Why Linux will not take over Microsoft anytime soon

matthewhardwick · 11-17-2003, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dolvmin
Your point between NT and 2000 is correct. However XP and 2000 are nearly identical. The only major features changed in XP is the GUI, some added features not related to networking, and a new certification system on drivers (which sucks). You'll notice, XP kernel is version 5.01

Windows XP64 (version 2) however, is close to a 100% rewrite. This windows (from what I hear) is the windows version that has the Unix Kernel (from Sco). The only things brought over from this is the built in driver database, GUI, and some other non-networking features. This is mainly the reason (to what I believe is) why it's a system requirement of 1GB RAM.

Longhorn will be only 64 bit i believe, and also they say that most people that would want to run a 64 bit machine would want 1 gig of ram, thats f**king rediculous really just that ms are twisted an asume that everyone has a brand new computer with a broadband connection and that there lives revolve around there computers, well i agree with the last one, but c'mon m$ wtf are you playing at?

Also longhorn isnt going to be available of the shelf, only as OEM, but there aint no cd for it to come on. it will be a secure hard drive partition that can only br acceessed acording to a boot disk that will be updated every so often. They will use a dateing system, so the boot disk has to be within a certain range acording to date that is set out in the installation files on the secure partition.

But my thinking is that floppy drives are on the way out. so what will m$ do then, coz they cant distribute USB keys, or can they?

long live linux

DIE GATES DIE

thats why more and more people are switching to things like linux.

dolvmin · 11-17-2003, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by digiot
Nothing to do with your point but it is strange to me how MS has the rep as being 'old' - 'around longer', etc. Unix was developed in the late-60s/early 70s. That's much older than c.'81 DOS. But Linux is not Unix - DOS is older than Linux! Well, DOS is not Microsoft, either. Linux was developed from '91, and Microsoft's *current* codebase was released in '93 (preliminary NT) and '95 (32-bit DOS/Win9x) - true, a Linux release and an MS release aren't the same things, but it's still hard to argue MS's current codebase is any older than Linux's. (And FSF/GNU utilities are *far* older than NT.)

So Unix is older than MS and Linux is older than NT.

That is absolutely correct. SCP-DOS (QDOS) was not Microsoft's creation. It was bought by them. In fact, MS-DOS Ver. 1.0 was just a copy of QDOS. It had 1 directory, the root. DOS Ver. 2 was the first OS modified by MS, but could you call stealing the path and directory construct of UNIX (XEROX) and putting it into MS-DOS, modifying it? I would assume that's more like scripting then anything else. However, DOS Ver. 3 is the one DOS version of which MS has made changes to. This version was the match that started the fire for NT. This DOS was not a complete remake, but was the "FIRST" DOS to be modified by Microsoft and them alone. This was not done until 1983 or later. Linux was developed at this time. It's hard to conclude who came out with what first, but we can all agree that SCP was before both Linux and Microsoft, and was Microsoft's first victim of marketing domination.

matthewhardwick · 11-18-2003, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by digiot
Nothing to do with your point but it is strange to me how MS has the rep as being 'old' - 'around longer', etc. Unix was developed in the late-60s/early 70s. That's much older than c.'81 DOS. But Linux is not Unix - DOS is older than Linux! Well, DOS is not Microsoft, either. Linux was developed from '91, and Microsoft's *current* codebase was released in '93 (preliminary NT) and '95 (32-bit DOS/Win9x) - true, a Linux release and an MS release aren't the same things, but it's still hard to argue MS's current codebase is any older than Linux's. (And FSF/GNU utilities are *far* older than NT.)

So Unix is older than MS and Linux is older than NT.

yes

8nasmith · 11-24-2003, 03:56 AM

it will takes years before this happens

8nasmith · 11-24-2003, 03:57 AM

but thaten again all they have got to do is expand, advertise more, in britain you find no banners of linux. how is linux advertised in america?

perry · 11-24-2003, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dolvmin
This was not done until 1983 or later. Linux was developed at this time.

oops, sorry - you are incorrect....!

