win-win situation for MS every way.