O
old.TUG
Guest
- Thread starter
- #32
Too geeky for me 
S
Summo
Guest
- Thread starter
- #33
Heh heh
Linux reminds me of what Windows was like 7-8 years ago. It was a nightmare just to install a new bit of hardware or make some changes and often involved analysing a long stream of errors to work out what the problem is.
Then again, I'm biased. I'm a child of Microsoft. But I do believe that there's a reason that Microsoft are so huge and Windows is so popular.
It's actually because it's a fucking good bit of kit. Windows 2000 and the upcoming Windows XP blows all other operating systems out of the water.* Plus the continued success and popularity has created a huge, loyal customer base. These products just aren't 'buggy' anymore. Unlike Linux you don't need to type two pages of machine code to mount your CD-ROM
I sound incredibly one-sided here but I am usually quite open. I reckon I just want to start a good discussion. I sincerely wish Linux well for the future and I hope that eventually it can can provide good, solid competition.
* Most operating systems are not designed to function underwater. Submerging your system may invalidate your warantee.
Linux reminds me of what Windows was like 7-8 years ago. It was a nightmare just to install a new bit of hardware or make some changes and often involved analysing a long stream of errors to work out what the problem is.
Then again, I'm biased. I'm a child of Microsoft. But I do believe that there's a reason that Microsoft are so huge and Windows is so popular.
It's actually because it's a fucking good bit of kit. Windows 2000 and the upcoming Windows XP blows all other operating systems out of the water.* Plus the continued success and popularity has created a huge, loyal customer base. These products just aren't 'buggy' anymore. Unlike Linux you don't need to type two pages of machine code to mount your CD-ROM
I sound incredibly one-sided here but I am usually quite open. I reckon I just want to start a good discussion. I sincerely wish Linux well for the future and I hope that eventually it can can provide good, solid competition.
* Most operating systems are not designed to function underwater. Submerging your system may invalidate your warantee.
T
Testin da Cable
Guest
- Thread starter
- #34
disco
good man. Linux is the future.
-tdc
[edit]
couldn't resist this
you do know what most of the servers on the internet run on right?
O
old.logic7
Guest
- Thread starter
- #35
OS/2 was better than Win 3.1 (and some say win95). It didn't have apps that could put it out front.
Neyah...
Neyah...
B
bodhi
Guest
- Thread starter
- #36
Re:
Oh great. The future of computing is spending 3 whole days getting an OS running, being able to play about 5 games, endless ISDN problems, Operating systems which crash at least 5 times during the install process (try getting Rad Hat 6.2 to work on a Rage Fury) and the thought of never taking a bath again (my own personal view on Linux users). It might make sense for servers but for desktops? Christ DOS made more sense. Least you could play any game you wanted on it......
The future's bleak. The future's Linux.
Oh great. The future of computing is spending 3 whole days getting an OS running, being able to play about 5 games, endless ISDN problems, Operating systems which crash at least 5 times during the install process (try getting Rad Hat 6.2 to work on a Rage Fury) and the thought of never taking a bath again (my own personal view on Linux users). It might make sense for servers but for desktops? Christ DOS made more sense. Least you could play any game you wanted on it......
The future's bleak. The future's Linux.
E
Embattle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #37
Nice comment Bodhi. TDC you may love linux and find it the best OS in the world but Linux is never going to be the future.
S
Summo
Guest
- Thread starter
- #38
Hear, hear!
(mumble, mumble)
(Order! Order!)
(mumble, mumble)
(Order! Order!)
M
Mr_Horus
Guest
- Thread starter
- #39
IIRC Bodhi is an NT4 punter like myself.
If you want stable, NT4 or 2k is where its at.
I personally have tried Linux and i thought it was shit. Some days my mouse would work and the network card wouldnt and other days the networ card would work and the mouse wouldnt.
The one glorious day both worked, and the day after that, neither worked again.
This was a big problem as i connect to the net via Cable Modem over Ethernet.
Strangely enough, I had no such probs in NT4 or 2k
If you want stable, NT4 or 2k is where its at.
I personally have tried Linux and i thought it was shit. Some days my mouse would work and the network card wouldnt and other days the networ card would work and the mouse wouldnt.
The one glorious day both worked, and the day after that, neither worked again.
This was a big problem as i connect to the net via Cable Modem over Ethernet.
Strangely enough, I had no such probs in NT4 or 2k
B
bids
Guest
- Thread starter
- #40
'Spose it's down to experiences with these OS's.
