Linux doesn't really ever innovate

[mr_demilord]

I agree with your assesment.? Everything I've seen on Linux is based on an idea directly ripped from another product, heck the OS iteself is a rip from Unix.

In terms of offering an OS for free, yes it is innovative.? But the actual platform is not, not even close.

586416374[/snapback]

So is Windows, windows NT is a ripoff of OS/2, wich is made by IBM in the early 80s

If I had to make a list of ideas of windows wich ms ripped from a other product we will have a list that is endless.

So don?t go flame here that linux is a ripoff, no one forces you to use it.

Edited August 22, 2005 by mr_demilord

[C:\Smoke>]

another reason why linux is so innovative is because as soon as a new piece of hardware releases on the market someone, somewhere in their parents' basement is writing device drivers for it.

586416388[/snapback]

Which takes forever, and then doesn't 100% work...

[mr_demilord]

Which takes forever, and then doesn't 100% work...

586416427[/snapback]

Stick with windows then, no one forces you to use linux.

again itś not linux its fault, blame the vendor.

DeJaVu :wacko:

[LaNcom]

Smoke,

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...#entry586416426

KayMan2K,

read my posts in this very thread to see that Linux is not just a mere rip-off, many of the concepts are very innovative (many still unique) and were ripped by other companies. Maybe you could list a few Windows or OSX 'innovations', and we'll see who invented that stuff in the first place... :-)

[ichi]

Building a kernel customizable and scalable enough to run on almost every electronic device is quite innovative.

And how about running your OS from a CD or a pendrive.

[C:\Smoke>]

Stick with windows then, no one forces you to use linux.

again itś not linux its fault, blame the vendor.

DeJaVu  :wacko:

586416446[/snapback]

I am sticking with windows... Just agreeing with the topic starter that Linux doesn't innovate/have good hardware support...

If that was the best comeback you could come up with, then i know i was correct...

off to bigger and better things, have fun squabbling!

[jamend]

So is Windows, windows NT is a ripoff of OS/2, wich is made by IBM in the early 80s

586416406[/snapback]

Not quite. Windows NT was the evolution of Microsoft and IBM's joint OS/2 project.

[raskren]

And how about running your OS from a CD or a pendrive.

586416470[/snapback]

Windows PE.

[mr_demilord]

Windows PE.

586416543[/snapback]

..."You may only install and use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT if you are an active Microsoft Software Assurance Member ("SAM") for the systems product pool or servers product pool, if you currently have license coverage for Microsoft Windows operating system (OS) Upgrades via a Campus Agreement or School Agreement, or if you are a current or former participant in the Windows XP Joint Development Program, Windows XP Rapid Adoption Program, Windows .NET Server Joint Development Program, or Windows .NET Server Rapid Adoption Program. If you do not meet one or more of the requirements listed above, you may not install or use this SOFTWARE PRODUCT and you must terminate the installation of this SOFTWARE PRODUCT immediately"... :x

edit:

Limitations

Windows PE as it is included on the Windows Embedded CD-ROM has the following limitations:

The version of Windows PE included on the Windows XP Embedded CD-ROM cannot be updated or configured. You must purchase a licensed version of Windows PE to add custom support. For information, contact your Microsoft distributor.

Windows PE includes only a subset of the available Win32 APIs. Included are I/O (disk and network) and core Win32 APIs.

Windows PE automatically stops running the shell and reboots after 24 hours of continuous use.

There is no network access to files or folders on a Windows PE computer from another location on your network.

Distributed File System (DFS) name resolution is not supported. There is limited support with Windows PE 1.1 but only for standalone DFS roots.

The tested methods of gaining network connectivity to file servers are TCP/IP and NetBIOS over TCP/IP. Other methods, such as the IPX/SPX network protocol, are not supported.

The drive letters assigned during Windows PE are not saved to any registry that persists when you reboot. The drive letter assignment when you create partitions is in the order of creation, but the drive letter assignments when you reboot will be in the default order.

Windows PE requires a VGA-compatible device and uses a screen resolution of 800 x 600 pixels. If Windows PE cannot detect video settings, the default screen resolution is 640 x 480 pixels.

