Linux vs. Windows

[Entropy]

Incompetence? WTF, MS has a lot of actually good programmers. It's obviously a marketing issue.

 

Wytter, what about the speed of the programs, and the stability? Does GCC 3.5 generate better (more stable/faster) code?

[Wytter]

Microsoft will most likely have to tell the world that it's due to the first option, as that is their only defence if EU starts looking more into this :0) Would be lovely to hear Balmer state that they're incompetent

 

Ent - GCC 3.5 is still very pre-alpha and right now I cannot even compile the Linux kernel - anyone knows of any patches against 2.6.5? There's really not that much to say about GCC 3.5.0 yet - it is capable of doing some compiling but it's not stable. GCC 3.4 is stable now though - havent experienced any other problems than what I've been able to fix myself with some small hacks in the source of the program I've been compiling - I think that GCC 3.4 will be released very soon, and it does provide approx 3-5% better overall performance than GCC 3.3.3 - impressive when you think about the fact that this is just due to software optimizations in an already highly optimized compiler.

[Cicero]

Well, at least the first one is intentional. You can actually trick the windows boot loader into booting linux, so it is capable of it, just not supported.

 

The second one I figure is intentional too. "What kind of partition is that? Hell, I don't know, it's not one of ours. Let's delete it!"

[Entropy]

I think he wasn't logged in as Admin, so that's why he couldn't write the partition table. Can you do that under Linux if you are !root ?

[Leeloo]

I think he wasn't logged in as Admin, so that's why he couldn't write the partition table. Can you do that under Linux if you are !root ?

 

Sure.

 

$ su -

Password:

# chmod 666 /dev/hda

# exit

$ fdisk /dev/hda

[Roja]

Sure.

 

$ su -

Password:

# chmod 666 /dev/hda

# exit

$ fdisk /dev/hda

 

... :shock:

[Cicero]

Well, that still involves becoming root.

 

And what I'm talking about with partitions is that if you modify the partition table at all with the windows installer, it destroys any unknown partitions. It's called destructive partitioning, and it's really retarded. If you want to mess with partitions in windows without breaking anything, you need to use something like Partition Magic.

[Entropy]

JFC, you can chmod a device? WOW!

[Cicero]

Well, they're represented as files, so yeah.

[Wytter]

udev makes it somewhat easier/more centralized though - just modify the configuration files in /etc/udev/...

[Guest Toyminator]

Wow guys, Mac is way better than Windows and Linux

I have Windows, I got my new Dell computer 1 week and the adware, not-stop-pop-up shit came, never had that with Mac...

[Wytter]

www.mozilla.org is the answer to those problems...

[ShadowKnight]

I just use the google toolbar, and i almost never had that problem. Although, it is pretty much implemented into mozilla.

[Mhorghinach]

Wow guys, Mac is way better than Windows and Linux

 

Toy, at least in germany, owning a mac has much to do with money. You can get offerings for pc starting at about 400 euros. Generally a pc will cost you about 1000 euro. A mac on the other side will start 2000-2500 euro, it's simply double the cost.

 

I switched to linux in 1992, when I was in need to learn TeX to generate mathematical texts. At this time there was no TeX distributions for DOS that could handle font generation properly because of 8.3 file naming restrictions. There I started to use linux with some Slackware release and a 0.97 kernel. Current windows version was 3.11 (windows for workgroups) and mac was too expensive.

 

The next time I need to use windows was in 2000 when I started a job in Munich at a web company which used only microsoft products and in fact was microsoft partner. This company no longer exists. During those 4 years of windows experience, both as a developer on windows and as system and network administrator on windows 2000 server and xp, the hell of windows was becoming my mate (: I noticed the differences in using and administering a windows and a unix like system. And the windows way is a hell, at least from an administration point of view, cause administrative tools are likely to be well hidden from the user.

 

I would prefer to use a mac, at most since the release of macosx, but it;s still too expensive (:

[ShadowKnight]

The only real problem with mac is that all mac products are made by mac. And since they don't have to worry about competition, they tend to charge a lot more because you have to go through them to get mac products.

[Cicero]

The only real problem with mac is that all mac products are made by mac.