I've got three machines - one running Win2K Pro, Win98SE and Mandrake Linux 8.0. Win2K is the best for compatibility, and is by far the best for 'Microsoft' stability. At work we have an NT4 box that is forever BSOD'ing. The most it has been up is about a month without a re-boot - this is patched to SP6A as well (Compaq 256 Mb, RAID, etc so it's a good box !).
The Mandrake Linux box is also really good. The points made above are right. It's no where near as user friendly as Windoze, and compatibility with hardware can be a problem, and because of this will never penetrate into the desktop market.
But as a server OS it's superb. Stability wise, it's rock solid - the only time it's been down in six months is to install software updates. Running Apache Web server, DHCP, DNS, Firewall, Oracle, it is faster, more stable and a huge amount cheaper than any MS offering.
98 is the best for gaming compatibility, but it's big downfall is (like NT4 Server) stability - this machine is lucky to go through a day without a re-boot ;(
Now before this turns into an OS flaming fest, these are MY experieces and MY opinions, and I know other peoples are different (especially Bods - you NT4 slag you )
I've got three machines - one running Win2K Pro, Win98SE and Mandrake Linux 8.0. Win2K is the best for compatibility, and is by far the best for 'Microsoft' stability. At work we have an NT4 box that is forever BSOD'ing. The most it has been up is about a month without a re-boot - this is patched to SP6A as well (Compaq 256 Mb, RAID, etc so it's a good box !).
The Mandrake Linux box is also really good. The points made above are right. It's no where near as user friendly as Windoze, and compatibility with hardware can be a problem, and because of this will never penetrate into the desktop market.
But as a server OS it's superb. Stability wise, it's rock solid - the only time it's been down in six months is to install software updates. Running Apache Web server, DHCP, DNS, Firewall, Oracle, it is faster, more stable and a huge amount cheaper than any MS offering.
98 is the best for gaming compatibility, but it's big downfall is (like NT4 Server) stability - this machine is lucky to go through a day without a re-boot ;(
Now before this turns into an OS flaming fest, these are MY experieces and MY opinions, and I know other peoples are different
(especially Bods - you NT4 slag you )
B
bodhi
Guest
- Thread starter
- #41
NT4 is picky as hell. On some machine sit will run for ages with a problem, others its BSOD's like theres no tomorrow. Luckily my machine falls into the former. Im not actually running it atm as there is no point. I cant sleep with the PC on due the extra case fans, and I only use the web an IRC these days, with a couple of games thrown in, so Im on 98. It still self destructs in amusing ways, but hey...
W
whipped
Guest
- Thread starter
- #42
Windows is only more compatible because it is the favoured OS for corporate developers.
Linux is excellent for the people that like to get dirty in computers and have a littel fun working out how everything works.
As for stablity, I can only say that I would always go for a Linux box before a Win2K one. I agree Windows has gotten better over time to a certain extent but XP is going to be a nightmare.
simply read this DDOS article to see what XP's use of the entire TCP/IP protocol could do.
(btw I think it's down at the mo)
imo Linux is greeeat. Although I don't think I could run it without Dual-Booting windows. Only for the fact that windows has become so imbedded in our world it's would be nearly impossible to extract it.
Linux is excellent for the people that like to get dirty in computers and have a littel fun working out how everything works.
As for stablity, I can only say that I would always go for a Linux box before a Win2K one. I agree Windows has gotten better over time to a certain extent but XP is going to be a nightmare.
simply read this DDOS article to see what XP's use of the entire TCP/IP protocol could do.
(btw I think it's down at the mo)
imo Linux is greeeat. Although I don't think I could run it without Dual-Booting windows. Only for the fact that windows has become so imbedded in our world it's would be nearly impossible to extract it.
T
Testin da Cable
Guest
- Thread starter
- #43
heh
be aware folks, that I too was once a 'disciple of Bill'. In fact I hold an MCSE+I certification with NT4 as core [it's actually been retired now iirc] My very last w32 driven pc was a dual processor box running NT4 patched to 6a, and it had never failed me.
I moved to Linux for several reasons. Not because it was the 'best OS in the world' tho. I knew nothing at all of Linux when I started working with it. I can even remember failing to install it because I didn't know what to do. However I stuck with it, read up on it and learned how to work well with it. Now I'm not going back.
One thing I learned is that Linux will expect you to know stuff about your box [even the 'easy' install will heh]. If you are not prepared to think about what you are doing, and perhaps to actually read "readmes" or look at webpages or maybe try things you never did before in the microsoft world then perhaps you should stick to whatever product you prefer running. But don't go saying "I can't get Linux to run properly so Linux is bad" because that is not the case.