Linux=windows95

[configure Veteran]

The very best change that mikrosoft made from moving from WIN 3.X series to windoes 9X series was the introduction of windows Start Menu panel.

Really man? I thought the whole 16 bit -> 32 bit was pretty significant :rolleyes:

[Codegen]

So did I...

[kjordan2001]

Really man? I thought the whole 16 bit -> 32 bit was pretty significant :rolleyes:

Naw, it's all about the start menu, 16-bit -> 32-bit was just so they could jack up the price :ninja:

[MR_Candyman]

Naw, it's all about the start menu, 16-bit -> 32-bit was just so they could jack up the price :ninja:

no way, it was all about the 2 built-in themes, now THAT is class!

[Codegen]

...As quick launch was the biggest enhancement to win98 :shifty:

[nuka_t]

personally, i like the fact that there are 20 text editors in linux distros. it gives you choice, and oy udont have to install them all. i, personally, just install them all and try em out and uninstall the ones i dont like. why be stuck with notepad? for a noob like me, having all the possible programs installed on my computer for me to try out saves tons of time looking around for the right one.

Mepis is attempting to make a "one text editor" distro called simply mepis. what they do is put up polls on mepis.org on "whats your favourite text editor" and they include the one that wins. i might just have to give simplymepis a tryinstead of using Mepis.

to the original poster that said that kde=win95, just one example is did windows 95 have cd and dvd burning capabilities? did windows 95 never crash? did windows 95 have native support for ogg files? did windows95 have 4 web browsers included? no. it didnt.

so by this simple logic, Linux + KDE>win95.

[dotRoot]

Linux is the kernel. Without an install of X* it is "command line" only.

I'm pretty sure Unix can also either run X* or has it's own equivalent.

Back on topic. Yay, another 12 year old who's given Linux a shot, couldn't find his way around and went into "OMG LYNICKS SUCKS AND I MUST TELL ALL!!!!!!" mode.

X was made to run in UNIX and still will. You can run KDE and Gnome in it I believe (although I'm not too sure anymore).

Yeah Linux is a command line OS stock. Linux was never a "GUI for UNIX" and in its true infancy offered a lot of improvements compared to UNIX, but a GUI wasn't one of them.

-

As far as the original statement by the thread poster goes, nobody has even scraped the surface of the obvious reason why Linux > Windows 95 (9x handsdown period). However, there's no reason too. I doubt the thread starter even reads this thread and everyone is just preaching to the choir ;). But that's just my half of a nibble.

[El_Cu_Guy]

There was an effort called UnitedLinux that attempted to bring several distros together so that they would have a common look and feel.

It wasn't about a common look and feel. It was about a more common codebase and shared [and controlled] software development. The look and feel was up to the individual distributors (Caldera, SuSE, Conectiva, and TurboLinux). It wasn't centered around the l&f nor what this app over that one. Base programs to a degree yes.

One of the participants was Caldera and when they were purchased by SCO it kind of ended that little dream.

Caldera wasn't bought by SCO and SCO wasn't bought by Caldera. Caldera bought various Unix properties and divisions from SCO (The Santa Cruz Operation). SCO became Tarantella. Caldera would later become The SCO (pronounced 'skoh' like 'doh' like a word not an acronym) Group. Later they would refer to it simply as SCO (prnounced 'skoh') and then later as S C O purposefully causing a lot of confusion between them and oldSCO. One example of this:

That idea is still a good one. Decide on one desktop environment. Decide on one text editor. etc...

Again not what UnitedLinux was about.

X was made to run in UNIX and still will. You can run KDE and Gnome in it I believe (although I'm not too sure anymore).

Yes both have been or could be ported to a myriad of unices and even not-quite-unix OSes like like BeOS or the defunct AtheOS).

Yeah Linux is a command line OS stock.

Linux is a kernel. There is no stock OS. There are numerous CLIs which can be used.

[dotRoot]

Linux is a kernel. There is no stock OS. There are numerous CLIs which can be used.

