flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > embrace linux, bsd, sun solaris, open source, why we haven't

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
drhowarddrfine wrote:


Those are not versions of the OS. PCBSD is FreeBSD with their own conf files, wrappers and stuff but it's all FreeBSD, including the available apps, I believe. They have some sort of packaging system but it just makes installation of apps easier. Dragonfly is a fork of fbsd. It's not ued very much.

Well, it's still different distributions, just like there's different distributions of linux... for linux, they all share the same kernel, I don't know how much Free/Net/OpenBSD share - so you could perhaps say BSD is actually a bit more fragmented than linux, although there's less distributions? Smile


drhowarddrfine wrote:

drhowarddrfine wrote:

What an idiot.

That was a joke. elitism. idiot. Get it? Smile

Doh, I'm a bit on the slow side sometimes Smile

drhowarddrfine wrote:

I can't speak too much of Linux if that is what most of these complaints are about. I like the idea of one distro so I stick with FreeBSD.

It's pretty bad in the linux camp, yes, and the GPL zealots in general are a pretty nasty crowd. Linus himself can also be extremely arrogant at times, but Theo De Raadt isn't always the nicest person either. *shrug*.

drhowarddrfine wrote:

f0dder wrote:
Compare manpages and texinfo to MSDN/PlatformSDK and come again.

Not all. Online docs are very good. Many installations include html and pdf documentation that aren't in the man pages.

PDF documentation = basically useless, since it's not very "online use" (and by that I mean non-print) friendly, hard to search through, etc. Much documentation is outdated and missing, so for some apps you have to grep through source to config sometimes. And when we reach the programming documentation, ugh. Nothing really compares to MSDN/PlatformSDK (okay, Borland documentation was really good back in the early 90es, but that's still not *u*x).


drhowarddrfine wrote:

f0dder wrote:
Windows servers with sevaral years of uptime? Sure thing
I heard they can do that...now. FreeBSD/Unix servers have been doing it for decades. Somewhere there's a site where they track uptimes. There were quite a few that were up for a decade. Others have said the only time they went down was due to power failure or hardware failure.

Both NT4 and Win2k can handle several years of uptime. Iirc there was a win2k server, some years ago, on one of those uptime tracking sites, that had 2 or 3 years of uptime. Not bad, considering you can't run a server OS before it's actually released :]

drhowarddrfine wrote:

I don't know about Linux but I don't too often have that problem. Every update includes an UPDATING file which lists changes and what to watch for. The only time I had any real problem is when I forgot to look at it first, or the developer himself screwed up and had to update again. But these things happen because all the software (not the OS but the apps) is under constant development (the OS, too). Like last night I updated my 'ports collection' and some of the version numbers changed from 2.0.3.1_1 to 2.0.3.1_2. And that goes on every day. You don't have to update. When I have time, I try and find out if I have a need to update.

Well, thing is, you probably "update world". The problems arise when you update a single app, and the new version pulls in a updated library dependency, and your system doesn't automatically do "reverse dependency" updating.

If you update entire world, obviously there's less problems.

drhowarddrfine wrote:

f0dder wrote:
how /etc/* and /proc/* and /dev/* are structured, where init scripts go and how they're supposed to work, etc etc etc.

Again this must be Linux. For FreeBSD, this is all listed under 'man hier' and all the books and online handbooks/manuals.

[/quote]
Only have experience with FreeBSD, so dunno if the various BSD distros all follow the same scheme - but linux distros sure as hell don't.

Oh, and keep in mind that much of my bitching is from a software developer perspective, if you try to write portable code, you have such a fscking huge field to cover if you want to run on *u*x (even if you narrow that to BSD and/or Linux, and forget Solaris and some of the even less common unix-related OSes). It's a mess.

As a user, it's somewhat less troublesome - except of course when there's some app that won't work.

Oh, and while most of this stuff can be worked around with (sometimes pretty complex) build scripts, non-opensource developers that only release binary builds are screwed over majorly. This is another major hindrance in adopting the more open systems... commercial/non-open software is important, whether it fits with some people's extreme ideologies or not.

