What are some issues with non-MS os's?

[Pilsnerpete]

Can there ever be just one os? Seems like it would have to be free.
What are some of the known problems with your favorite operating system?

I know Macs have had problems with memory management in the past, but are there any drawbacks now?

What's the deal with Linux besides program compatibility? Why doesn't everyone use it? Fear of the unknown?

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Pilsnerpete
Can there ever be just one os? Seems like it would have to be free.
What are some of the known problems with your favorite operating system?

I know Macs have had problems with memory management in the past, but are there any drawbacks now?

What's the deal with Linux besides program compatibility? Why doesn't everyone use it? Fear of the unknown?

Fear of the unkown.

And those who try think its too hard - I think otherwise.

I grew up on Apple2es and then later moved to PowerMacs in 3rd grade when our school got them. Then I remember one day my dad taking me to his computer lab and I looked at the computer and told my dad "These Don't look like Computers" (To me Mac/Computer was one in the same) and my dad explained that it was a different kind called "Windows NT".

To say the least I remember it was hell trying to do stuff because I didn't understand anything...I eventually figured a few things out but that was only after I kept on using it...To me it was freaking hard...

...now I use windows like nothing...

Its just that there are many who "tweak" windows or whatever and feel they have a handle on the OS and when they try Linux and realize that they are clueless about anything under the layer that is setup for General Users (BAsically typing up stuff and using programs) it becomes much more frustrating - that is how it was with me atlesat...

I still have it though but I do admit that I wish my modem would like Linux rather than crap all over it...

That and it doesn't seem like each O/S is up to Windows yet. I would LOVE to find a distro that has the nice sleek design of Redhat mixed in with all the extra programs of Mandrake. Redhat should be able to play MP3s and many other things by default rather than not include them (I got them on my own but there are things you come to expect of an Operating System and this is one of those things...even if RH is aimed at the Business sector)

While I understand the whole "you choose what is on your PC so you have only what you need" it doesn't erase the fact that for the beginner it is slightly annoying...

My main beef with Mandrake (last distro I tried was 9.0) is that the GUI is horrendous...Bluecurve looks soooo much nicer compared to it, but Mandrake knows where its at when it comes to bundling info on a computer (Divx/Xvid playability right outta the box wihtout having to install anything? That is what I'm talking about!)



Just remember this: It isn't hard - its different.

What makes it hard is our reluctance to accept something new so instead of booting up into Linux we prefer to go straight to Windows and just have Redhat kind laying there (Which is what I'm doing since I spent 2 months trying to get my fvcking modem to work...ah well 1 month from now I'll be on college internet so i'll prolly do another install and use it there)

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Can there ever be just one os?

No way. And if that did happen, it would be a very bad thing IMO.

What are some of the known problems with your favorite operating system?

I like Debian (linux) and NetBSD the most. Debian has the typical linux symptoms, just a generally sloppy chaotic feel to it (that's just MO, of course, I expect flames over it ). NetBSD has bad or no support for SMP and threading, which are both important to me. It's also quite slower as a desktop. Not quite as much software in pkgsrc as is in debian packages, and the packages get less attention since there's fewer people working on them.

I know Macs have had problems with memory management in the past, but are there any drawbacks now?

OSX doesn't have that issue. Macs are expensive and give you a bit less choice hardware-wise.

What's the deal with Linux besides program compatibility? Why doesn't everyone use it? Fear of the unknown?

Compatability with proprietary file types (office files, video formats, etc), games, specific windows apps that people need to use, personal preference, lack of polish in certain areas, etc.

 

[Spyro]

I like Debian (linux) and NetBSD the most. Debian has the typical linux symptoms, just a generally sloppy chaotic feel to it (that's just MO, of course, I expect flames over it ).

Heh, no flames from me. After using debian for a while, I agree with you. I think that this is a debian thing though, because I've never really been bothered by this with any other distro. (Hence my return to Mandrake on all but one of my PCs).

 

[Flatline]

By the way, magomago...Mandrake 9.1 has a very bluecurve-ish look to it (without crippling KDE); maybe it's time to give it another look.

Just a little segue - Windows doesn't do a lot of things by default either. That's why your hardware comes with so much bundled software in the Windows world. Comparing linux or *BSD with Windows + third-party software is not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison (especially if you have to pay big money for a lot of the third-party stuff).

Every OS has its drawbacks and its pluses, and I for one like it that way; without competition it wouldn't be any fun

 

[BeauJangles]

THe only reason I still use windows is time: I have no time to learn Linux. I also play games (very occasionally). Those two things keep me tied to windows.

 

[Nothinman]

Can there ever be just one os? Seems like it would have to be free.

Can there ever be just one car? How would you like if all car manufacturers consolidated and sold 1 car, 1 truck, 1 van, etc.

I know Macs have had problems with memory management in the past, but are there any drawbacks now?

