LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 06-11-2003, 01:14 PM   #136
Vlad_M
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2002
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Distribution: Red Hat 8.0 (Home), Red Hat 8.0 (Work)
Posts: 388

Rep: Reputation: 30

Quote:
Originally posted by mad_ady
Ahhh, the good ol' times... (sigh)
umm...no, the bad old times.
I suppose DOS was ok (since noone really needed more than 640K of RAM hahahahaha).

But 3.1 was a joke. A total, utter joke. I've seen microwaves doing more things than 3.1
 
Old 06-11-2003, 02:00 PM   #137
mad_ady
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: I'm all in your mind!
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 248

Rep: Reputation: 30
Yes, maybe, but IT WAS STABLE!!! At least, when no program was running!
 
Old 06-11-2003, 02:25 PM   #138
hotrodowner
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2002
Distribution: Too many to count
Posts: 368

Rep: Reputation: 30
I still have to use twm on my 100mhz machine to let it do anything. Yes, the win3.1 like gui's where the good ol' days. Little resource sucking.
 
Old 06-11-2003, 03:00 PM   #139
Vlad_M
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2002
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Distribution: Red Hat 8.0 (Home), Red Hat 8.0 (Work)
Posts: 388

Rep: Reputation: 30
Hardly resource sucking when you using a 8 yr old machine.
 
Old 06-11-2003, 04:05 PM   #140
mattman
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 49

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally posted by digiot
I think it's real easy to do a God and Satan/Linux and Windows thing and disregard the genuine questions. In answer to arun79's original question, there *is* an open source effort at a Windows-like OS with a FreeDOS CLI OS and an OpenGEM desktop. (Though there are other GUIs available.) But this is pretty misguided as it aims to replicate DOS as a 16-bit SFN OS.

I really appreciated mattman's post and I think he probably hits it but I still wonder - there can be a challenge in programming anything. Trying to write a batch file that does any damn thing in DOS beyond a program wrapper can be a "challenge" due to the limitations of the "language". Now a programmer's not going to be interested in that because it's an artificial limitation and pointless effort. But why wouldn't a programmer be interested in creating an *all-new* operating system? Progammer's dread cruft - why doesn't a 30-year old *nix rewrite freak them out? Programmer's value simplicity and elegance - why wouldn't a fresh new operating system appeal to them? And this is *not* a Windows vs. Linux issue. Windows is as dead as DOS - the only operating systems worth mentioning that still live are *nix-based or NT-based. *Neither* of these systems are designed for PCs. DOS, whatever it's innumerable faults, was. But, as I say - that's not the point. Both NT and Linux are designed for multi-user systems - networked environments - system security where "root" has actual power and meaning versus actual "users" on the network system. Where thousands of files and configuration scripts may be useful and necessary. NT just had the easy Win9x interface stuck on it.

There aren't just two kinds of users - people who want to learn and people who want to be idiots. There's a third kind that wants to learn and understand *their system* as long as that system is *relevant* to them. Where is the simple single user system that is also powerful and free? I love DOS 6.22 despite its limitations because I know every config file on the system - both of them - and what every line in them does. I love the CLI - it's too weak, but I get the most out of it rather than having pointless power that I don't use because I *can't* because I'm not a network administrator handling dozens or hundreds of users. I love the Win3.x GUI (suitably amped with Calmira) because I know what *those* two config files do and because it lets me pretend to multi-task. But it's weak, inefficient, badly thought-out and designed, and is closed source and a relic of the Evil MS Empire. And it's 16-bit and dead and few people write software for it and the computer it runs on doesn't exactly fly on the net these days. And I could have just plugged the crap in and been an idiot but I *wanted* to learn it. And I want to learn a new, modern OS to drive new modern computers... and that means Linux. But it's not my ideal.

I just wonder - obviously we're all Linux users to one degree or another but how many people think Open Source and Free Software *means* Linux? How many people think every OS for all time should have roots in Unix, CP/M, or OS/2-NT? Can't Linux be an *example* of Open Source rather than identified with it? Can't *new* operating systems be created that *aren't* closed-source proprietary failures like BeOS?
im definately understand what your saying, and i stand by my origional point. there should be another OS to fill the void, and it shouldnt be windows.

