Jump to content

Operating Systems


Mcdilly-Willy
 Share

Which operating do you use either Professionally or Personally  

51 members have voted

  1. 1. Which operating do you use either Professionally or Personally

    • Windows 98/xp/vista etc.
      30
    • Mac OS
      9
    • Linux (any distrobution)
      3
    • A Mixture
      10


Recommended Posts

Trout of all the most popular distros, there pretty much great for installing. Put the cd/dvd in and away you go, I have never had a "friggin mess". There are distros that are for the more experienced user i.e. gentoo. But on the whole preperation H feels good.. I mean Linux instals are pretty sound.

 

they are stuck with a hung install.

 

Installers like Yast, will do everything for you, at the end of your example you may be left with no modem or graphics acceleration, but that can be configured from with the operating system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Many Linux distros are in my humble opinion quite a few years behind still.

 

I've been having more-or-less this argument with a Linux chap over on one of their forums. The theory behind Linux - the freedom - is wonderful, everything an operating system ought to be. But in practise, one distro (Ubuntu) has the sweet install procedure, another (Red Hat, say, or Novell) has the decent security, somebody else has the decent media handling and so on. Worst of all, and really unforgiveable, you have a lot of trouble trying to make A's program work on B's version of the OS.

 

And this is the OS that's based on sharing!

 

Micro$oft, for all we love to hate them, do make installation and running the programs pretty easy, and unfortunately for the competition it mostly works quite well.

 

Wouldn't the best answer be to split the GUI - or whatever interface the particular user prefers - from the OS completely, and let the OS just be responsible for providing known "hooks" for programs to talk to hardware? In my box here, for instance, although Windows does all the underwork, I actually interface with it using Litestep as a shell because I can customise the operation just the way I like it a la Linux.

 

In an ideal world, it ought to be irrelevant whether you're using an x86, a Sun Sparc, your auntie's old Mac or whatever, you should be able to run any available program on it and use the interface you like best.

 

And if all the prodigious abilities of the world's programmers were devoted to one, universally known OS, perhaps they'd be able to spend less time reinventing the wheel to try to make it work on all available OS's!

 

 

(Edited almost immediately; changed "likt" to "like" :oops: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't the best answer be to split the GUI - or whatever interface the particular user prefers - from the OS completely

 

Well I currently don't use the GUI on my gentoo box, but if I "StartX" it loads the GUI. I'm not sure what you mean.

 

And if all the prodigious abilities of the world's programmers were devoted to one, universally known OS, perhaps they'd be able to spend less time reinventing the wheel to try to make it work on all available OS's!

 

Its kind of true for Open Source OS, isn't it? i.e. Linux?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're lucky - us poor W*nd*ws users boot straight into the GUI ... but probably that is more like what Joe Public wants. Those of us who can use a command line can (we hope) have more control over the system, but Joe P is more at home just clicking on a button. (Incidentally, my first proper computer was about 5 dozen TTL chips on a big board, I do know roughly what goes on down there!)

 

As for all those programmers producing open source working "together", I'd say no. As per much of this thread, there isn't one simple, straightforward system for Joe P to use, except this commercial, non-free, non-open thing. If the Linux community all got together & concentrated on producing ONE system, for my money (£0!) it would beat W*nd*ws out of the market. As it is, even drag-and-drop can't be universally relied on (in my relatively limited experience).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're lucky - us poor W*nd*ws users boot straight into the GUI

 

I hadn't told you about my other machines which boot straight into the GUI's both of which LINUX.

 

If the Linux community all got together & concentrated on producing ONE system, for my money (£0!) it would beat W*nd*ws out of the market.

 

The Open Source Community is the Closest we've got to what you afore mentioned. You like so many others are missing the point of Linux.

 

Choice, is why it DOES beat windows.

 

You have the freedom to do whatever you like with it. Try one distrobution, if it doesn't do something the way you like, try a different one, heck if you want, make your own that does everything you want. All of this for free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hadn't told you about my other machines which boot straight into the GUI's both of which LINUX.

 

- Presumably 'cos you made them so. That nice Mr. Gates didn't give us the option. :(

 

The Open Source Community is the Closest we've got to what you afore mentioned. You like so many others are missing the point of Linux.

 

Choice, is why it DOES beat windows.