Windows PE does not support the Microsoft .NET framework :sleep:

Edited August 22, 2005 by mr_demilord

[LaNcom]

Windows PE is not an innovation, Linux does this for many, many years now. So Microsoft may have ripped that idea (just kidding, obviously, as booting a full OS from a single floppy was not exacty uncommon in the early days)... :-)

[jamend]

..."You may only install and use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT if you are an active Microsoft Software Assurance Member ("SAM") for the systems product pool or servers product pool, if you currently have license coverage for Microsoft Windows operating system (OS) Upgrades via a Campus Agreement or School Agreement, or if you are a current or former participant in the Windows XP Joint Development Program, Windows XP Rapid Adoption Program, Windows .NET Server Joint Development Program, or Windows .NET Server Rapid Adoption Program. If you do not meet one or more of the requirements listed above, you may not install or use this SOFTWARE PRODUCT and you must terminate the installation of this SOFTWARE PRODUCT immediately"...  :x

586416562[/snapback]

Now try Windows XP Embedded.

[LaNcom]

Now try Windows XP Embedded.

Why? What is it you want to tell us?

[jamend]

Why? What is it you want to tell us?

586416701[/snapback]

You can do pretty much the same thing as Windows PE with it, and at the same time it's much easier to get a hold of it and you can also build 180-day installations with it for free. Also, it's very much like installing Linux from scratch in that you can choose from a very granular set of components.

[LaNcom]

Well, that's nice, but for an embedded OS, XP is really not that well suited... Anyway, comparing XP Embedded to, say, Knoppix, is quite flawed. Why not compare it to BlueCat Linux from LynuxWorks:

http://www.lynuxworks.com/products/whitepa...p-vs-linux.php3

[jamend]

That's not a fair comparison either. They're comparing many differnent types of embedded Linux to just XP Embedded... I guess nobody told them about Windows CE.

[LaNcom]

No, they _mention_ different distros (to counter Microsofts arguments), but compare XP Embedded to BlueCat. Doesn't really matter, because most features are the same on all embedded Linux distros. And, well, you can compare BlueCat to XP Embedded _or_ Windows CE, because BlueCat really competes with both embedded Windows flavors...

That's one of the nice things about Linux, you don't need Windows XP, XP Embedded, XP ia64, XP x64, CE, Windows for Supercomputers, Windows Smartphone Edition, Windows Automotive Edition or one of the thousand other flavors (using at least three different, incompatible codebases) - with Linux you only need a vanilla kernel, maybe add some patches, compile on any supported architecure with the features you need, and it will run on anything from a wristwatch to a massive parallel supercomputer and everything inbetween. But it's still Linux, still the same kernel, same interfaces, still POSIX-compatible...

[Commodore Max]

Windows has divided itself into different version so it could adapt better to the environment is was in. That's why there are so many different Windows "flavours", it's no weakness, but a strength to diversify a product.

I agree that Linux also does that with it's different distribution types, but the development of each distro is seperated from the other, so they don't have the same goals.

Windows is united, Linux is divided.

[LaNcom]

Wrong. All different Linux flavors are still exactly that: Linux. They are all built on the same kernel, using the same applications. All those companies do is to offer support, some closed source development software, or a set of kernel patches (those patches are still open source and everyone, including other companies, are free to use them if they want). All the different general and special purpose Linux distros still have much more in common than all the different Windows editions. That 'Linux is divided' crap is genuine Microsoft FUD.

Take sgi's Linux for Altix (supercomputer), Novell Linux (desktop) and MontaVista Linux (embedded) for example, they are all Linux, they are all compatible (source-compatible, not binary, of course - different architectures). They may be tweaked for their individual purpose, but all those companies are official Linux kernel contributers, and all their modifications are sent to linux-kernel where Linus decides what goes in and what does not... That's why Linux development is much faster than any other OS's - many different companies, some in different markets, some direct competitors, all work on a single product. When Linux added NUMA support during 2.5, IBM and sgi contributed a NUMA subsystem. Linus used the one from IBM, and that's the official Linux NUMA subsystem these days, constantly improved by sgi, IBM, HP, NEC and SuSE Labs (for AMD). Other than that, many large-scale Linux-contributors focus on different areas (like SuSE Labs focus on amd64 support and USB, while sgi focuses on ia64 support, clustering, some networking and some filesystem work).

