Jump to content


What OS do you use?


  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

Poll: What OS do you use?

What OS do you use?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#26 OFFLINE   LilBambi

LilBambi

    Australisches Googler

  • Forum Admins
  • 22,548 posts

Posted 24 March 2003 - 09:14 AM

You are right, Thunder :) .  Minux is definitely Linux, but it isn't the same as the Linux many newcomers to Linux would be familiar with. It is commandline only, but networkable.Unlike most Linux distros (distributions) today, it can run off floppy, but we put it on the 40GB hard drive on the 386 notebook so it would load faster.Because of Windows, some folks think of XFree86...the GUI (ie, KDE, Gnome) as what Linux is. Course I am sure you understand the difference. Linux is actually the underpinning Kernel operating system and the GUI rides on top of it much as the old DOS/Windows days, except that the GUI actually does much better than Windows did on top of DOS at its age in Time.Also, Linux is a UNIX type OS. It has its roots there. The original Kernel was written from the ground up by Linus Torvalds. Linus still maintains control of the Kernel to make sure it doesn't branch in ways that that would not be good for the Linux community, but many, many dedicated opensource developers have built it to what it is today.freeBSD is a true UNIX and you can really feel the difference. It is faster, leaner....when doing anything from what I have seen. Anyone who is used to Linux, will immediately see the difference when using freeBSD for the first time. Even the names for the hard drives, network cards and PPP devices are  different than you see in Linux. The overall naming convention is different, and the directory heirarchy is different as well. But the logic is still very similar to Linux because they both are UNIX-based, once you learn where everything is and what everything is called. freeBSD can run Bash (but there are differences in some of its abilities) and SSH shells just like you can in Linux. Some things will be notably missing however. You will not find a unified configuration utility like Linuxconf in freeBSD (but then Linuxconf didn't come stock in RedHat 7.3 either...they have graphical configuration utilities now in RedHat).  In freeBSD, it's roll your own, and they mean it...from the commandline :)The GUIs (KDE, Gnome, ICE, etc.) and most programs (including office packages) that can be run in Linux have been ported to freeBSD as well.  And from what I have seen, they actually run more efficiently, even on older hardware, than any 'flavor' of Linux.You are absolutely right, the XFree86 community has come a long way and I have a great deal of respect for these dedicated programmers, as I do for any of the Linux opensource community of programmers.  However, personally, I think they need some serious font developers though  :P . Their fonts are much more jagged than anything you will see in Windows, which makes the GUI less 'pretty' than we have grown accustomed to with Windows.But you have to love the fact that you can have 7 terminals in use at the same time, all independent of one another and that's not even counting seudo terminal windows within the GUI (like a DOS box in Windows). This makes it possible to do many things at once in a way M$ has never been able to provide. Even in XP to log in as another user, it pretty much suspends the current user until you switch back to that login, although you can run programs as another user...that was a big step for Windows. But in Linux there is no such limitation.You can be logged in as a normal user in KDE, surfing the web in Mozilla or any other browser, (with multiple browser windows and/or tabs open), building webpages in another program on another Desktop, all while writing letters in OpenOffice on another of the 4 stock GUI Desktops (another alien concept to Windows), while listening to MP3s in XMMS (just like you can in any GUI situation). However, it doesn't stop there.  I can also be logged into IRC in commandline on another terminal, or in the GUI on another Desktop; log in as root (administrator) and take care of configuration tweaking in another terminal; crunching mp3s (from wavs off of our CDs, cassettes, albums), or a home video in another terminal; log in remotely to another computer network in another terminal to do maintenance on their computers, and everything continues doing what it was doing when I switch away to another terminal or another  GUI terminal (or Desktop as they are called in Linux).  It is a true multi-user, multi-tasking environment.Don't get me wrong, here. I have done many many things in Windows at the same time (and often cringed knowing it many crash and take the system down). I have had so many programs and browser open in Windows (Win98se) that you have to hover over the tiny slice across the bottom to see what they are. And I really do love using Windows.But try being simultaneously logged in as different users with different rights doing different things (live, not suspended) at the same time in any version of Windows.This may not seem like much, but once you experience it, it is like having several computers going and being on a KVM switch between them.  The only thing that could hold you back at all is your physical memory and processor speed if you were to try to do too many huge tasks that are extremely intensive at one time.  I have pushed it to the limit, but Linux doesn't generally ever crash. The GUI might crash if you push the GUI memory envelope or load a badly behaved program or java causes a 100% utilization situation to happen (which also happens at times even in WinXP), but generally you can either kill the offending process (like you generally can in WinXP), but even if the GUI itself locks in Linux you can generally go to a terminal to kill the process, or get out of the GUI and then start it again. All without ever having to restart the computer.My Linux box's current uptime is:29 days, 15:29 hours, with 6 users simultaneously logged in.BTW: It didn't crash when I took it down nearly 30 days ago...we took all the computers down due to a weather event in our area.Gotta love it!   B)
Bambi
AKA Fran