Quote:

Linux History

Note: The following text was written by Linus on July 31 1992. It is a collection of various artifacts from the period in which Linux first began to take shape.

From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Gcc-1.40 and a posix-question
Message-ID: <1991Jul3.100050.9886@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Date: 3 Jul 91 10:00:50 GMT
Hello netlanders,
Due to a project I'm working on (in minix), I'm interested in the posix
standard definition. Could somebody please point me to a (preferably)
machine-readable format of the latest posix rules? Ftp-sites would be
nice.

...

Hello everybody out there using minix -
I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and
professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. This has been brewing
since april, and is starting to get ready. I'd like any feedback on
things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat
(same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons)
among other things).
I've currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40), and things seem to work.
This implies that I'll get something practical within a few months, and
I'd like to know what features most people would want. Any suggestions
are welcome, but I won't promise I'll implement them :-)
Linus (torvalds@kruuna.helsinki.fi)
PS. Yes - it's free of any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs.
It is NOT protable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never
will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that's all I have :-(.

there was a product called Xenix which was a Unix knock off made available my Microsoft but it didn't catch on and/or it must have been the shits of an implementation.

often, me thinks, that Microsoft needs to dust it off, give it a Linux kernal and enter the same playing field but they just don't seem to have the brain power for that.

- perry

perry · 11-24-2003, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by matthewallen
This windows (from what I hear) is the windows version that has the Unix Kernel (from Sco).

interesting, correct me if i'm wrong. but wasn't it SCO that tried to file copyright infringment against portions of Linux ?

and now it seems they were about to be bought out by mr. bill.....

hmmmm, makes me wanna puke....

cheers

- perry

Linux Forever!

(a brand new slacker here)

dolvmin · 11-30-2003, 03:05 PM

Xerox was never bought by Microsoft. Xerox was a open released of Unix that Bell Labs renamed. Microsoft simply copied the path design of Xerox into DOS 2.0. They did not buy Xerox. (I might be wrong, but I believe Xerox was a GPL OS?)

Anyways, it is possible Sco may have bought full rights to Unix. I'm not sure about this, for I have not investigated it, but it is something that could make sence, and should be evaluated.

Xerox was also the OS that Macintosh copied the GUI interface from. Microsft, following that same pattern.

dolvmin · 11-30-2003, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by perry
oops, sorry - you are incorrect....!

there was a product called Xenix which was a Unix knock off made available my Microsoft but it didn't catch on and/or it must have been the shits of an implementation.

often, me thinks, that Microsoft needs to dust it off, give it a Linux kernal and enter the same playing field but they just don't seem to have the brain power for that.

- perry

http://www.sagegis1.com/history6.htm
1991 - Linus Torvalds releases Linux, a free version of the UNIX operating system.

It apears you are correct.

BTW, it's not called Xenix, it's call Xerox. Your crossing Xenith and Xerox and naming it Xenix.

slakmagik · 11-30-2003, 03:31 PM

Xerox is a company (and a research center) - Xenix *is* (was) the *nixish MS OS.

matthewhardwick · 12-01-2003, 05:52 AM

apple stole xeroxs gui, ms stole apples

there was a big lawsuite, when apple sued ms for stealing the idea of the gui, but the big thing was that apple stole it from xeroxs os.

thats the truth. and its correct, i know. its my job to know

The Bag · 12-01-2003, 10:54 AM

The problem with the lawsuit was you cannot copywrite look & feel.

8nasmith · 12-01-2003, 01:58 PM

indeed

8nasmith · 12-09-2003, 08:55 AM

linux may come close to competing with microsoft but if linux were to ever take over MICROSOFT it might take a long long time!

8nasmith · 12-09-2003, 08:56 AM

I dont mean that in a bad way