 

Way to go Captain Obvious :lol:

 

sorry.... :roll:

[ShadowKnight]

Ya that does sound kinda stupid, but what i was saying is that you won't find an HP computer running panther. They have complete control over all things mac.

[Mhorghinach]

I think that this will rapidly change within the next few years, as there will be more and more GNU and other free software be ported to macosx. For many things there will be only a simple recompile necessary, as macosx is based on BDS Unix, other may need more changes. But the code base will grow rapidliy and in fact it is already growing fast.

[crus]

If u ask me i think what should be much more in our main interest (at least some of us) is development and evolving of linux in every way, server, workstation, desktop OS!

Linux allready has whole alot of good software "better OS with 1000 programs, then OS with 1000 problems" )) But as i read somewhere in an article with which i agree pretty much, main issue with linux is easy maintanance of install software and not only that, installation can sometimes be very edgy (dependencies etc) that is not a problem for most of linux users, but it can/is a big potential problem for new linux users..

 

I personaly would celebrate if KDE would get something like Expose feature from OSX, it is THE most useful thing 2 have .. Many other things as well....

But looking at things as they are now, and as they are constantly evolving, i really think this year and 2005 for SURE will be THE years for linux expanding...

 

I hope for the best

[xavier1]

No on really looks at the Locus of Control in Operating Systems. After watching the Anti-Mac and the Anti-Windows rants, I've realized something. The Locus of Control is very different between these operating systems. And I've decided to throw in Linux, Just for a good old fashion Flame War.

 

Programs crash. They crash all the time, I figure, about 25%* of the time, a program crashes because the OS decided to mess with it. About 70%* of the time, the program crashes because the program went into a state the programmer didn't think about, and since the program cannot handle it, it crashes.

 

How does Locus of Control figure into this? Here's how

 

Windows XP Crashes. A Giant Blue Screen of Death! Kernal Panic! Oh my god! Even if most of the time, its not windows fault it crashed, Windows stops everything. Heck, it even reports the crash to Microsoft! It does everything in its power to make sure it look as if Windows is at fault.

 

OSX Crashes. The program disappears. Its just gone. No warning, no message like, "opps, someone here fragged up", no picture of me crying after I lost my work with the blue apple laughing at me, nothing. Poof, its gone. Sure, OSX recovers gracefully, but a little too gracefully. This makes it feel as if the program is always at fault. If the program messes up OSX enough, then the program locks OSX up!

 

Linux Crashes. Half my services are corrupted! The daemons are hanging or doing nothing. I must run over to another lab, or another computer on my network, telnet in, kill and respawn the daemons, and then I'm back up. This makes Linux look like its built like a brick shithouse. The program EXPLODED! Pow, took out half the daemons! Now thru crafty user input, we're able to recover.

 

Now why is this important? Well, look at the Blame factor rather than the good design factor.

 

With Windows, the OS takes the blame, so horribly written applications seem ok, because it isn't "fly by nite" productions who wrote a bad application, it was M$ Windows with its crappy product.

 

Now with OSX, OSX looks like a god, worship the mighty blue apple. It appears as if I have a great OS and no application that's "good enough" to use it.

 

With Linux, well. Linux makes me its boy wonder to its Batman. Linux is a perfectly capable OS, but when it screws up, you need to help it out with a few quick bateranges. This appeals to the minority of people who like to work *with* a computer, rather than for a computer.

[Mhorghinach]

Hi Xavier1,

 

I do not exactly know what you wanted to say with that post though :?, but to the following you said:

 

Linux Crashes. Half my services are corrupted! The daemons are hanging or doing nothing. I must run over to another lab, or another computer on my network, telnet in, kill and respawn the daemons, and then I'm back up. This makes Linux look like its built like a brick shithouse. The program EXPLODED! Pow, took out half the daemons! Now thru crafty user input, we're able to recover.  

 

This is not only possible on linux. In fact this is possible on any *nix implementation, that is it should be possible on osx too, because it's build upon an BSD microkernel. It may be even possible on a properly configured windows system, at least on a server it IS possible. In my opinion, for most ppl it is not important to get their os back to work at runtime. They simply choose to restart. Such a feature is much more useful for a server environment.

[Wytter]

http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.4/

 

Told you it'd be released very soon ;-) Now it's here, so start your wgets and get the source for the stable GCC 3.4 :-)