Linux is a kernal, correct. However, when people usually say "Linux" they mean GNU/Linux. That's what I meant. Nobody cares to type it all out like that. Its not really important in this discussion anyway, but to restate just for you: "Yeah GNU/Linux is a command line OS stock."

But I'm sure everyone who seen it took it like that anyway ;)

[Makeshift Hammer]

How has it exactly failed ? If you mean in terms of sales then I dont think it was competing for sales in the first place. Its free.

When you can't even give something away...

[threetonesun]

I think Linux is already there.

I still remember my first few go rounds of installing binaries and then going ... where the heck did that file go?

I think OSX really does have installation down best, but as you said, it's a unified architecture. Linux, on the other hand, has some of the best updating packages I've ever seen. Using synaptic on Redhat made life so incredibly easy, especially with all those small pre-1.0 programs that get used that would require weekly visits to websites to get in Windows.

[El_Cu_Guy]

How has it exactly failed ? If you mean in terms of sales then I dont think it was competing for sales in the first place. Its free.

It may be free from some source but you must remember that free is about freedom. In terms of sales it will likely never catch up with the Likes of other software such as MS Windows.

This post has gotten out of hand with all too many people ranting and raving over something started by a troll. Be kind to the trolls. When sites like Adequacy.org shut down many of them found themselves without a home. And even Slashdot wouldn't take them as many times the discussion is well over their heads. Again be kind to the trolls...just don't feed them.

[markwolfe Veteran]

When you can't even give something away...

Please go troll somewhere else...

Regarding the deskop

Source: IDG

"Linux captured the No. 2 spot as desktop operating system in 2003," IDC analyst Dan Kusnetzky told IDG News Service. Kusnetzky predicted Linux will have 6 percent of the desktop market by 2007.

Source: Gartner

Gartner, a market research firm based in Stamford, Connecticut, predicts desktop Linux's market share will reach 7.5 percent by 2008.

Regarding server sales (in a decling 2003 market): Source: IDG

Analysts from IDC say that server sales fell in the first quarter of 2003 by 3.6% from the same period a year ago.

Linux was by far the biggest winner in first-quarter sales. It grabbed a 35% increase over the quarter a year ago, to $583 million.

[JadeWolf324]

linux can be a highly competent workstation OS and Desktop OS. but its only as good as its contributors. which says something for Microsoft and apple doesnt it.

honestly, being a linux user, i myself and upset with the current state of linux. im not saying that its in a BAD state but im saying that its in a state that requires way too much thought about way too many aspects of it. sure i could go and download a copy of MDK 10. but, the modifications to the file system, the window manager, and so many other things about it stops making it feel like linux to me. Redhat...well..go figure, anyhow but OSes like Gentoo and Slackware are really the best choices to go. Slackware for its basic setup which in turn makes its true power shine. and Gentoo for its power and customizablity. but both have their share of pitfalls just like anything else. lets not forget dependency hell. and there is no way to fix that, other than packaging all the dependencies together, which i can really understand why no one (or few) do that.

Linux is a fantastic operating system, and im sad that i cant use it nearly as much as i used to. but what its really gonna come down to to get my true vote and throw me back into linux again is 3rd party support. i want to know my ipod will work when i plug it in. (and it will in a few months), i want to know i can easily pick any printer out there and it will work straight out of the box with linux, i want to know that reguardless of the manufacturer of my graphics card, it will work to its fullest potential. i want to know that i can buy anything i want and it will interface correctly. thats the whole point of an OS, and if they lose that fundamental need/reason for exsitance. its not even an OS anymore.

i would love to use linux again, but honestly...everytime i leave linux, there is always a reason i went back.

Edited August 11, 2004 by JadeWolf324

[Fred Derf Veteran]

lets not forget dependency hell. and there is no way to fix that, other than packaging all the dependencies together, which i can really understand why no one (or few) do that.