A bit more clarification on why the open source community wouldnt really go for this....

I am a developer. I work all day against deadlines, complaining users, the attitude that if it works, dont fix it, no matter how bad it works, till it becomes a major issue. THEN work day and night to fix the problem youve seen for months.

Im not alone in this, I write code because I enjoy it, but writing in a business environment tends to take a good portion of the fun out of it. what you see in something like linux, is a group of coders whose motivation is "I want to make something that not only works, but works well." A coders view of beauty has nothing to do with the GUI frontend, it has to do with tight, highly performant code. It is also nice, at the end of a day of working to do something that meets the needs of others, to finally work on something that meets your needs, and screw the rest of the non technical world.

personally, i think thats where linux came from, and continues to come from. linux software archetchture is a thing of beauty from a coding standpoint, sure it may seem obtuse. sure it may take a long time to learn. sure it doesnt look as pretty. but it works, it works well, and it doesnt have to have dumbed functionality that we are all forced to write every day for stupid users.

Now, looking at it from that angle, why in the world would anyone want to write something like windows?

As for why copy UNIX, the answer is simple. power. UNIX is considered the father of all operating systems, as it was the culmination of work to make an OS, before PCs became mainstream. sure it was painful, but those who learned it, had a power over their machine that is unmatched by any modern OS. So what do we have in linux? A modern OS, that has maintained that power.

you can say, "Linux is just not for me" and be totally and completely justified. Linux isnt for everyone. However, consider the alternatives very carefully, maybe it would be worth the time and effort to make it worth it for you. in the perfect world, i would say "dont use linux, use the easier OS" but the painful truth is windows is a badly written, buggy, bloated, and over priced OS. Sure it works, it works for many, but ask yourself, at what price? Constant crashes. Constant reinstalls. Very expensive. Linux works too, however its sole price is knowledge. Get past its considerable learning curve, and you will be able to stop paying. (in my case, i am enjoying myself learning its workings and quirks, but im wierd like that ). With windows, you will never stop paying, no matter how much you spend, no matter how much time you lose, you will never stop paying.

Matt
 
Old 06-11-2003, 05:03 PM   #141
hotrodowner
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2002
Distribution: Too many to count
Posts: 368

Rep: Reputation: 30
MattMan, you said it, thread over, no more to talk about, thats it, you've answered the questions from everyone here. Except this one:

Which is better at making burgers; Burger King, McDonalds, or Hardees?

The only thing I regreat, is that I dont have the resources to try out all the flavors of Linux and BSD. I have today turned a 486 with no hard drive, and 8 megs of ram into a router/DHCP server with FreeSCO. I hope to be able to try Slackware, Debian, and FreeBSD soon. Is there a web site that shows all the OS configuration files for Linux? <such as /etc/inittab and /etc/fstab>

By the way Matt, why dont you just go to work at a normal business as their systems administrator, and then program on linux as a hobby?

Last edited by hotrodowner; 06-11-2003 at 05:15 PM.
 
Old 06-11-2003, 05:43 PM   #142
Vlad_M
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2002
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Distribution: Red Hat 8.0 (Home), Red Hat 8.0 (Work)
Posts: 388

Rep: Reputation: 30
mattman, hat off......this indeed closes the thread.

hotrodowner: McDonalds is the real thing. Everything else is a pale copy.
 
Old 06-11-2003, 06:38 PM   #143
ricdave
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 222

