Let's roll up our shirt and start some argument warfare ... abiding Astahost "laws" of course .

The only reason that Windows is surviving on today's market is their WIN32 API that they have forced other vendors to accept (See Halloween Document). They start dragging other vendors into the blackhole stating that if they sell other operating systems, their license would be removed from them (Ask your local vendor). In international laws, that's called predatory sales. Which is highly illegal, but Bill Gates and his buddies have the money, which corrupts the US market laws buy paying money through to the government bodies. It's not just the US, but the whole world. There comes the word "corruption" (Check the internation trade laws and you'll find that predatory pricing and sales are illegal).

There's only a few things that Microsoft has ever invented: Microsoft Bob and the annoying paperclip. They also popularized the Blue Screen of Death and the "three finger salute" (CTRL+ALT+DEL).

99% of whatever they "own" were bought off other competitors whom they know they can't compete with. The reason why they don't have Linux and other opensource operating systems is that you can't retain ownership on opensource software.

If you say Windows is the greatest thing ever, see how they're having major issues with Windows Vista. They need to rewrite the whole damn thing just to get it as stable as Windows XP. They're now closing in closer to how UNIX is operated. They are also the only company who denounces the opensource movement.

Microsoft is also famous for making their own standards because they love to say "we invented something so ingenious that you should buy it from us, when the better counterpart is free and is opensource which allows you to modify in everyway possible while our code is closed and costs money".

List of everything Microsoft was credited of inventing but never invented: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_asset...oft_Corporation

Problem with Microsoft? EVERYTHING THEY DO EXCEPT THE XBOX.

Why do I say the XBOX and the Microsoft Gaming Studios are great? They compete fairly on the market field. It's because it's a levelled "battlefield". The only way that Microsoft can compete against other competitor is if they have a rigged battlefield that is on their side. They can only compete fairly or worse on a levelled battlefield.


So I ask, why are you supporting such company that supports piracy, corruption, elimination of freedom, going against the will of humanity and are practically outlaws?

They're practically the Nazis of the computer world!

xboxrulz

*P.S: If there's anything violating the "laws" of Astahost, I'm regretably sorry.*

 

 

 

Reply

Now you're talkin'! We share the same idea here. I agree. . Totaly.

Reply

Windows might be stealing ideas from other corporations but those corporations didn't take advantage of their own ideas in the first place. I need to say here that i'm not a Microsoft fan even though I use Windows and other Micorosoft products. Micorosoft didn't start out as a big, giant corporation. They grow into one by taking advantage of the chances given to them. MacOS might have started the GUI idea but they refused to license it to IBM compatible computers, which is the dominant standard.

Reply

And it's dominant just because they are cheaper than MacOs. Cheaper doesn't necessarily mean better.

Reply

Here we go again.

See I will lay down a few common sense facts:

Is MS evil with its Monopoly?

In short, yes it is.

How should, we the users, react to it?

We should be thankful that we have one OS on which we can be assured to depend peacefully on. Yes that goes for Windows.
I know many would make a fuss with the term 'depend' and quote all kinda MS evil deeds, but let me make a point clear. What is dependence in my and our terms?
I buy CS Source for Windows, one step install, and within the next minute I am playing it. Time taken 15-20 minutes flat.
I get the same for Linux to set up a LAN Server, and I face all sort of inhuman problems on getting it running on my Mandrake 10.1
Then somehow i get to run the stuff and then I realise that the Linux CS Server is performing even worse than Windows 98!!! Reason? Oh damn I forgot to keep a swap partition for my Linux! (OK my fault, but anyone can make this common mistake!) I re-install the stuff with a nice share of swap partition and then again go thru the Mandrake incompatibility issue and finally get to run the game. Time taken? 4 hours.

Even games designed to run on Linux don't always perform the best. Now if one application is designed to run on Red Hat (fedora) why can't it be equally compatible with other distros??? There are practically 100s of Distros and not even a single of them provides complete satisfaction.