Just the fact that the hardware is slow and overpriced.

I like Debian (linux) and NetBSD the most. Debian has the typical linux symptoms, just a generally sloppy chaotic feel to it

I get the opposite feeling. Debian actually feels like a coherent system while other OSes feel like a hodgepodge of random packages. And maybe it's just me but everytime I decide to install a BSD and play with their beloved ports system or kernel something breaks. I just installed FreeBSD 5.1 recently and sound doesn't work out of the box which is gay and kde3 failed to build from the included ports, again gay and a big show of the lack of QA that FreeBSD has =)

What's the deal with Linux besides program compatibility? Why doesn't everyone use it? Fear of the unknown?

The learning curve can be big too, after you've used 1 thing for years it's scarey to try using something new. If you can deal without playing a lot of games then Linux will most likely work just fine for you, once you get past the learning curve.

 

[Flatline]

There are a lot of games that have 'nix ports as well (Quake, Unreal, RTCW, Neverwinter Nights, etc.), and if you have fast enough hardware to take the small performance hit, it's staggering how many games work well in WineX.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I like Debian (linux) and NetBSD the most. Debian has the typical linux symptoms, just a generally sloppy chaotic feel to it

I get the opposite feeling. Debian actually feels like a coherent system while other OSes feel like a hodgepodge of random packages. And maybe it's just me but everytime I decide to install a BSD and play with their beloved ports system or kernel something breaks. I just installed FreeBSD 5.1 recently and sound doesn't work out of the box which is gay and kde3 failed to build from the included ports, again gay and a big show of the lack of QA that FreeBSD has =)

I like the seperation of base system from packages. I know that debian is just one whole collection of packages, but what I see as the base system of debian, is much less coherent than the base system of NetBSD. But as for the software packages on top of that, I would say debian is much better rounded.

I tried compiling a kernel on FreeBSD and I broke it. Maybe I just didn't read the docs well enough, or the docs aren't written well enough, or the system is just confusing, I'm not sure which. But I've compiled kernels on NetBSD and I found it more straightforward than compiling linux kernels. (edit config, compile, cp netbsd /netbsd, reboot)

 

[Nothinman]

I like the seperation of base system from packages.

I like the seperation of everything from the kernel, makes it possible to do things like Debian GNU/FreeBSD.

(edit config, compile, cp netbsd /netbsd, reboot)

That's all fine, but every time I try I find the example config isn't 100% complete. There's always options that aren't documented (atleast in the example) and I shouldn't have to refer to a web page for something like that, especially when they say the LINT config is a complete example. When I run 'make menuconfig' I know it's giving me all the possible options and 90% of the time there's even a help screen to expand on an option.

 

[Cogman]

I think that we will see more and more linux users taking a high percent of the OS installed on computers as it matures and becomes more readly avalible. The big problem with one OS is the fact that there would be few new inovations in future versions, and nothing would prevent the company from putting preformance hits into the code on purpose to make you buy a new version (which, btw, they would control). One OS = Very bad thing. on the Linux not being compadible, I think that that statment is only true when it comes to Windows applications, and even the compadiblity to that is raising. (look at window, I mean, What has it done to make itself compadible with linux apps/programs/files? nothing....) its mind numbing to even think about how far linux and the gnu programmers have gone to make more programs and files work corectly. Really, name A file type other then an EXE file and Ill find the linux program that will run it flawlessly.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I like the seperation of base system from packages.

I like the seperation of everything from the kernel

Eh, I see advantages to both really. "Kernel independence" is cool, and coherency is cool too. I see coherency being more useful to me, though.

makes it possible to do things like Debian GNU/FreeBSD.

Which is neat, but is it really relevant to any degree right now? Is anyone using Debian GNU/FreeBSD for anything useful? Not that I'm bashing it, I'm just playing devil's advocate (which is what I'm doing a lot of the time here).

(edit config, compile, cp netbsd /netbsd, reboot)

That's all fine, but every time I try I find the example config isn't 100% complete. There's always options that aren't documented (atleast in the example) and I shouldn't have to refer to a web page for something like that, especially when they say the LINT config is a complete example. When I run 'make menuconfig' I know it's giving me all the possible options and 90% of the time there's even a help screen to expand on an option.

"Werks fer me." I read through the guide, read through the config file, disabled stuff I knew I didn't need, enabled stuff I did, compiled, and it worked great.

Linux is also a lot harder to deal with, for me. I figure I have about a 90% chance of compiling a NetBSD kernel without problems, with linux, I'd say it's about a 60% chance or so. Really, there are a billion reasons to bash or praise either one. I like both, and I hate both at the same time, I just hate them less than anything else.