 

No, please, I really do appreciate the choice aspect of Linux. The point I was trying to make is that that freedom of choice is only really available if you have learned all the vagaries of the system, and how to set up that tempting bit of software just so from the command line. On the other hand, just about every bit of software for the unfree installs almost as nicely as Ubuntu, runs fairly sensibly first time, and gives you some sort of GUI-based setup screen for tweaking it.

 

Yes, I agree Linux is already there for the seriously computer-literate. But if it's ever to see off the commercial opposition, it needs to make everything as straightforward for the virtually illiterate as an Ubuntu install. I think Trout's example above is still too common for the would-be casual Linux user.

 

(Another edit to tidy up the quote)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Choice, is why it DOES beat windows.

 

You have the freedom to do whatever you like with it. Try one distrobution, if it doesn't do something the way you like, try a different one, heck if you want, make your own that does everything you want. All of this for free.

 

Choice is also why it doesn't :wink: The shear number of 3rd party apps out there for windows means if there's something you don't like about windows... you can pretty quickly find a 3rd party solution to make it work the way you want e.g. I don't like the star bar so I use a dock instead. By keeping the underlying OS and bolting things on top you don't have to go through getting up to speed with a new OS and its inner workings. Bonus!

 

Make your own OS? No thanks. I'd rather spend my tinkering time making the PC do what I want it to - rather than just trying to make the darn the work in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Roachmill, unfortunately you're right - there are an awful lot of bits of software out there for windows, and some of the freeware is amazingly good. On the other hand, there are some quite nice things I've heard of for Linux, which of course I can't use unless (a) some kind soul who speaks programming cares to port it to Windows, or (B) I take a few years off to become expert enough to do it myself.

 

There shouldn't be an issue here. As you say the important thing is making the darn box do whatever it is you want it to (mine is the best "tape recorder" I ever owned, and a pretty neat shortwave radio when I want it to be).

 

But it is very annoying to have to mess about with learning different OS's if you want to use this program rather than that, and downright confusing when you then end up with two machines which look pretty similar but work just that irritating bit differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@McDilly-Willy

 

You're trying to convert the converted mate :P

 

All I'm going to add to this is that I too used to have your passion for converting people to Linux and the Open Source movement. I then went to work in IT in a corporate setting and really couldn't fault the MS's develop platforms for "making" things work. The ball rolled along quite the thing. IT for many of these companies is "what they know" and is "what they'll use" moving forward. You can't fault them for that.

 

I now in my job personally use Linux everyday. I like it for what I do. I also use a Windows box so that I can run Photoshop on it's native platform.

 

Yes, the latest Linux distros and their installers work top drawer on "good" computers. I take it you've never had to do a support job for someone where they thought they would get a few more years out of their box with a copy of some distro they got off a magazine? Linux in many of these cases takes quite a bit of tinkering to get it to function.

 

All that I was trying to point out is that you and I are most likely "nerds", and I mean that in the most affectionate way :wink: ! For us oaging around inside a computer and or in it's software settings is second nature. For many they just want a computer to be able to print out a letter and or do their finances on. Maybe even to store their photos on.

 

Yes, you and I could and can easily do that on a Linux box. For many though Windows is what they see and have and it does that job for them quite the thing.

 

Maybe it's tunnel syndrome to you or I. We have seen the light. To many though it does the job and they're happy. I can't fault them for that and nowadays I let everyone do what ever they wan't to do ;)

 

Anyway, I'm getting distracted here making pedantic points! :roll:

 

Back to GUI's -->

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To go back to the original question :

 

What operating system do you use?

Why do you use it?

 

I use windows XP, because it works.

 

More specifically, I started with Windows '95, upgraded to (stole :oops: ) '98 and bought XP when '98 began catching viruses every time I went on the Net.

 

I principally use my PC for playing games and surfing, I don't care what goes on under the bonnet as long as it runs. XP gets slagged because of it's supposedly lax security but I think this is unfair. Windows runs on 90% of computers so it gets 90% of the hackers. I'm sure that the alternatives would be just as leaky if they were subjected to the same barrage of attacks. I keep my anti-virus (AVG) and anti-spyware (Spybot and Adaware) up to date and I have never had a problem. AVG has picked up a couple of viruses in the last couple of years, but stopped them before they caused any harm.