This harps back at my issue that too much choice and too much freedom can also be a weakness.

A new developer might think "Should I use the QT libraries, the GTK libraries, the whatever else libraries or should I write my own libraries?"

Users end up with a mish mash of applications that use a myriad of libraries. It's not terribly efficient. Some central direction would be nice.

Don't get me wrong. The choice and freedom of Linux is also a strength. Microsoft offers too much central control and "Linux" (as a loose collection of developers) offers too little.

I guess I would like some of the little groups (or big groups) to get together rather than everyone trying to reinvent the wheel.

For example, why do the Gnome people still bother with Epiphany? Isn't that just a waste of resources now that Firefox is here?

[JadeWolf324]

This harps back at my issue that too much choice and too much freedom can also be a weakness.

A new developer might think "Should I use the QT libraries, the GTK libraries, the whatever else libraries or should I write my own libraries?"

Users end up with a mish mash of applications that use a myriad of libraries. It's not terribly efficient. Some central direction would be nice.

Don't get me wrong. The choice and freedom of Linux is also a strength. Microsoft offers too much central control and "Linux" (as a loose collection of developers) offers too little.

I guess I would like some of the little groups (or big groups) to get together rather than everyone trying to reinvent the wheel.

For example, why do the Gnome people still bother with Epiphany? Isn't that just a waste of resources now that Firefox is here?

if theres anything about linux i would love to see. is like a big conference with all of the developers of all major projects that change the face of linux. free to attend and exhibit. and the entire goal is to start binding together to create smarter solutions for Open Source, i agree there are so many damn libraries. maybe its time to adopt a "framework" type language?

[El_Cu_Guy]

is like a big conference with all of the developers of all major projects that change the face of linux. free to attend and exhibit.

It's called LSB (Linux Standard Base). Read up on it.

The biggest problem is not that developers and major distibutions aren't excepting it. So what is. Well let's look into some fairly recent history.

Only a few years ago during the big dot-com boom GNU/Linux was really starting to take off. Unfortunately everybody and their grandmother felt the need to create their own operating system (quite similar to how everyone had to have a webpage back in the early 90s). Unfortuantely, many projects failed for various reasons and people joined other projects that soon failed. Now you come to the relative present. It's gotten worse.

Nowadays you have everyone running around ****ing and moaning about stupid **** like the fact that they don't like the mascot, color(s) of the logo or some other stupid crap, and starting their own GNU/Linux distro. How many "I'm gonna start my own distro" threads have you read this week? "Oh the filesystem is just too complex for my l33t Microsoftite skriptkiddie wannabe brain to comprehend, so I'm gonna muck it all up...." I'd be rather impressed if they actually did something innovative but making a distribution that runs Linux/Unix/Windows/Apple apps natively and having people flock to it to set up hosting and design logos and so on and so forth is just dumb.

It's about fragmentation. Not because of the numerous choices of software but because of utter stupidity.

To all you LFS guys that think you're gonna be the next Jobs, Gates or Torvalds, find an existing project that already does 90% of wht your imaginary uber distro will do. Maybe then we can do away with all this cookie cutter garbage and get down to accomplishing something.

[kjordan2001]

To all you LFS guys that think you're gonna be the next Jobs, Gates or Torvalds, find an existing project that already does 90% of wht your imaginary uber distro will do. Maybe then we can do away with all this cookie cutter garbage and get down to accomplishing something.

So we're just supposed to throw away our own personal distros and give into Mandrake or Redhat? Maybe we like learning about Operating Systems by building our own from scratch but we're not good enough to code our own yet. I agree there needs to be standards, but that shouldn't wipe out all the other stuff. That's the beauty of Linux, you can make it to what you want. Some want to learn from it, others want it to be just like Windows. I don't think one grand unified distro is the answer. Otherwise that's just like Microsoft and Apple isn't it? Each program in Linux was designed by a different person and somehow they just go together and work. There's no way to unite it as is. Even the major distros take a program someone wrote and customize it for their distro. How do you expect all those people who wrote those programs to unite it all into one grand distro? They are all over the Earth, so there's no way to make everyone do one thing. People like their distributions different ways too. Some people like rpms, some people like it built from scratch or like their programs compiled so they're optimized. How can we make all these users happy? It's like saying all the TV stations have to merge together and only show one type of show.