OK that was an end user view. Now I come down to programming view. My client wants a s/w written to run on both Windows and Linux. I initially think of using Java but Java simply refused to provide me core OS features of Linux and Windows. So I used Qt instead, which I was sure to be perfect on both the OSes. Fine, I deliver an RPM which I tested on Fedora 3,4. Now he comes back complaining that my RPM wudn't install on Suse9 and Mandrake 9.1 (which most of his clients were using on Laptop). Of course not every end user understands how to satisfy 'dependencies'. Fine I give all the packages I used hence satisfying dependencies that wud ever occur. Now I get another complaint that one of the dependencies crashed the whole OS on one of the client's computer! Basically it uninstalled another package in order for itself to run and that in turn being not backward compatible destabilized KDE.
Finally giving up, I end up delivering the package that I compiled on Windows along with 'Wine' with a pretty Installer
No complaints ever till now, rather I got to hear, "why didnt you do that in the first place?!"

If Astahost forum ever monitors that which user uses which OS while browsing, I suppose it will turn out that I come here using Windows 50% times and Linux 50% times. I am a fair user of both the OSes and love trying out the latest stuff in Linux.
No doubt that Linux is superb and probably the most wonderful OS ever built. The problem is of standardization.
THERE ARE NO FIXED STANDARDS
Hundreds of Distros with not even a single one of them being perfect. Not all s/w behave well on every other Distro.

But yes I must say one thing, Linux is the way to go. And WE ALL KNOW THAT LINUX IS BENEFICIAL FOR US!!!

So instead of ARGUING ABOUT WHICH IS BETTER, we must accept that Linux is as of yet way inferior on the Desktop Market (and will even loose on the server market if the things go at this pace).

What we must do collaboratively is to make Linux even more perfect. And as of now the only area were Linux lacks is standardization. I use Mandriva 2006, but I don't get all the support needed for it. Fedora has a lot of support for sure. But then features that of Mandriva aren't there on Fedora! The day this Distro Hell ends, is the day we win.

My conclusion: Linux needs standardization, until then, it will receive a harsher defeat by Vista. I know people who are dying to get Vista as if it was the Harry Potter 7 release.

 

 

 

Reply

A few days ago, someone was telling me about this great software for windows.

It allows you to freeze your hard disk partiton, so you can install any software, even knowing it is full of spyware, or virrii, then when you re-boot, your partiton is restored to before, and all ill efets un-done.

think of it as the system restore, but much better.

In Windows, this sort of thing is called "Great software"

a great addon... somthing you download from the internet, play with a free trial period, then opay for if you like it...



In Linux / UNIX, this functionality is built into the kernel...

its called the chroot system call.

Its a basic part of operating system functionality, that every operating sysdtem has...

but in windows, it is lacking, and you need a whole software suite with loads of bulk to emulate it.

chroot is a basic operating system security feature... windows keps promising security enhancements, but down in the heart of the OS, they lack even the most basic system calls.




SECONDLY.....
I Love the Design of UNIX / Linux.

Its so simple, yet elegant.. For example, you can backup the boot sector, or Master boot record with the copy command !!!!

Yet, this task is impossable in windows, you would need to get on the internet, and download some specialised software.. doing it with a simple copy command is just impossable...




THIRDLY......

I have am AMD64.. the processor runs at scaleable frequancies.. between 1Ghz and 2.4Ghz.

Sometimes i play Silent Hill on my playstation emulator.

Because Games like this always use 100% CPU, even though they dont ned it, my CPU gets hotter, and my cpu fan starts spinning... increaced noise.

In linux... i can use a very simple script that will...

1) change the cpu frequuency govenor from "On Demand" to "User controlled"
2) slow CPU frequancy, and CPU voltage
3) launch the game
4) wait for the game to finish running.
5) Return CPU frequency controll to "On Demand"

This entire script, which changes the processor voltage and frequancy, does everything using very basic commands, like copy, and echo...

Try changing your processor speed / voltage in windows in a script...

you cant, you need special 3rd party downloaded software.

try changing the cpu frequancy in windows with the very simple echo / copy commands...

Un-thinkable.

In windows... if there isnt a button you can click to do somthing,,, then you probably cannot do it.

Its all about design ladies and gebntleman...

Unix / Linux gives us things like the root file system, and mountable disks...

Windows gave you the 'C' drive....

LOL

goooo gentoo

well... thats my opinion anyways...

there will always be people who want high power operating systems...

abnd there will always be people who dont need power, and are happy just being able to do whatever there is a button in a start menu for

both are fine.. its up-to the individual...

I Want a powerfull operating system... i want a high level of access... i want few, small simple programs which can be piped together to complete larger complicated tasks...

i want a compiler

i want Unix / Linux.



Linux Distro's need more standardisation,

but Linux itself is POSIX compliant. as are almost all operating systems.

Windows is no-where near POSIX standards, and doesnt seem to be attempting to work towards compliance.

Try to compile a complicated porgram like ffmpeg on UNIX.... then Linux, then solaris, then FreeBSD...

this is the power of posix compliance...

then try to compile it on windows.... you will see what i mean.

Reply

qwijibow, you kill the point here.

UNIX is by far the master piece of a human brain in designing an operating system. Every person who is into computer science will know it and admire it just like I do.

There are lots of things in this world that are superb, yet they fail. This were the difference between a tech guy and a business man lies. OK probably I would like to end this discussion by quoting an interview of Ken Thompson (designer of UNIX, co-creator) on Linux.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/05/05/un...lambasts_linux/


And that is exactly what I have been trying to prove! Considering present pace of Open Source, it will not withstand the MS pressure.
Those who have migrated from Windows to Linux will soon migrate back to Vista and wudn't even look back! Hell they don't care about some quirky chroot() or POSIX standards!



When the mastermind says that, I simply don't feel like arguing against it. Whatever advantages of Linux are quoted, is all due to UNIX in the first place.



...Linux needs standardization

qwijibow, what your friend described about sounds much rather like the disk image tool. back up the hard disk when it is in good state as an image. whenever u see ur system crashing, simply restore the image in a matter of few minutes.

I don't know exactly but yes in Linux maybe I could do it with the dd command

Reply

it is true that Linux needs standardization, that's why we have the new Linux Standards Base 3.1, which also standardizes desktop.

This means that Linux is both LSB and POSIX compliant but Windows is only WIN32 compliant and no one knows the whole compliancy ('cept the employees).

Actually, distros like Fedora, SuSE and Ubuntu are swappable between each other except the package management system.

xboxrulz

Reply

Hey, Ganeshn11, you're the only one who seems to be on my side. As for your ancient collection, three cheers! (and one more from me!).

Keep up the Microsoft pride, dude. Thanks a lot!

-Omkar Ekbote

Reply

Well, Omkar, if your goal from starting this thread is for people to disclose the various versions of Microsoft's Operating Systems they have, I might as well pitch in...

1. DOS 6.2 and 6.22 (on floppy disks)
   
2. Windows 3.1
   
3. Windows 3.11
   
4. Windows 95
   
5. Windows 98 Second Edition
   
6. Windows Millennium Edition
   
7. Windows 2000 Professional Edition
   
8. Windows XP Corporate Edition (multiuser license)

Of course, all of them are legal, authentic versions. So does that mean I'm a Microsoft fan? Absolutely not. In fact, at times I can be 100% anti-Microsoft. But frankly, my family would never consider using any other OS, and I'm always looking forward to test new software, so I go ahead and purchase Windows Operating Systems. I don't think I'm going to get Vista though, since XP is doing a great job for my family.

As for me, I run a dual-boot system between a version of Linux I created from scratch and Mircosoft Windows XP.

I'm not going to discuss why I'm not such a raving fan of Microsoft, since this is a subject that's been brutally discussed before, and the guys here have it pretty well covered. But I can understand where you're coming from. Windows gives you what you need, so you have no reason to look for anything more. I suppose there's nothing wrong with that, from a pragmatic, arguably short-sighted view.

Anyway, thanks for starting a thread that provoked some members into writing very interesting posts .


Warm regards,
Mobham

Reply