 

Stability wise, XP has been brilliant. Oblivion crashes it every so often, but this is a problem with oblivion and overclocked computers rather than a problem with XP.

 

As for other stuff, I use Open Office for letters etc, and Firefox for browsing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trout you're right. We are nerds. 8)

 

I feel I'm not really getting anywhere here but what they heck its an enjoyable debate:

 

I'd rather spend my tinkering time making the PC do what I want it to - rather than just trying to make the darn the work in the first place.

 

Firstly my Linux boxes did work in the first instance (as it would for anybody if they choose the correct Distro i.e. not Gentoo). Secondly I spent my tinkering time making the LINUX box do what I wanted it to do.

 

By keeping the underlying OS and bolting things on top you don't have to go through getting up to speed with a new OS and its inner workings. Bonus!

 

This can also be done with Linux: SUSE linux like may others you dont have to see the OS at all if you don't want. The only thing you might have to look at is the structure of the Filing system, to see where your files are, but some might argue its more intuative than Windows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ArabiaTerra said:

 

XP gets slagged because of it's supposedly lax security but I think this is unfair. Windows runs on 90% of computers so it gets 90% of the hackers.

 

Not true, windows XP gets 90% of the Hackers because its far easier to Hack.

 

I'm sure that the alternatives would be just as leaky if they were subjected to the same barrage of attacks.

 

Again, untrue: The Design of the Windows OS itself means there is a "lax" in security, and why it is so "Leaky":

 

"Windows has long been hampered by its origin as a single-user system. Windows was originally designed to allow both users and applications free access to the entire system, which means anyone could tamper with a critical system program or file. It also means viruses, Trojans and other malware could tamper with any critical system program or file, because Windows did not isolate users or applications from these sensitive areas of the operating system."

 

Whereas:

 

"Linux does not have a history of being a single-user system. Therefore it has been designed from the ground-up to isolate users from applications, files and directories that affect the entire operating system."

 

I.e. the Root user.

 

"Windows is Monolithic by Design, not Modular" v.s. "Linux is Modular by Design, not Monolithic"

 

"A monolithic system is one where most features are integrated into a single unit. The antithesis of a monolithic system is one where features are separated out into distinct layers, each layer having limited access to the other layers.

 

While some of the shortcomings of Windows are due to its ties to its original single-user design, other shortcomings are the direct result of deliberate design decisions, such as its monolithic design (integrating too many features into the core of the operating system)."

 

"Linux is for the most part a modularly designed operating system, from the kernel (the core "brains" of Linux) to the applications. Almost nothing in Linux is inextricably intertwined with anything else."

 

Also here is one reason why Windows is so "Leaky":

 

"Windows Depends Too Heavily on the RPC model", "RPCs are potential security risks because they are designed to let other computers somewhere on a network to tell your computer what to do."

 

Theres just a few for ya :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree that windows is clunky and full of security issues, but is it not telling that Linux has not been able to take advantage of this mess?

 

It seems natural that OSS developers stick with working on programs that interest them, but that leaves areas where people continue trying to build a better mousetrap, when there are lots of "uninteresting" areas that do not get touched.

 

As I said way back, I have not got too much interest in the OS itself, but my choice is dictated by which one has the applications I want to use, and Linux does not have them.

I could use Linux for my internet box without much problem, but since that is the very one I want to run forever without a moments attention I would be more inclined to go to a Mac for that, if I am going to bother to change my ways.

 

While Linux may be a technically more pleasing solution, I don't see it making my life easier, so unfortunately......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carlos, the only way it APPEARS that linux hasn't taken its opportunity, is all of the corporate skullduggery with Windows and several leading Computing Manufactures, Its all about the money. Based on that No-one has a chance to out run microsoft in sales.

 

I would disagree with this in regards to Servers.

 

Also Linux appears to be taking rise to it, being offered through Novel as a viable option for Corporations.

 

But its all about personal preference, at the end of the day. So if you will settle for Windows because it offers you the Applications you need, then thats great.

 

But for the Nerd, we need sooooo much more to satisfy our cravings. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if you want Linux to make serious progress on the home desktop, do you not need to bite the bullet, give up putting the majority of the work into what the "nerds" want and put 5 good years of effort into making it the obvious and easiest choice for the average user by slogging away on the same areas that Apple pushes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...