[markwolfe Veteran]

Windows is united, Linux is divided.

586417430[/snapback]

That seems to come from the Microsoft propoganda that "Linux will fork and splinter into a hundred incompatible distros".

The truth is, Linux uses the GPL, which requires the sources to be re-contributed back to the community that provides the source to begin with. This provides a feedback and stabilization method that did not exist on other previous Unixes (Unices?). In those cases, one could take the code, modify it, and keep their changes to themselves. This created the mess of incompatible Unix versions.

In the GPL system, yes, a developer could decide to develop something on their own. It may turn out to be a dead-end. It may turn out to be low-usage (the fluxbox window manager comes to mind). Or it may turn out to be mainstream (firefox or xorg - recently forked from XFree86 - are good examples). Does the little-used fluxbox have problems running a full OpenOffice.org or GIMP? No. Because the Window Manager is one of many interchangeable components, invisible to the applications running.

Yes, there are hundreds of directions in Linux. Some toward greater UI integration (KDE and Gnome development) and others toward minimal - or even no graphical interface. The end user gets a system that is tailored for them. The whole moves on and gathers momentum.

In Windows... well.. You have Microsoft's vision. If you don't like it: why, there is precious little choice other than to try to hack and reverse engineer their product, or to use a different product. Not to say that their products stink. Most of them perform quite well. However, Microsoft's purposes and goals do not match my own.

[NeoXY]

How does it not innovate? And from where in Northern Ontario are you from?

586413250[/snapback]

:laugh: :laugh: be careful how you answer or he'll hunt you down... :rofl: :rofl:

[Marshalus Veteran]

Windows is united, Linux is divided.

586417430[/snapback]

There is no point in even trying to convince you otherwise when you make statements like that.

[h3xis]

There is no point in even trying to convince you otherwise when you make statements like that.

it's hard to convince people of anything if they haven't used it. having a linux distro installed alongside XP doesn't mean you use it and this applies for poking around in gnome/kde.

[C:\Smoke>]

There is no point in even trying to convince you otherwise when you make statements like that.

586418028[/snapback]

I kinda agree with his point tho... Look at all the different standards!

RPM

YUM

Apt-Get

Emerge

Source Code

...

there are more... its hard to find all the apps you want in one standard... Windows doesn't have this problem.

[h3xis]

kinda agree with his point tho... Look at all the different standards!...

rpm is a standalone package format, like deb - nothing confusing about it. yum is the yellow dog update manager which red hat has adopted. apt-get does the same thing, it's just meant for debian based distros, but has been ported to the majority now. emerge is for gentoo, which acts like software management in the BSD environment. and source code? um...it's what's for dinner? windows DOES have this problem. you can't update your operating system with a single command and oh yeah...you aren't forced to validate your operating system.

[Marshalus Veteran]

Windows is united because who else do they have to unite with? It's Microsoft and Microsoft. Linux allows anyone to take it and build an operating system. If I wanted to (which I do and will someday, but am advanced enough to do) I could take the Kernel and build my own operating system from scratch. It's "divided" because thats what it was designed to be.

Windows has its advantages, as does Linux. I use Windows at work and would never think of installing Linux there because the software we use just works the way it is. However, when I get home I want to play around and learn about the way things work. There is no sence in bitching about which one is better because neither one is better all around, just better for a specific task.

it's hard to convince people of anything if they haven't used it. having a linux distro installed alongside XP doesn't mean you use it and this applies for poking around in gnome/kde.

586418444[/snapback]

Right.

I kinda agree with his point tho... Look at all the different standards!

RPM

YUM

Apt-Get

Emerge

Source Code

...

there are more... its hard to find all the apps you want in one standard... Windows doesn't have this problem.

586418468[/snapback]

Windows has multiple ways of installing and updating programs as well. In a lot of ways things like Yum and Apt-Get or other package managers are ahead of Windows as they allow developers a way to make sure their software is getting upgraded from a central interface as opposed to each programing having to worry about it on their own.