Why not build an OS like windows in operation and file system????

arun79 · 06-04-2003, 12:32 PM

Thanks a lot guys!!!

You've given me lot more to think about. I've reallly been educated by all that has been said on this post and can see the picture much more clearly now.

fancypiper · 06-04-2003, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by frieza
hmm, windows has crashed because of an unidentified error of #323, would you like fries with that?
m$ is the 'fast food' of operating systems, easy, no preparation, 'tastes' good but makes you 'fat' and gives you little choice of what you eat, linux is more like makeing your own meal at home, takes more effort but if done right gives you a chance of making more healthy choices the point being you have choice,and if you want to learn how to write a program for linux that does mappings to 'c:' 'd:' etc... than nobody is stopping you, knock your socks off..

I like that one.

And the groceries are free as well.

lokee · 06-04-2003, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by deepsix
M$ has even realized this and has announced it will release its own version of Linux called MS Linux........if this doesnt strike a bell nothing will.

Are you joking? MS ain't making a version of linux...
You must be talking about Lindows, which is made by Lycoris not MS.

On the contrary MS is preparing Longhorn, which along with Palladium system will eventually prevent us from using any other OS and third party softs.
Talk about stupidity!

http://www.epic.org/privacy/consumer...palladium.html

bentman78 · 06-04-2003, 02:16 PM

Man that is crooked. I can't believe that. I like certain aspects of microsnot, but jeez, that Palladium crap is awful.

I have heard of MS developing a Unix like OS.

contrasutra · 06-04-2003, 02:39 PM

First, MS has said that Palladium will NOT be manditory, and it is aimed at the corporate setting (which should have complete control over their computers). Now, they might change their mind, and I dont agree with Palladium either, but im just saying, you probobly wont have Palladium in your computer.

Now, if the major companies (dell, HP, gateway) "choose" to install it for you, you've got a problem. I think they are the people we should be complaining to.

LindowsOS is made by the company "Lindows.com"

Lycoris makes "Lycoris Desktop"

movement against ignorance.

Supposidly, MS liscenced unix because their own OS was in violation.

lokee · 06-04-2003, 02:47 PM

OOOPS! Confused them.

titanium_geek · 06-04-2003, 05:45 PM

problem.. microsoft makes them install windows on most new computers...

LET US REVOLT!!!

titanium_geek

mad_ady · 06-05-2003, 02:32 AM

Quote:

I have heard of MS developing a Unix like OS.

Back in the 80's M$ had its own unix distro.... It was called Xenix... Then they abandoned it, but transferred whatever they could in the 'new' and 'promicing' DOS system. This is why DOS 2.0 introduced new and revolutionary concepts like directories!

Regarding Palladium I think it's a violation of our (God given) right to use computers however we want to! This will mean that the computer will control us, not viceversa... And besides, what's the DOJ going to do about this? If this is not monopoly, I don't know what is!

browny_amiga · 06-05-2003, 02:55 AM

Might be dangerous to say, but I think to know why Windows is such a success with the masses and Linux is not (yet):

This thought occured to me when taking my first steps in Linux.

RTFM? Isn't a system supposed to be intuitive, meaning, no reading required to be able to use it?
Windows is very much so, you click around and learn while doing it. There is no reading required. Linux on the other hand cannot be handled that way, you don't get far by not reading anything. Still gotta learn all the commands (which is still an absolute necessity to handle linux).
So, essentially, you could say that Linux is too complicated, too difficult to use for MANY users (most of them probably, the non professionals)

Saying this, I do understand the difference between a server sys and a desktop sys. They are different. A desktop is pretty simple, has to look good and be easy to use.
A server is complicated, no way of changing that, so it will be complicated to use, simplifying is just going to make it worse (making something simple that is not is inviting desaster). So for me, using Linux as a server is less work then doing the same on Windows. And on the Desktop it is the exact opposite (still).

Give you an example:

Task: find the config and start the webserver, FTP server on a linux and windows system. (you are going to be faster here in linux with the console, no doubt. In Windows, endlessly click through tabs, properties)

Task: Setup OCR, a digital camera (one that requires a driver), some Game using Hardware accelerated graphics on Linux and windows system.
Here you will very likely spend a lot more time on the linux thing, trying to make it work. On windows that is easy, because it is all established.

So talking about "intuitiveness", meaning "how fast can you learn it without being soaked in literature by just trying it out", I guess Linux is not that far yet. But also, the question is "How intuitive can a server ever be?" It's complicated by design and that will never change.

And thoughts on this welcome.

deepsix · 06-05-2003, 03:12 AM

see below

deepsix · 06-05-2003, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lokee
Are you joking? MS ain't making a version of linux...
You must be talking about Lindows, which is made by Lycoris not MS.

On the contrary MS is preparing Longhorn, which along with Palladium system will eventually prevent us from using any other OS and third party softs.
Talk about stupidity!

http://www.epic.org/privacy/consumer...palladium.html

Im a jackassss.........

check this out http://www.mslinux.org/

mad_ady · 06-05-2003, 04:09 AM

If mslinux were real, I'd switch to mac!

Mega Man X · 06-05-2003, 04:32 AM

You guys can make as much joke about M$ as you want... When Windows Really good Edition is out, many are going to fear its new power and features:

http://www.deanliou.com/WinRG/

Vlad_M · 06-05-2003, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by browny_amiga
Might be dangerous to say, but I think to know why Windows is such a success with the masses and Linux is not (yet):

This thought occured to me when taking my first steps in Linux.

RTFM? Isn't a system supposed to be intuitive, meaning, no reading required to be able to use it?
Windows is very much so, you click around and learn while doing it. There is no reading required. Linux on the other hand cannot be handled that way, you don't get far by not reading anything. Still gotta learn all the commands (which is still an absolute necessity to handle linux).
So, essentially, you could say that Linux is too complicated, too difficult to use for MANY users (most of them probably, the non professionals)

<<SNIP>>

And thoughts on this welcome.

I like this post...am at work now so can't reply, but you raise some excellent points. I'll comment as soon as I get home!

contrasutra · 06-05-2003, 02:36 PM

Heres my response to people not liking the RTFM thing.

Computers are ridiculously complex machines. Like a car. Does someone expect to dismantle a car without even knowing how to drive one? NO! Computers ARE complicated, and no matter how intuitive a system is, basic knowledge is needed, and this is what many people dont want.

*nix is intuitive. I picked it up a lot faster than I did windows, especially when I read the "FM". The Manual gives you the basic understanding of that command and its flags, then you can figure out how to use them by yourself.

People seem to want toasters, and thats completly possible in Linux as well as windows, but dont expect to have control/flexability AND to have everything simple and done for you. You cant have your cake and eat it too. You cant do that in Windows either.