Rep: Reputation: 31
au contraire mon ami, there is life yet in this thread

The issue is not about why can't Linux be more like windows(look and feel)but why hasn't it? Auto updaters have been around for a while. How big a step is it from that to 1 click download/1 click install? Can't be a very big step. Lindows is doing it with their "software warehouse". (I know Lindows is not well thought of, particularly with regards to Microtel platform, but isn't Lycoris, Xandros and Sot doing something along those lines as well?) Or have the various distributions strayed so far from their roots(posix compliant)that a different install script has to be written for Red Hat, Mandrake, Connectiva, SuSE, OpenLinux, Sot, Lycoris, Xandros, Ice Pack, Slackware, etc? Ximian Desktop is supported in Red Hat and SuSE only. Why is that? Are other distros incompatible? Is Linux fragmenting with each distro doing their own thing. How does that affect the development of linux specific software? Porting windows apps to linux? In a business environment the bottom line is, "does it get the job done?" Sadly, Linux does not get the job done. Not even close. As much as I like Linux at home it is totally unworkable at work because the essential applications for my business and many other businesses simply do not exist on Linux. Nor will they ever until the linux user base is large enough(home user, your ordinary point and click guy who has neither the time nor the inclination to RTFM)to attract the attention of vendors as a viable market segment. If the Linux community is unwilling to take the steps necessary to cater to and attract a much larger user base, perhaps with a desktop designed specifically for the new user migrating from MS or Apple, then Linux ceases to an OS worthy of consideration and becomes, instead, just another dead end ala commodore, freedos, geo shell: a curiosity pursued by geeks and hobbyists with little import to the world at large.
 
Old 06-11-2003, 07:35 PM   #144
hotrodowner
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2002
Distribution: Too many to count
Posts: 368

Rep: Reputation: 30
1) If they dont want to RTFM, then need to continue being spoon feed <probably by windows>.
2) If you dont like how the desktops are, build your own copy of what you want, under what you want.
3) If you dont like certain things about certain distro's pop those redhat compatible distor's in the cdrom, change to their respected rpm directory, and type "rpm -if --no-deps *.*.rpm"
4) If your buisness needs windows apps, have you tried wine? I hear it actually makes those windows apps work in a *nix environment at times
5) I think it's time for this thread to move on, all issues have been said, and the pro's have replied with there comments. Do we need Jeremy to settle this issue?
 
Old 06-12-2003, 01:26 AM   #145
ricdave
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 222

Rep: Reputation: 31
1) If they dont want to RTFM, then need to continue being spoon feed <probably by windows>.

So why can't they be spoon fed by linux?

2) If you dont like how the desktops are, build your own copy of what you want, under what you want.

It is not about what I want...or what you want either.

3) If you dont like certain things about certain distro's pop those redhat compatible distor's in the cdrom, change to their respected rpm directory, and type "rpm -if --no-deps *.*.rpm"

I think the first post of this thread was about simplifying linux so it wouldn't be so off-putting. Point and click!?

4) If your buisness needs windows apps, have you tried wine? I hear it actually makes those windows apps work in a *nix environment at times

Wine is a work around, and a clumsy one at that.

5) I think it's time for this thread to move on, all issues have been said, and the pro's have replied with there comments. Do we need Jeremy to settle this issue?

Thread has taken on a life of its own.. We can be done with it for now, but rest assured, it will be baaaaaccckk.
 
Old 06-12-2003, 02:26 AM   #146
browny_amiga
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2001
Location: /mnt/UNV/Mlkway/Earth/USA/California/Silicon Valley
Distribution: Kubuntu, Debian Buster Stable, Windoze 7
Posts: 651

Rep: Reputation: 46
Exclamation business applications

Okey, got tempted. I know this thread should rest in peace. Here is what I have to say:

Wine works pretty good, especially that crossover office (which is wine commercial). Lotus Notes, which I use as a business application, works great on it. No crashes, no hassles.
Clumsy workaround? No sir, wine will make almost all windows applications come to linux, bet on it.

Besides, if you want to forever refuse to RTFM, you will never become a poweruser. I used windows without RTFM for years and was stuck in mediocrisy. Well, if of course depends on your outlook: do you want to know what is going on behind or do you say "I don't care and don't want to know"

Control or be controlled. Something you don't understand, you don't controll (especially if it breaks).

Windows is STILL a pain in the ass. I am testdriving WinXP at work and hell, it never crashes, but sometimes hangs endlessly, makes you wait and sometimes I had to punch the poweron button, because the taskmanager also hanged ;-) So some pains I had in Linux are also present in WinXP, the newest and best M$ has to offer (shame). Well, I am always talking about a professional user perspective, that uses a computer for more than just a tool to get things done, but lives through it (if you manage all your information, I mean EVERYTHING, then you live with it. Paper is dead.)