Posted Image
My Public Key for Email :: BambisMusings Blog :: Fran's Computer Services Blog :: MyPassionIsBooks Blog :: 5BuckReview :: CNIRadio
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." ~John Gilmore (Time Magazine, Dec 6, 1993)

#27 Guest_ThunderRiver_*

Guest_ThunderRiver_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 March 2003 - 05:33 PM

LilBambi, wow nice long post you have there ;)BSD and Linux are certainly different in structures, and the ports system in BSD is just amazing. I can see your arguement between Windows and *NIX regarding the ability to login multiple users. Well, personally, I don't think the arguement is valid since BSD was originally built as a game OS, and later on turned into a server..and then evolved into workstation that general users can use. Windows on the other hand, is personal computing all the way. Thus, if you compary BSD/Linux with Winodws 2003 Enterprise Server, you will see that you can actually login to Windows with multiple users without suspending one or another. It is Xp workstation that gives you a false impression that only BSD gives you the ability to login with multiple users.There are many GUI shell managers available to UNIX based system, such as KDE, Gnome, ICE and so on, and I understand that Linux is just the kernel :P I know the history. You are right that you can run bash on BSD, but the default is shI haven't found much differences between the two as long as they get the desired job done.The uptime of OpenBSD is currently much longer than Windows 2003 Enterprise Server running here mainly because Windows doesn't support hot patch yet. Besides, there is only one or two bugs for the past 7 years on OpenBSD, so you don't need to patch BSD much B) FreeBSD on the other hand *cough cough*...Well, still better than Windows patching system I guess. Thunder

#28 OFFLINE   SonicDragon

SonicDragon

    Discussion Deity

  • Forum MVP
  • 4,188 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 01:04 PM

I use windows XP, but would really like to get into *nix soon. I was thinking like FreeBSD or maybe SuSE or Red Hat. Well, i guess that's a project for another weekend :D

#29 Guest_ThunderRiver_*

Guest_ThunderRiver_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 March 2003 - 02:59 PM

Well, it is more than just another weekend if you are exploring all by yourself.See if you could grab a copy of SuSe or Yopper. It should help you a bit. Red Hat and Mandrake experience may make you dissappointed afterward. If you desire Red Hat, you might as well choose the latest Mandrake, which does sound a bit promising to most people.Thunder

#30 OFFLINE   Mike

Mike

    Message Adept

  • Honorary Moderators
  • 81 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 10:43 PM

Personally I prefer RedHat for the simple reason that they are the most well known name in Linux... and most businesses will use them because of the name/status...I'll be playing with Mandrake 9.1 as soon enough...

#31 OFFLINE   LilBambi

LilBambi

    Australisches Googler

  • Forum Admins
  • 22,548 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 11:12 PM

Mike, on Mar 26 2003, 09:43 PM, said:

Personally I prefer RedHat for the simple reason that they are the most well known name in Linux... and most businesses will use them because of the name/status...I'll be playing with Mandrake 9.1 as soon enough...
Me too Mike ... But I sure wish they still had Linuxconf in RedHat 7.3 ... I have stayed with RedHat 7.2 because Linuxconf is still there.My Jim installed Linuxconf on his 7.3 and had to do a few cruel tricks to get it working right.We both use linuxconf because over dialup it makes sense for remote admin of system files ... and if you have a problem with something in the GUI for some reason (video card problem or something like that), they are locking you out of making system changes from the commandline unless you change all the configuration files in /etc by hand.  Bloody nuisance.They never should have done away with it. They should have worked with the developers of Linuxconf to get past whatever their problem was so it could still have been included in later versions of RedHat ...IMHO  B)
Bambi
AKA Fran

Posted Image
My Public Key for Email :: BambisMusings Blog :: Fran's Computer Services Blog :: MyPassionIsBooks Blog :: 5BuckReview :: CNIRadio
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." ~John Gilmore (Time Magazine, Dec 6, 1993)

#32 OFFLINE   Mike

Mike

    Message Adept

  • Honorary Moderators
  • 81 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 11:20 PM

Lil...