_________________
Image - carpe noctem
Post 04 Jan 2008, 23:45
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
drhowarddrfine



Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 535
drhowarddrfine
f0dder wrote:

Well, it's still different distributions, just like there's different distributions of linux... for linux, they all share the same kernel, I don't know how much Free/Net/OpenBSD share - so you could perhaps say BSD is actually a bit more fragmented than linux, although there's less distributions? Smile
I don't remember where the dividing line is. Any app I run on FreeBSD I can am assured will run on PC-BSD because it is FreeBSD. I wish I could remember but this is where a big difference between Linux and the BSDs is. I hear of the problems where something runs on RedHat but fails on another distro due to some incompatibility between distros. But I know I can run my apps on FreeBSD, of course, but it will run on PC-BSD and DesktopBSD, FreeSBIE (liveCD put out by fbsd), etc. They all use the same ports collection and update system.

The differences between FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD is in their slogans:
1) The Power to Serve
2) I forgot
3) I forgot Smile
Something along the lines of "super stable and runs everywhere" and the other is "security at its best". So the security conscious run one but I think it's slower, those who want stability run the other but libraries/apps take a while to catch up, and FreeBSD is best known for its server software.

As far as docs go, I think you might still be thinking of 'man pages' only. MSDN is pretty good but Unix software docs have gotten good, too.


Quote:
The problems arise when you update a single app, and the new version pulls in a updated library dependency, and your system doesn't automatically do "reverse dependency" updating.
No I don't do 'world' on my desktop and laptop. Not yet anyway. The ports managers do check for dependencies and you can tell the updater to update all dependencies with just a switch.
Quote:
dunno if the various BSD distros all follow the same scheme
They do.

Quote:
Oh, and keep in mind that much of my bitching is from a software developer perspective
I am, too. The big thing now, of course, if being POSIX compliant. I'm just now working on my first really big app; an ecommerce system for a national fast food chain. All of my smaller stuff has worked on all the BSDs when I had a NetBSD and OpenBSD box (just trying them out).
Quote:
forget Solaris and some of the even less common unix-related OSes).
People have really been talking up Solaris lately. I don't know if it's because it's the new free toy on the block or what.
Post 05 Jan 2008, 02:30
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
drhowarddrfine wrote:

I don't remember where the dividing line is. Any app I run on FreeBSD I can am assured will run on PC-BSD because it is FreeBSD.

The BSDs might have a stable ABI that allows you to run binaries across the line (as long as you don't go too many major versions back), but you're still screwed if you don't have the right (versions of) shared libraries installed.

drhowarddrfine wrote:

As far as docs go, I think you might still be thinking of 'man pages' only. MSDN is pretty good but Unix software docs have gotten good, too.

Some of the software documentation is getting better, but the programming reference is generally at man-page level. Obviously you end up finding+using a HTML version of the manpage since it's easier to browse/search, but it's still nowhere near the level of PlatformSDK.

drhowarddrfine wrote:

No I don't do 'world' on my desktop and laptop. Not yet anyway. The ports managers do check for dependencies and you can tell the updater to update all dependencies with just a switch.

Yes, when you "build foo", obviously if it depends on libraries "bar" and "baz" of newer versions than you have, bar and baz are pulled in and updated. But does it do reverse dependencies? As in, "baz ugpraded to version 2.0 but this breaks application foobar which only works with baz 1.666, so I will upgrade foobar as well"? Otherwise, your upgrade of "foo" will break "foobar".

drhowarddrfine wrote:

f0dder wrote:

forget Solaris and some of the even less common unix-related OSes).

People have really been talking up Solaris lately. I don't know if it's because it's the new free toy on the block or what.

You lost a bit too much context with that quote, I'm not saying that you should forget solaris (it might be a pretty decent thing, some of the kernel developers seem capable and ZFS sounds interesting), I was just saying that getting cross platform is hard, and that's even if you ignore some of the less used systems (like solaris... which is still relatively big.)
Post 05 Jan 2008, 02:39
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
mattst88



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 260
Location: South Carolina
mattst88
LocoDelAssembly wrote:
Quote:
Neither do I (FreeBSD).