I do agree with you that more people would go use Linux if it would work more with less RTFM. I for myself am glad one of laptops is M$ free. I took to many reboots, too much crap, too many crashes from this piece of s***** software M$ does and am sick of tired of it. Also talk about looking incompetent in front of users when you have to tell them that you (realisticaly) can't fix their OS.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Old 06-12-2003, 02:30 AM   #147
browny_amiga
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2001
Location: /mnt/UNV/Mlkway/Earth/USA/California/Silicon Valley
Distribution: Kubuntu, Debian Buster Stable, Windoze 7
Posts: 651

Rep: Reputation: 46
Lightbulb Office for Wine

Just a sidenote:

For all business junkies out there that need their applications from Windows to run on linux:

crossover office is a usable product. It runs office (exept Access I think), Quicken, Photoshop and Lotus Notes supported, and many other apps work too....
It costs around 60$, but is well worth the money (business users never expected so far to get free software anyway)
http://www.codeweavers.com

I am not working for them, mind you. I just like the product and tested it and it will solve my big problem.
 
Old 06-12-2003, 02:59 AM   #148
slakmagik
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 4,113

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Yeah, all respect to those who want the thread closed but I don't see any call for that - if the topic's done for you, ignore the thread, but people who want to keep it going can as long as everything's cool and civil.

I think ricdave's taking a different angle from me, though. I don't so much care about user-friendliness as such. The operating system I'd like would be primarily CLI. A GUI slapped on it like Win3x or X11 is fine, but I don't have as much concern for that. I like a GUI - or just a "TUI" like a file manager. Get tired of cd'ing around or make a few typos in a row and I can pop one up and take a break but I like piping and redirecting and using the utilities. Love batch files and would love shell scripting a million time more if I could ever get the hang of it. It's just that I feel like I'm lugging a B-52 around when all I need's a high-quality rifle. And maybe that's dumb - just ignore the excess. But trouble-shooting in Linux is a bitch. Part of Linux's strength is to be able to break in some place and keep going but it makes finding the break a pain. In DOS, if something breaks, there ain't but a thing or two that can be wrong. *g* And things like termcap and terminfo - if I wanted to be weird, I can switch the keyb and cpi crap around in DOS - simple. But the defaults actually power my US enhanced keyboard - not a 70s UNIX terminal-on-a-mainframe keyboard. And so on. Backspace deletes a character back instead of giving me a beep and a tilde. Stuff like that. I have no objection to compiling an app but when it has to be pointed to dozens of directories for dozens of elements correctly and needs dozens of libs and flavors and pieces of libs... y'know - I don't need to click on an .exe - I hate installers in Win3x/9x/NT anyway; I'd rather just unzip a binary to a directory - but I do need to be able to install a *little* better. I had to rip out an entire distro and stick in another one because I simply couldn't get an app that I needed to connect to the net to compile. Wrote the maintainer; no response; no surprise. I was just lost. I mean, crap, when it *works* configure-make-make install is *not* hard. Reading a EULA and clicking 30 times is far more of a pain.

Matt said, "A coders view of beauty has nothing to do with the GUI frontend, it has to do with tight, highly performant code...

Now, looking at it from that angle, why in the world would anyone want to write something like windows?"

No doubt - nobody would. But like I'm saying, writing a stripped - not weakened in an absolute sense, but PC-tailored - OS that was perfectly suited for its function from *conception* rather than *adaptation* seems like it would have a charm. Not like Windows at all, which was also a hasty adaptation of a Mac-GUI for a DOS CLI system which, in turn, was a hasty adaptation of CP/M just to have something to stick in IBMs new machine. Nor really like Linux. I mean, the PC's been around for over 20 years and never yet had a successful OS designed *for it*. It's had stuff designed for it, I suppose, and it's definitely had successful OS'es, but not both in the same system. I mean, doesn't some GNU utilties' source include the lines "Abandon hope all ye who hack here" or something like, just because it had been so hacked for so long that reading the code was like going on an archaeology dig? I know Linux is full of tight code (or believe it, I should say) but I also know it's not *all* tight and elegant.

But, yeah, no doubt - if Linux and Windows are my only choices, it's Linux hands-down. I just sometimes wish there was a third alternative.
 