Quote

Me too Mike ... But I sure wish they still had Linuxconf in RedHat 7.3 ... I have stayed with RedHat 7.2 because Linuxconf is still there.
I certainly understand your point... but at the same time I have heard way too many horror stories of people's systems and conf files getting screwed by using linuxconf...  I'm hoping that they'll get their own version of it going... CLI is one of the most powerful aspects of linux in general and I have to say that the guys who I know are using it in the mission critical environments do NOT load the GUI on the systems as that just adds another potential security risk...  load and run only the services that you want that particular machine to run.... --

#33 OFFLINE   LilBambi

LilBambi

    Australisches Googler

  • Forum Admins
  • 22,548 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 11:34 PM

Mike,Are you saying that the new 'linuxconf' type utility for RedHat 7.3 can be run from commandline ... which means it can be loaded via SSH in remote terminal?? Or am I reading what you said incorrectly?If so, I might just upgrade :)BTW:  We strongly agree with you about not loading any services that you don't actually need on a given computer.
Bambi
AKA Fran

Posted Image
My Public Key for Email :: BambisMusings Blog :: Fran's Computer Services Blog :: MyPassionIsBooks Blog :: 5BuckReview :: CNIRadio
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." ~John Gilmore (Time Magazine, Dec 6, 1993)

#34 Guest_ThunderRiver_*

Guest_ThunderRiver_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 March 2003 - 12:44 AM

is linuxconf only for Red Hat or for all Linux distro in general? I never heard of this config program. What does it do exactly? The command is not present in Slackware nor in Mandrake, at least not that I know of.ThunderRiver

#35 OFFLINE   LilBambi

LilBambi

    Australisches Googler

  • Forum Admins
  • 22,548 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 01:22 PM

Linuxconf works for a.out and ELF systems. It installs currently directly on:Caldera (1.1) Debian (1.1) Mandrake (6 and 7) RedHat (5,6 and 7) Slackware (2 and 3.x) SuSE (5 and 6). Linuxconf is distributed in a tar.gz format (binary distribution) which may be installed on almost any distribution. Distribution specific packages (RPM for one) are also available.Linuxconf is a sophisticated administration system for the Linux operating system. In many ways, Linuxconf is different from other administration schemes found on Unix operating systems and most other systems.
Bambi
AKA Fran

Posted Image
My Public Key for Email :: BambisMusings Blog :: Fran's Computer Services Blog :: MyPassionIsBooks Blog :: 5BuckReview :: CNIRadio
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." ~John Gilmore (Time Magazine, Dec 6, 1993)

#36 Guest_ThunderRiver_*

Guest_ThunderRiver_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 March 2003 - 04:44 PM

Ahh ic, that's probably the reason I never seen such command because I started using Slackware at version 6, and started using SuSe at version 8.0.Right now, I am in Sun Solaris, and these Sun boxes at school are quite nice environment for programming.ThunderRiver

#37 OFFLINE   LilBambi

LilBambi

    Australisches Googler

  • Forum Admins
  • 22,548 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 04:54 PM

Yep, that would be why <_<
Bambi
AKA Fran

Posted Image
My Public Key for Email :: BambisMusings Blog :: Fran's Computer Services Blog :: MyPassionIsBooks Blog :: 5BuckReview :: CNIRadio
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." ~John Gilmore (Time Magazine, Dec 6, 1993)

#38 OFFLINE   Mike

Mike

    Message Adept

  • Honorary Moderators
  • 81 posts

Posted 31 March 2003 - 04:01 AM

LilBambi, on Mar 26 2003, 10:34 PM, said:

Mike,Are you saying that the new 'linuxconf' type utility for RedHat 7.3 can be run from commandline ... which means it can be loaded via SSH in remote terminal?? Or am I reading what you said incorrectly?If so, I might just upgrade :)BTW:  We strongly agree with you about not loading any services that you don't actually need on a given computer.
Due to it's unreliability linuxconf has been dropped in redhat as of v7.3you could try using setup (that's a text mode setup program) and I would also suggest looking at Webmin http://www.webmin.com it's a web interface that can be accessed by any browser...-- :)

#39 OFFLINE   LilBambi

LilBambi

    Australisches Googler

  • Forum Admins
  • 22,548 posts

Posted 31 March 2003 - 11:15 AM

Mike, on Mar 31 2003, 03:01 AM, said:

LilBambi, on Mar 26 2003, 10:34 PM, said:

Mike,Are you saying that the new 'linuxconf' type utility for RedHat 7.3 can be run from commandline ... which means it can be loaded via SSH in remote terminal?? Or am I reading what you said incorrectly?If so, I might just upgrade :)BTW:  We strongly agree with you about not loading any services that you don't actually need on a given computer.
Due to it's unreliability linuxconf has been dropped in redhat as of v7.3you could try using setup (that's a text mode setup program) and I would also suggest looking at Webmin http://www.webmin.com it's a web interface that can be accessed by any browser...-- :)
Oh, well ... I thought they would have made their own unified config for commandline.  We do not use webamin for OS level configuration changes over the Internet.  We only use SSH for that type of thing and being on dialup, Linuxconf is a real timesaver.Commandline setup might be an answer but ...I don't understand why RedHat couldn't have worked with the folks at Linuxconf to help correct the problems is beyond me.  My Jim made Linuxconf work easily and reliably in RedHat 7.3 with just some minor changes.  :)
Bambi
AKA Fran

Posted Image
My Public Key for Email :: BambisMusings Blog :: Fran's Computer Services Blog :: MyPassionIsBooks Blog :: 5BuckReview :: CNIRadio
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." ~John Gilmore (Time Magazine, Dec 6, 1993)

#40 Guest_ThunderRiver_*

Guest_ThunderRiver_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 March 2003 - 07:33 PM

That's the problem with Red Hat. I have not been very happy with Red Hat because they refuse to support KDE, while Gnome seems to be their beloved X manager or something.On the other hand, SuSe and Mandrake are the ones that actually bring the whole community together and their recent products have been quite impressive.I can't wait try out Slackware 9.0 sometime soon though :D

#41 OFFLINE   jaflady

jaflady

    New Kid

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 02 April 2003 - 05:42 PM

Oh I'm glad to see some others still have a lot of old systems hanging around.  I can't bear to toss them when they still work and my work room is beginning to look like a computer junkyard.  Currently on hand and still very lively286 NEC 1986 running DOS 5486 NuTech box fr 1988 running Win 3.1486 ""                         running Win95Pentium(garage) with Win98PII  400 white box with W98sePIII 750  "" with W98seand my most used current systemsDell P4 1.8g Win2000proSP3 and IBM Thinkpad PIII w Win2000proSP3I really can't stand to toss them (bad karma too) while they are still alive but if I bring anymore home I think my husband will toss me out. ;)   So I am only window shopping all the lovely new stuff out there.  Sigh.  Maybe next year.  Any suggestions on what to do with all this stuff - and the landfill is NOT an option.

#42 OFFLINE   RonnieL

RonnieL

    New Kid

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 03 April 2003 - 11:35 PM

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=7]I guess I am an XP junkie.I have four pc's and a laptop all running XP.The laptop is running home the four desktops are running pro.All are on a peer to peer network with the laptop wireless.I keep several old pc's around for nostalgia a couple old custom built 486's running 3.1 that still work.An old Micron Pentium 120 running 95.

#43 OFFLINE   tsw6655

tsw6655

    New Kid

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 04 April 2003 - 01:53 AM

I currently am using 4 flavors of Windows and 4 flavors of Linux.  I've got Win95 on a 486 Toshiba laptop, Win98 on a P-133 Compaq laptop, Win2K Pro on a Celeron 366 desktop and WinXP on 3 different desktops (2 are Pro and 1 is Home).  On my personal machine (AMD XP 1800+, 512 RAM, KLE 133 chipset), I am running a quad-boot -- WinXP Pro, RedHat 8.0, Mandrake 9.0 and Lycoris.  I also boot various computers with Knoppix CD.  As much as I enjoy playing with the various OSes, I find that I keep returning to WinXP for productive work.  For me, XP is the best from Redmond by far.  It is stable, easy to use, and it supports everything we need, including VPN access to my wife's corporate networks.  (She telecommutes fulltime.)  Any OS we use in a productive environment must be compatible with mainstream business, so Linux does not quite pass the test -- yet.  However, as Micro$oft keeps raising the cost of computing, I am moving closer and closer to switching the non-work computers to only Linux.  I wonder how many others are finding themselves in a similar predicament?

#44 Guest_ThunderRiver_*

Guest_ThunderRiver_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 April 2003 - 02:14 AM

tsw6655, on Apr 4 2003, 12:53 AM, said:

I currently am using 4 flavors of Windows and 4 flavors of Linux.  I've got Win95 on a 486 Toshiba laptop, Win98 on a P-133 Compaq laptop, Win2K Pro on a Celeron 366 desktop and WinXP on 3 different desktops (2 are Pro and 1 is Home).  On my personal machine (AMD XP 1800+, 512 RAM, KLE 133 chipset), I am running a quad-boot -- WinXP Pro, RedHat 8.0, Mandrake 9.0 and Lycoris.  I also boot various computers with Knoppix CD.  As much as I enjoy playing with the various OSes, I find that I keep returning to WinXP for productive work.  For me, XP is the best from Redmond by far.  It is stable, easy to use, and it supports everything we need, including VPN access to my wife's corporate networks.  (She telecommutes fulltime.)  Any OS we use in a productive environment must be compatible with mainstream business, so Linux does not quite pass the test -- yet.  However, as Micro$oft keeps raising the cost of computing, I am moving closer and closer to switching the non-work computers to only Linux.  I wonder how many others are finding themselves in a similar predicament?
Well, so far I have not had such problem yet, and that's mainly becuase Xp often comes with the machine I bought. Windows is indeed a lot expensive, but I guess MS is saying that's all due to high amount of piracy. Well, I think it is because of this.. (note.. think of the light bulb as green $$$)Posted Image

#45 OFFLINE   havnblast

havnblast

    Discussion Deity

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,878 posts

Posted 04 April 2003 - 06:14 AM

tsw6655   I don't like the direction MS is going either and that is why I dual boot with RedHat 8.0 using KDE desktop.  Each version of RH keeps getting more and more added to it and I am loving it.  Just need more software developers to develope for linux such as Adobe and Macromedia - I would almost bet they wouldn't see as much piracy as they do with windows software, cause the OS is so much cheaper and people love to support anything Anti-MS

#46 OFFLINE   bjf123

bjf123

    Thread Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 571 posts

Posted 04 April 2003 - 12:34 PM

Win 98Win XPMac OS X (and why isn't that part of the poll?)
Golf is a relatively simple game, played by reasonably intelligent people, stupidly.

#47 OFFLINE   LilBambi

LilBambi

    Australisches Googler

  • Forum Admins
  • 22,548 posts

Posted 04 April 2003 - 01:30 PM

bjf123, on Apr 4 2003, 11:34 AM, said:

Win 98Win XPMac OS X (and why isn't that part of the poll?)
Hey, you are right ...Mac OS/9 and Mac OS X are both missing from the poll .. I am sure it was just an oversight that hopefully can be remedied  :P There should definitely be one for each of the two active Mac OSes ... there are still a lot of Mac OS/9 users too.
Bambi
AKA Fran

Posted Image
My Public Key for Email :: BambisMusings Blog :: Fran's Computer Services Blog :: MyPassionIsBooks Blog :: 5BuckReview :: CNIRadio
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." ~John Gilmore (Time Magazine, Dec 6, 1993)

#48 OFFLINE   Bruno

Bruno

    Le Professeur Pingouin

  • Admin Emeritus
  • 37,904 posts

Posted 04 April 2003 - 01:59 PM

I use Mandrake 9.0 and VectorLinux 3.2 and enjoy it 100%

#49 OFFLINE   mac

mac

    Topic Cop

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 779 posts

Posted 04 April 2003 - 02:33 PM

I have 4 PC's networked here at home. 1 homebuilt w/ WIN2K Pro/WIN2K Advanced Server, 1 Compaq EVO8000 Dual Xeon 2 SCSI HD workstation w/ WIN NT4/WIN2K Pro/WIN XP Pro/WIN XP Pro (on a seperate partion installed for gaming :) ) , 1 Gateway SP1000 w/ WIN2K Pro/WIN XP Pro and 1 homebuilt w/ WIN XP Pro.3 of the PC's have mobile hard drive racks in them hooked up as Master on IDE 1 so I can put in a seperate HD and install and play with other O/S's (I own a retail or OEM version of every MS O/S since WIN 3.1/DOS 5 - except Server datacenter of course). Currently network is peer-to-peer, but will be promoting the server PC to domain controller in the next few weeks.I took a classroom MCSE course at a local college last year but felt I needed more experience before starting to work in the networking field. My background is non-tech - retail chain store headquarter mangement - though I used PC's all the time at work with both proprietary software and MS Office software. When my company downsized I took the early retirement package and decided, after 30 years of 6 and 7 day weeks and 10 to 15 hour work days to change careers.I bought my first PC - an Apple II+ - back in 1981 and have had PC's at home ever since.
Mac
"Long ago, when men cursed and beat the ground with sticks,
it was called witchcraft. Today it's called golf." -- Will Rogers (1879-1935)

#50 Guest_ThunderRiver_*

Guest_ThunderRiver_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 April 2003 - 08:36 PM

bjf123, on Apr 4 2003, 11:34 AM, said:

Win 98Win XPMac OS X (and why isn't that part of the poll?)
Sorry ..simply forgot. I use Mac OS X from time to time...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users