So, when fasm is installed on FreeBSD it mutates somehow and is able to create executables that uses shared libraries without ld? I must install FreeBSD ASAP then.


You pick your OS based on this?!

_________________
My x86 Instruction Reference -- includes SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4 instructions.
Assembly Programmer's Journal
Post 05 Jan 2008, 03:00
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
LocoDelAssembly
Your code has a bug


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 4633
Location: Argentina
LocoDelAssembly
No, I explained before, what you quoted is pure sarcasm.

Totalizing: I choose the one that is easy to build apps on and has clearly defined and documented programming environment for GUI. For more detailed explanation read my first post and also read f0dder's posts up to this point.
Post 05 Jan 2008, 03:25
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
xanatose



Joined: 09 Jan 2004
Posts: 57
xanatose
From a business point of view (as of making software), One reason.

Windows come as default on most PC, which means that Joe Customer who uses his computer for gaming and ocacional office work will use Windows. Not only that but that people have no problem on the concept of paying for software.

If I remember correctly ID have problems nreaking the even when they port their Quake series to linux, so much that they where thinking on discontinue support for linux. Windows does not only have more market share, but also more paying costumers. And thats what a software making business needs.

For personal use:
As of personal computer. I like PC-BSD a lot, easy to install and a lot more stable than linux or Windows. I have badly crashed both linux and Windows. BSD based OS are more stable, period. Plus you dont need to wear a viral mask when dealing with the BSD license Smile
Post 05 Jan 2008, 06:25
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
xanatose wrote:

As of personal computer. I like PC-BSD a lot, easy to install and a lot more stable than linux or Windows. I have badly crashed both linux and Windows. BSD based OS are more stable, period. Plus you dont need to wear a viral mask when dealing with the BSD license Smile


Unless you're actively trying to break windows, I've found 2k and XP to be extremely stable, actually... as long as you don't have flawed hardware or buggy 3rd-party drivers. Sure, I've had a few usermode (but still windows-component) crashes over the years, but those have been recoverable without reboot. And remember that explorer.exe crashes are often traceable to third-party shell extensions.

_________________
Image - carpe noctem
Post 05 Jan 2008, 10:09
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8870
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
i think the success of windows is,
it let users (those who are new to computer) easily felt they acquired the skills to use/maintain it.
(let identify them as "basic skills")
- eg. change wallpaper
- run, pause, terminate services
- browse the stuffs on hard disk
- perform drag and drop, double click, and etc
- install software, uninstall and etc.

so, when they have this "basic" skills, and when they try to move into linux or bsd or another type of operating system, they will have more expectation
- they want more than what they could do compare to windows, but the way to obtain that skills must be easy or similiar to how they attained they "basic" skills.

and if on the way
- they found out, they have harder time/way to do what suppose they could perform in windows easily, that will discourage them to move further. eventually, they will just quit.

my 1o cents
Post 05 Jan 2008, 12:50
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
sleepsleep wrote:
...
....
- install software, uninstall and etc.
...
Quite amazing. I have exactly the opposite perspective. FOR YEARS, I have sought to remove whole directories, and have been unable to do so. XP will not allow it.
Here's an example:
In the directory called "Program Files" there is a directory called "MSN Gaming Zone". When I endeavor to remove this motley collection of nonsense, I receive an error message, denying me permission to remove it.
sleepsleep wrote:
- run, pause, terminate services
I would argue the contrary. I DAILY experience, at least once, an error message, apologizing that a particular application has violated something or other, and must be closed, and would I like to inform M$ of this fact????? Of course not.
sleepsleep wrote:

it let users (those who are new to computer) easily felt they acquired the skills ...
Well, my experience again, is just the opposite. I met a fellow last week, who was using a portable computer, and he asked me for a bit of assistance, and I was surprised that his computer was still employing DOUBLE click to access an application. Wow. That goes back thirty years, to the days when the original mouse had but one button. Problem: he did not know how to enable single clicking. He was very grateful when I changed it for him, but still, he had no idea how the control panel works. It is not intuitive. (Neither is Linux, but you don't have to pay an arm and a leg to get the obscurity of the unix based OS's....) Reminds me of the bad old days of windows95, when we were obliged to enable "server" in order to gain the most speed from the "file system". The default setting, "desktop" was much slower. Notwithstanding many improvements in the operation of Windows, since Win 3.1, I am impressed by how much more time is required simply to boot up. It is a bloated operating system, with the user, who OUGHT to possess complete control over this expensive toy, having almost no hope of reducing its size to a more useful configuration. A couple of the Linux distributions have FINALLY seen the light, and eliminated the stupidity of requiring creation of supervisor password, and the establishment of "users", a la 1958, when a single cpu had to serve 20 different people concurrently, so, it is, in my experience, Linux, not M$, which is the more flexible, the more configurable, and ultimately, the more friendly to the novice.
Post 05 Jan 2008, 15:21
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
tom tobias wrote:

In the directory called "Program Files" there is a directory called "MSN Gaming Zone". When I endeavor to remove this motley collection of nonsense, I receive an error message, denying me permission to remove it.

Since Windows 2000, there has been something called "Windows File Protection", made to protect users against inadvert (or malicious) modification of core windows files. This is a pretty good idea, imho, but as often Microsoft had some strange ideas about what comprises "core files".

tom tobias wrote:

and I was surprised that his computer was still employing DOUBLE click to access an application.

Ugh, single-clicking to activate an item in the shell / filesystem? Nasty. That's fine for the start menu and launchbars etc., but I certainly wouldn't like it for shell/explorer. I think Microsoft made single-click default at some point, and the first thing I would do was to de-activate it. Dunno if they have made double-click default again, since I tweak the hell out of any windows setup automatically at install time (unattended setups, ah!)

tom tobias wrote:

Reminds me of the bad old days of windows95, when we were obliged to enable "server" in order to gain the most speed from the "file system". The default setting, "desktop" was much slower.

You still have this with NT based systems, whether to optimize for "Programs" or "Background Services", which changes the LargeSystemCache=1 registry setting. And the default makes sense, consedering the usage pattern and memory amount most people have/had. Same goes for "ConservativeSwapFileUsage=1" system.ini under Win9x, it would have been a VERY bad idea to enable it by default, as many systems had less than 64 megabytes of memory.

Oh, and I bet you're one of the people that bitch about this and at the same time bitch about Vista memory usage, without realizing that most of that is actually because of the much more agressive prefetcher and filesystem cache? Smile

tom tobias wrote:

I am impressed by how much more time is required simply to boot up.

Time to boot to fully working desktop isn't that different between XP and Linux, unfortunately. Much of the time spent is device initialization, waiting for DHCP server, et cetera. Not much you can do there actually, except postponing device initialization until it's needed, which gives the illusion of booting faster. True, there's still some disk overhead, so booting from an i-RAM disk does mean measurable improvements. But on my system, well, the BIOS initialization etc. takes about as long as actual XP booting.

tom tobias wrote:

and eliminated the stupidity of requiring creation of supervisor password, and the establishment of "users", a la 1958, when a single cpu had to serve 20 different people concurrently

Any modern operating system will use "users" or something equivalent internally, for privilege separation. Not requiring superuser password to do maintenance tasks = bad, if such a system ended up being windespread it would be prime virus/malware target. They way Ubuntu handles the whole thing is pretty elegant; Vista won't be too bad once the child diseases of UAC are ironed out (though imho it should be possible for the current user to stay elevated for some shorter time period, since one usually does a bunch of administrative tasks after eachother).
Post 05 Jan 2008, 17:07
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Raedwulf



Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 375
Location: United Kingdom
Raedwulf
Quickly browsed through, here's my take:

Drivers:
Most drivers work pretty well, and since Ati has released their specs for their cards, it should improve. Only wireless cards need some extra configuration.

It really boils down to:
Too many distros/packaging formats/versions of Linux which causes:

1.) Software producers forget that what just works on their distro may need configuration on others.
2.) Different configuration techniques per distro

Commercial Software producers tend to write for windows then port to linux, and their linux port is quick dirty and isn't done well. Many of them also really don't know much about linux, so their overall linux development is pretty poor.

Games. If you play openArena, its really well done for linux. Same with nexuiz and even warsow (which is closed source). Its mainly due to the above statement about commercial software devs that other games in linux do not run well.

Technical knowledge is required if you require some software to work and most new users aren't avid googlers. For example, Timothy has bought his new PC, he has windows on it. He switches it on,.. he hasn't a clue, he calls his neighbour over, and his neighbour shows him stuff because its like every other Windows PC, his neighbour has used windows for years.
A linux PC would be a complete stranger to everyone in the neighbourhood. (This is typical to many parts of the world)

Then who wants to change after they've started with windows?
Basically the idea that most people have with computer is If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Its only some people, like me for instance, realise some bits of linux are really nice. Admittedly, some bits are less pleasing. However, as I have used linux for like 9 months, I have got the hang of it, and know what to do for most things now.

Users want something that works and plays games that all their friends are playing - Windows provides just that. Linux doesn't.
It has the "just works" bit almost sorted out, but playing games is tricky because it violates the first premise in this statement.

Wine is improving greatly, and perhaps in 6 months, I could revisit the previous statement and say "Linux "just works" and plays games"

Bottom line is: Work on Linux, play on Windows. Developers, cross-platform is good, and its quite easy if you put your mind to it - Linux is out there and it will only get better if you put an ounce more effort into it.
Post 05 Jan 2008, 21:47
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
Raedwulf wrote:
Quickly browsed through, here's my take:
Wine is improving greatly, and perhaps in 6 months, I could revisit the previous statement and say "Linux "just works" and plays games"


Not very likely, the Direct3D support is still very limited even in the commercial wine-based offerings...

Raedwulf wrote:

Bottom line is: Work on Linux, play on Windows. Developers, cross-platform is good, and its quite easy if you put your mind to it - Linux is out there and it will only get better if you put an ounce more effort into it.


Cross-platform isn't bad if you stick to a very low common denominator, but if you're interesting in high performance, you need platform-dependant code, and the way some of those features are used aren't always easily to encapsulate in a portable manner.

Not to mention the issue of cross-platform UI.

_________________
Image - carpe noctem
Post 05 Jan 2008, 22:22
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
drhowarddrfine



Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 535
drhowarddrfine
Raedwulf wrote:

Bottom line is: Work on Linux, play on Windows.
That's pretty much what I said earlier. Windows is the family van while Unix a Mac truck for real work.
Post 05 Jan 2008, 23:21
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
drhowarddrfine wrote:
Raedwulf wrote:

Bottom line is: Work on Linux, play on Windows.
That's pretty much what I said earlier. Windows is the family van while Unix a Mac truck for real work.


Silly elitism Smile

Is BIND still the default DNS software used on *bsd, btw?

_________________
Image - carpe noctem
Post 06 Jan 2008, 01:16
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
drhowarddrfine



Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 535
drhowarddrfine
bind9 with added security features but you can use what you wish, like djbdns. What does linux use?
Post 06 Jan 2008, 02:02
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
drhowarddrfine wrote:
bind9 with added security features but you can use what you wish, like djbdns. What does linux use?


Dunno what the default is (and it would be distro dependent, but possibly with an overweight of some_package), but BIND sucks - bad track record, huge and unnecessarily complex.

djbdns is ho-humm, mr. Bernstein has quite his own ideas about how things should be done. Not my cup of tea either. Better than bind, though.

_________________
Image - carpe noctem
Post 06 Jan 2008, 03:07
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Chewy509



Joined: 19 Jun 2003
Posts: 297
Location: Bris-vegas, Australia
Chewy509
Why I don't use Linux (as a Solaris User).

Up to until approx 4 mths ago, I was running a dual-boot WinXP x64 and FreeBSD 6.x AMD64 system, at which stage I have moved permanently and solely to OpenSolaris (SXDE 09/07). Previous to FreeBSD/WinXP, I was running a dual boot WinXP x64/Crux Linux AMD64 system. (and previous a WinXP x86/Slackware/Redhat/Mandrake system, and before that a WinNT4 / Redhat 4.x/5.x / Slackware system circa 98/99ish).

Why did I stick with Windows for so long, easy Games and MS Office. (Nothing else).