Old 06-12-2003, 08:45 AM   #149
hotrodowner
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2002
Distribution: Too many to count
Posts: 368

Rep: Reputation: 30
This thread is starting to sound like the complaint department. Linux is not a central company like Microsoft that you can complain to because it's not what you like. If you don't like something, remove it. If you want more of something, add it yourself. I doubt that out of all the distro's out there, theres not one that can meet your needs. About the office suite being $60, Why do that when you have openoffice.org that converters for MS formats? (I know there not perfect, but they meet most peoples needs, and they are always working to make it better.) Being Linux is free, I think you people are being too picky about things. Nobody coding Linux wants it too look more like windows. It already has the same *feel* as windows, it doesn't need to look and act like a POS operating system too!! Who wants to be reminded of Windows when there using Linux? I happen to think Linux's Gui's are fine the way they are. KDE already has more eye candy than Windows, It makes me wonder if your using the same operating system me. And they're are other alternatives out there. There's all the ones listed here!! I think the people who want to argue now are the ones that don't know what they're doing.
ricdave:
1) Who wants to be spoon fed Linux? GNU/Linux and opensource is about the spread of knowledge. If you think you can be spoon fed Linux, then think again. Part of the price to use Linux is that you need to know what your doing. If you dont have enough decency in you to read a linux bible, or *not* complain about how Linux is going, then DONT USE IT
2) your wrong, it's about what everyone wants, If you want the simple point and click, spoon feed me, then make your own distro!!! I think Mandrake <which happens to be going in a hole> is doing a dang good job at making it spoon fed.
3) Have you though that maybe it was point and click that makes programs unstable?? If every program came with what it needed, then there would be a lot of incompatibility and/or wasted drive space. Just go to rpm find and search for what your needing.
4) Wine is NOT a clumsy workaround. I personally think of it as a way for you windows people to get use to Linux with your familiar programs, so you could learn to use the better stuff later. IF the Wine programmers knew how you spoke of there program which they took the time to work on, they would be chewing you out about how they didn't have to do anything for you!!
5) I think your a psycho...

Digiot,
I think your talking a single user OS like the window's with the win32 kernel, be stable like linux, but not include the excess. Why would you want that? Why not put a sign on the machine saying: Cracker's and script kiddies welcome, I have plenty to go wrong!! In a perfect world, you could do that, but I think it's Linux's stability, and the fact that it's programmers addressed everything they could think of, makes it THE OS to use. It sounds to me like you haven't tried one of the minimalist versions of Linux. Why not try some of those single CD versions out there, and come back with complaints. I personally recommend vector <although my video card is stuck at 16 colors>. You just think you people need to look at the whole story, and learn that Linux is exactly what everyone would appreciate, there is a distribution for everyone <except windows lovers, but hey, theres always windows..>
 
Old 06-12-2003, 10:36 PM   #150
ricdave
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 222

Rep: Reputation: 31
I think that everyone is missing the point. Personally, I don't give a flying f**k whether Linux becomes anything different from what it is. The point is that for Linux to attract the apps that homeusers and soho users have become used to and need it has to have a broader base. If Linux is to mainstream on the desktop, it has to first grow up. Distros such as Mandrake, SOT, Lindows, Lycoris, Xandros are attempts to do just that. As I said earlier,

If the Linux community is unwilling to take the steps necessary to cater to and attract a much larger user base, perhaps with a desktop designed specifically for the new user migrating from MS or Apple, then Linux ceases to an OS worthy of consideration and becomes, instead, just another dead end ala commodore, freedos, geo shell: a curiosity pursued by geeks and hobbyists with little import to the world at large.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
File system for both Windows and Linux nonoitall Linux - Newbie 6 11-16-2005 11:33 AM
Can't mount windows file system kaega2 Linux - Software 4 05-29-2005 11:12 AM
Does anyone have any experience with installing two or even 3 linux operation system? babyboss Linux - Distributions 2 10-23-2004 04:33 AM
some problem about multi operation system ,help me, xyuren Linux - General 4 05-10-2004 07:08 AM
Why not build an OS Exactly like windows in operation and file system???? arun79 General 3 06-03-2003 06:44 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:20 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration