Which OS
- Thread starter pussy+dickdenice
- Start date
...xp...
Linux, of course ...
Been a heavy Linux user since 1994. Of course, I was a UNIX wennie in the decade before that.
Originally I supported NT from day 1 (well before Windows 95 came out), and thought Linux was a toy in 1993. By 1994, when Gates gave the go-ahead to Windows 95, I knew Windows NT was fucked. Linux, on the otherhand, took the lead in the Internet the same year, and I've been heavily using Linux ever since.
I wouldn't use Linux if it wasn't easier than Windows. In fact, for corporate deployments, Linux is easier to use and support for many peers.
It's really more about "Windows deprogramming" than "Linux learning curve." People are used to Windows and used to how it works. Linux typically prevents you from doing things stupid. You can still get worms, bugs and other things -- but the base design of UNIX/Linux was designed for the Internet and standards -- unlike Windows.
And no, Linux is NOT like DOS. In fact, X-Window was (and still is) far more powerful than Windows -- especially with today's GNOME environment.
Been a heavy Linux user since 1994. Of course, I was a UNIX wennie in the decade before that.
Originally I supported NT from day 1 (well before Windows 95 came out), and thought Linux was a toy in 1993. By 1994, when Gates gave the go-ahead to Windows 95, I knew Windows NT was fucked. Linux, on the otherhand, took the lead in the Internet the same year, and I've been heavily using Linux ever since.
I wouldn't use Linux if it wasn't easier than Windows. In fact, for corporate deployments, Linux is easier to use and support for many peers.
It's really more about "Windows deprogramming" than "Linux learning curve." People are used to Windows and used to how it works. Linux typically prevents you from doing things stupid. You can still get worms, bugs and other things -- but the base design of UNIX/Linux was designed for the Internet and standards -- unlike Windows.
And no, Linux is NOT like DOS. In fact, X-Window was (and still is) far more powerful than Windows -- especially with today's GNOME environment.
Vista's security is a joke, it doesn't adopt the .NET security model at all. It's still the exact same, hacked Win32 model from NT 5.0 (2000) on-ward. NT 6.0 "Longhorn" has just become a repeat of NT 4.0 "Cario" -- 100% vaporware, nothing as originally designed.sungone said:
Until Microsoft fixes the core security issues with the NT executive -- which they planned and then defaulted on with Vista -- most of the poorly designed automation features of Windows will continue to cause it the most problems. Microsoft can't fix them with the current Win32 model because MS Office and Internet Explorer will utterly break.
Ironically enough, the best place to find the best .NET implementation is on Linux -- the GNOME-Mono (now Novell) guys love it because it's very UNIX-like in security/privilege. Much, much better than Java (for various, technical reasons -- mainly native machine byte code), even though .NET 1.x is based on Java 1.1 source code (and .NET 2.0 is the re-license of Java 1.4). Microsoft's architects created a very, very powerful improvement over Java -- I just sure wish they would have adopted it.
But just like Win32, the brilliant architects at Microsoft weren't the problem. It's the application and tool developers who don't use the newer APIs. So then the OS is infected with security-ignorant but core system and application libraries, and the result has been, and continues to be, a security nightmare.
Kinda sad -- I was really hopeful for NT 6.0. Beyond just Indigo (which is nothing better than Java on Win32 was 5 years ago) and the poorly implemented Avalon system (which is still worse than QuartzExtreme was 4 years ago), MONAD (this would have solved about 98% of Microsoft's server automation issues, possibly desktop as well), WinFS (gone the way of the dodo just like CarioFS) and most other components are out.
But I've been dealing with Microsoft Vaporware since before even NT 3.1 was released. Their entire strategy is to keep milking their existing product line for as long as they can, putting absolutely *0* security changes and addressing other, pre-Internet design flaws, for the next decade. They are no longer a software company but an investment firm, and that's where they will be 10 years from now.
And that's why after not just failed, "pure" Win32 adoption but now "pure" .NET, Microsoft's core architects have been leaving over the last 2 years -- to Google. Make no mistake, Google is the new Microsoft. And despite the "do no evil" moniker, they are just as bad when it comes to how they design their software with absolutely no control over it, privacy and other issues. People who say they aren't like Microsoft used to say the same of Microsoft with regards to IBM.
Many of Google's own software ******** so many Internet standards, and they have the same "we are the standard" attitude as Microsoft. Many in the Linux developer community are trying to point that out. But it's the 90% of the other rabid Linux proponents that think Google is "cool" because they compete against Microsoft and support (and used) Linux. Much like 90% of rabid Apple proponents thought Microsoft was "cool" because they competed against IBM while supporting (and used) Apple.
Last edited:
tjay said:
XP Pro adds some small features over Home, but hanging is a Windows trademark. As far as new versions and bug fixes goes, while XP is better, MS has bugs and inconsistencies in it's own programs from 95' that were obvious but never fixed. Like a leaky boat, they only plug the leaks they see. I don't think new versions have a lot of promise, and just generate more $$$ for MS.
Mac has a series of new commercials and hanging up is one of the "jokes" they are playing up.
Here's one idiotic situation.
Win XP will allow you to make a "rescue" disk, to boot from to help you get back into windows if the boot track goes down on your HD. Sounds good?
Win XP however uses the newer NTSC file system, downward incompatible with the older FAT32 system. The idiot part of it is that even though you format the floppy using XP, (with NTSC), what you get is an Me compatible disk using FAT32 that won't boot, or even see Windows as installed.
Brilliant! Maybe in the next $100 upgrade with all new bells and whistles they will address this obvious problem? I'm not optimistic.
Win XP will allow you to make a "rescue" disk, to boot from to help you get back into windows if the boot track goes down on your HD. Sounds good?
Win XP however uses the newer NTSC file system, downward incompatible with the older FAT32 system. The idiot part of it is that even though you format the floppy using XP, (with NTSC), what you get is an Me compatible disk using FAT32 that won't boot, or even see Windows as installed.
Brilliant! Maybe in the next $100 upgrade with all new bells and whistles they will address this obvious problem? I'm not optimistic.
Similar threads
- Article