So what drove in that direction? Using Linux, I've always used the lighter-distro's like Slackware, Crux or LFS. The problem that came apparent after 4-5 years, is that Linux is a fast moving uncontrolled mass, with no version control over the entire OS structure or synergy between various distro's. Redhat had RPM, Debian had DEB, and so, and this extended right from package management, through to system management and even how the system was bolted together. Even the start-up sequence didn't match between distro's. As a developer this annoyed me greatly, as what I wrote on 1 system had little success of running out of the box on another even though both were "Linux".

So I moved to FreeBSD, and while it is light-years ahead of Linux in many respects, I did come across some behaviour that has left a sour taste in me. I won't go into details (as they are private between myself and some of the FreeBSD developers), however I always recommend FreeBSD over Linux anyday. It's documentation is excellent, and the developers are very open and helpful. What's wrong with FreeBSD (and the other BSDs), nothing, except it lacks the public eye (and thus $$$ to support it).

So I moved to system that I had used many years before, Solaris. Solaris (as OpenSolaris) is every bit as good if not better than the BSD's in many ways, with 1 exception. Sun owns Solaris, but this is a double edged sword which no doubt I won't have to go into reasons why this is the case. (PS. Solaris is opensource now, with only a few user-land components that are still closed source). Here are some of the reason why I use Solaris over Linux and *BSDs.
1. Unified/standardised project with a direction. (It is a commercial product after all).
2. Commercial Software support. (nVidia considers Solaris Tier 1 support, as an example).
3. Backwards compatibility to a level, that even puts Microsoft to shame.
4. Working and supported Java and Flash implementations.
5. 1000's of real-world applications. Metlab, StafOffice, ERP systems, Database systems, Geographically mapping systems, etc.
6. All good book stores have books on Solaris administration AND development. Sun's online documentation is on par with MSDN, (and to be honest I don't find MSDN to be that great, but it is better than documentation in Linux land).
7. Things like virtualisation, clustering and other enterprise functionality actually works as described. (eg even as something as simple as NFS, NIS+, etc all work). Ever had the fun of disagnosing NFS problems on Linux or *BSD?
8. It is UNIX. (Sorry, for the elitist remark, but it is a fact. If you want to learn UNIX, then Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, IRIX are your platforms, not GNU/Linux).

Would I go back to Windows, doubtful. All the games I play are FOSS, eg Quake, Wormux, Urban Terror, etc. And Staroffice (for me) as all I need in an Office package. And all my hardware is supported by Solaris. (There is a HCL at Sun's website).

Would I go back to Linux, doubtful. What I am using now (OpenSolaris) is ahead of Linux will be tomorrow. (ZFS, Clustering, SMC, svcadm, IDEs, etc)

PS. I would just like to note, that professionally I mainly look after Windows based systems, however my career started with OpenVMS and Trusted Solaris 7/8, with a slow migration to Windows based systems over the years. Since I grew up on VMS and Solaris, many things that MS do today (and promote as NEW), I see as poor rehashes of yesterdays technology.

As I'm about to put on my flame suit, fell free to flame me as required. Wink

PPS. When I say "Linux" I mean the complete OS distro, and not the kernel.
Post 06 Jan 2008, 09:18
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
Can't see why you would be flamed, Chewy...

But I'm interested in what gave you a sour taste wrt. FreeBSD. Not expecting details since you say it's between you or developers, but can you hint whether it's software related, "management" related, community related, etc.?
Post 06 Jan 2008, 12:41
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8870
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
isn't this.... vista brother?? Razz
Image
Razz long time ago, i heard from others, that sun solaris doesn't runs well on x86 architecture (slow), it is designed for sparc and run faster there, wonder how true that statement at this moment...
Post 06 Jan 2008, 16:32
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8870
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
what i want actually is an operating system that is small, graphical console, small in a sense, standard features complete.

it should be modular, have a core, then depends on users, whether to add/remove its features. so, from core, users add whatever they want, so everything is small first (easy to absorb), then let users grow it.

the important part is, the add/remove should be easier than drinking a glass of water.

wat i understood, there are complicated chain dependcency on bsd like os..
Post 06 Jan 2008, 16:56
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.