Edited August 12, 2004 by kjordan2001

[PureEdit]

I think Linux is already there.

All I need to do to run a program (we are talking a compiled binary here, not someone's source code) is to put it where Linux can find it. These "installers" aren't anything more than trying to make that easy.

For example, if you wrote a program to reverse the characters in every line of text you entered, all I would have to do is put it in my /bin/ folder (or any other directory in my PATH that I choose).

What ends up seeming tricky is that if someone supplies source code in a "tarball", that must be untarred and unbzipped - then configure, make, make install. The advantage of distributing as source is that an i386 user, a PPC user, a SPARC user or any Linux user can take that exact same package and make it run on their PC - regardless of archetecture! A universal package, indeed! :yes: I believe that tools like emerge on Gentoo do this - but I may be wrong.

Some people don't want to be bothered with compiling. For them, they just want the binaries. However, binaries may very from setup to setup - depending in installed libraries, etc. They are also incompatible from CPU archetecture to CPU archetecture. The convenience of binaries is paid for at the cost of universal-ity. (is that even a word?) :unsure:

Binaries can be made somewhat more convenient (but still require the redundancy of separate builds) by the use of repositories specific for an archetecture, or even distro types.

But, in the end, Linux really is exactly what you asked for. Put the binary on your drive, and execute. (Y)

(it just needs some better polish on the methodology for the 'average' computer user) ;)

Your right for text based tools, but problems start with more complex applications.

XMMS for example, you not only need the binary but a lot other files required to run the app.If these were included in a single file (which should be easy) it would be better.

[kjordan2001]

Your right for text based tools, but problems start with more complex applications.

XMMS for example, you not only need the binary but a lot other files required to run the app.If these were included in a single file (which should be easy) it would be better.

I find that pretty wasteful though. You'd download the same file over and over for different applications. Although I guess it depends on whether people want to download a package with the same files you've had in another package, or go through dependency hell (which has already been solved mostly).

[:No-Frost:]

Well the truth.... I love Linux...I remember my first time with that OS (when I was 14-15 year's old, back in 1997)... Damn... I was amased with the OS...

But I get just one point dissapointed...GAMES :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I like games specially Counter Strike... But linux doesn't run games pretty well... Besides, there are very few that are builded for linux (or unix... the same...almost)

If I can play the games just as I play in windows... Damn I would be happy....

PD: Sorry if my english is bad, but I'm from Chile in South America and my language is spanish "by default" :pinch: ...

[Mike Douglas]

with Cedega i can run CS at about 100fps :-/

[Fred Derf Veteran]

It's about fragmentation. Not because of the numerous choices of software but because of utter stupidity.

To all you LFS guys that think you're gonna be the next Jobs, Gates or Torvalds, find an existing project that already does 90% of wht your imaginary uber distro will do. Maybe then we can do away with all this cookie cutter garbage and get down to accomplishing something.

Really, it's all about politics. Linux programmers are probably not the most outgoing people in the world. People would rather be a big fish in a small pond.

Take a distro like Mepis, for instance. The improvements that they have made (full graphical installer, etc...) could have been easily integrated with Knoppix. For that matter, Knoppix could be integrated into Debian. There are soo many Debian-based distros out there. If they were are under a single umbrella then they would be a major force in the world of Linux.

[ootput]

Hi, welcome to Neowin! Enjoy your stay.

That said, please post this elsewhere.. perhaps a personal blog? Ignore the Linux-portion of Neowin/TheWorld altogether, please.

[MkNawabi]

Will you guys get it through your heads? Linux is a KERNEL. not an OS.