 

[Nothinman]

Which is neat, but is it really relevant to any degree right now? Is anyone using Debian GNU/FreeBSD for anything useful? Not that I'm bashing it, I'm just playing devil's advocate (which is what I'm doing a lot of the time here)

It's still in the early stages, once the C library and installer issues get sorted out things should move a lot faster. I'd personally prefer Debian GNU/OpenBSD though, so I could use pf and actually have decent package management. Maybe that'll come after FreeBSD =)

"Werks fer me." I read through the guide, read through the config file, disabled stuff I knew I didn't need, enabled stuff I did, compiled, and it worked great.

I was doing it on Alpha, maybe that LINT config isn't maintained as well.

Another thing I like is the kernel source tree seems better organized on Linux, I can find the source for what I'm looking for 90% of the time and I don't work on the source often. It's probably a side effect of seperating the kernel from the userland, less files for me to wade through =)

 

[Flatline]

It seems like the Alpha stuff isn't as well maintained on any projects anymore. I guess it's slowly dying off...too bad, because it was such a nice platform. Oh well. Sigh.

 

[Nothinman]

I would think the opposite should happen, the boxes are getting cheaper and cheaper lately. And Debian's Alpha port is still in full swing.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Which is neat, but is it really relevant to any degree right now? Is anyone using Debian GNU/FreeBSD for anything useful? Not that I'm bashing it, I'm just playing devil's advocate (which is what I'm doing a lot of the time here)

It's still in the early stages, once the C library and installer issues get sorted out things should move a lot faster. I'd personally prefer Debian GNU/OpenBSD though, so I could use pf and actually have decent package management. Maybe that'll come after FreeBSD =)

I can't even imagine what Theo's comments may be on that. Baby mulching machines have already been used...

Why not just create a Free apt? I can't imagine making a cross platform, Free licensed apt replacement would be impossible.

 

[Nothinman]

Why not just create a Free apt? I can't imagine making a cross platform, Free licensed apt replacement would be impossible.

The only reason I would be up for it is to use pf on my firewall again, I would be equally happy if someone would port pf to Linux =)

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Why not just create a Free apt? I can't imagine making a cross platform, Free licensed apt replacement would be impossible.

The only reason I would be up for it is to use pf on my firewall again, I would be equally happy if someone would port pf to Linux =)

I like apt though

pf has been ported to the other BSDs. Parts of pf are being used in altq. I don't see why it couldn't be used in Linux, unless someone has political problems with it. I guess it would have to be modular because of the license huh?

 

[Nothinman]

pf has been ported to the other BSDs. Parts of pf are being used in altq. I don't see why it couldn't be used in Linux, unless someone has political problems with it. I guess it would have to be modular because of the license huh?

Modularity wouldn't be a problem for me, I make almost everything modules anyway. I'm sure it's technical possible but I havn't a clue where to even start, I couldn't find much on the linux-net archives.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

pf has been ported to the other BSDs. Parts of pf are being used in altq. I don't see why it couldn't be used in Linux, unless someone has political problems with it. I guess it would have to be modular because of the license huh?

Modularity wouldn't be a problem for me, I make almost everything modules anyway. I'm sure it's technical possible but I havn't a clue where to even start, I couldn't find much on the linux-net archives.

I think too many Linux folk might have issues with admitting Theo was right about something

That and using BSD licensed software in their precious kernel. Well, then again, many Linux people accept closed source crap, so I don't see why BSD license would drive them off.

 

[Nothinman]

I think too many Linux folk might have issues with admitting Theo was right about something

I've actually seen people that like iptables.

That and using BSD licensed software in their precious kernel. Well, then again, many Linux people accept closed source crap, so I don't see why BSD license would drive them off.

I doubt the license would be a huge deal, things like the aic7xxx driver are mainatined from the same source for both Linux and FreeBSD.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I think too many Linux folk might have issues with admitting Theo was right about something

I've actually seen people that like iptables.

I wasn't trying to say IPTables is bad, just that PF is good.

That and using BSD licensed software in their precious kernel. Well, then again, many Linux people accept closed source crap, so I don't see why BSD license would drive them off.

I doubt the license would be a huge deal, things like the aic7xxx driver are mainatined from the same source for both Linux and FreeBSD.

Dual licensed or under one license or public domain?

 

[Nothinman]

I wasn't trying to say IPTables is bad, just that PF is good.

I was saying IPTables is bad, or atleast overly complicated.

Dual licensed or under one license or public domain?

It's dual-licensed but I'm not sure if the first license is BSD or not =)

 

[drag]

It could end up being a effective foil for discussions of linux vs BSD. You could have a computer with the Linux kernel and another with the BSD kernel and then you would be able to compare the effectiveness of each platform easily.

Also how do the BSD folks think of a distro that is outside the control of the traditional BSD overlords(JK)?

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: drag
It could end up being a effective foil for discussions of linux vs BSD. You could have a computer with the Linux kernel and another with the BSD kernel and then you would be able to compare the effectiveness of each platform easily.

Also how do the BSD folks think of a distro that is outside the control of the traditional BSD overlords(JK)?

OSX?