quote:

---

Original post by Julio

linux is hands down a better os that windows.

---

that''s the funniest thing I''ve ever heard.

quote:

---

ps, use linux, learn it and live it. windows is not a developers platform, it''s made for morons who don''t know what they''re doing. (like you)

---

quite the opposite actually. windows is the ideal developers platform with drivers, and not having to write a new driver for every different piece of hardware is actually a good thing. you must be joking.


JoeMont001@programmer.net www.polarisoft.n3.net

The drive problem is only an issue when developing multimedia applications, which is only a fraction of all development. Hardware support is getting much better on linux too, much better than it used to…If another 10% or so join the linux community hardware companies will soon be ''forced'' to make drivers not only for windows but linux too. Or at least release good driver specs.

i heard someone saying here that netscape 6 is good.
Maybe you haven''t worked long on it.
In my opinion, its equally as bad as 4.76 for that matter...

cyanide.

Just one thing, how many of you can honestly say you have used Linux and dislike it? I have no problem with someone who hates Linux because they tried it(at least less than 1 year from now) and didn''t like it. But if you haven''t tried it(and its obvious from how some people talk) just stfu, try it, or don''t comment on it.

-----------------------------

A wise man once said "A person with half a clue is more dangerous than a person with or without one."

The Micro$haft BSOD T-Shirt

quote:

---

Original post by PSioNiC
i know ms didn't invent SQL, im not that stupid. I said (meant) that they simply have the technology (like SQL Server and the rest of Microsoft backoffice) that linux cannot have.

---

PostgreSQL, mySQL, ORACLE, IBMDB2. These are all available for Linux. Also, you may want to check out oracle's site. They just plunked down a great deal of cash into Linux. As for the rest of the BackOffice Family.

Exchange Server --
Linux has a built in mailing system as well as other items like Sendmail (a very mature system that allows for group messaging, aliases, and so on).

Proxy Server --
Linux also has a built in utility (ipchains / ipfwadm) that allows for full customizable firewall and proxy configurtions.

Site Server --
It is just an intranet application. With Apache and various other tools like Samba and PHP, you could easily make this in Linux.

quote:

---

The reason for this is because it is free operating system. (now your probably thinking i am really autistic). But what I mean is that with open source, nobody is really making any money. Yes I know some distrubutions are sold on some shelves, but do you see huge corporations sending there servers to KDE to put a $16,000(win2k datacenter) operating system on their computer?

---

DataCenter is not an operating system in itself. It is an application server extension of Windows 2000 Advanced server. It has better support for clustering and other such tasks. Unix has had clustering abilities for some time now.

quote:

---

Yes I know ms didn't invent XML, however they are the people that support it and keep it going. If it weren't for MS, XML would have flopped worse than Coke II (which is a coca-cola rip off that was rated the biggest flop in history if anyone didn't know).

---

MS is not responsible for keeping XML Going. XML is an extention of SGML which was originally created by the W3C. XML is being spearheaded by Oasis Open and the W3C and these are the groups that continue to develop XML and mature it as a technology. With MS backing, XML may be accepted sooner than later, but with companies like IBM, Oracle, SAP, and so on backing XML, it would still be here with our without MS.

quote:

---

Another thing i forgot to mention was that linux promoters are netscape promoters. As a web developer, netscape has caused my 1,000 hours of headaches because of its non-standard programming ways. Yes, I know netscape 6 is out which (supposedly) supports everything that IE does, but not even a whole %1 of the industry uses it!

---

This is not the case. Netscape still holds a 15% market share on the browser market. It used to hold an 80% share. Netscape is built off of a product called Mozilla. This is an open source project that follows the open source standards. Open source will only provide support for full technologies. Technologies like DHTML are not fully supported by anyone except MS. If you stick to items like CCS, and HTML 1.1, you should have no problem making a web application that works anywhere.

quote:

---

You can (try) to argue that linux is better than win2k (i dont see how you could for anybody that has actually SEEN win2k), but you cannot argue that netscape is better than IE. Its a dead beat topic.
I think some people on this messageboard are confusing win2k with win95. I could be wrong. Many linux users seem to think that win2k did to win98 what win98 did to win95 (in other words nothing). For all those people who still think that, its not. Win2k is an entirely different operating system.

---

Yes Win2k is entirely different from Windows 98. In fact, it was never the same product. Win2K is based on Windows NT, not Windows 98, so to compare the two is unfounded.

quote:

---

I use win2k cause everthing is very standard, everything is integrated into the OS, it is the most professional looking operating system, everyone uses it, and it is by far, hands down, the most stable operating system ever created

---

Now this all depends on what "standard" you are talking about. If you mean MS Standard, well of course, it is an MS product. As for how it looks, it all comes down to personal preference. It still has the same basic look as Windows 95. Everyone uses it? Again, this is dependent on what you do. If you are in a business enviorment, and do not currently use Winnt, sure, if you do still use Winnt, you stick with NT. As for a home user, if you are doing Win32 / MFC / DirectX development and need something stable, then yes Win2k is a good choice. Most stable ever created? By MS, yes, overall, no. I am a software consultant and when we talk about reliability and stability, we go towards a flavor of Unix. These system require more configuration, but when they are finished, the provide a great reliabilty rate and performance.

I am not trying to support either side here. I use both Win2K and RedHat and each has its uses. I am only trying to provide information. Please, before you start throwing your views around, do a bit of research, to keep posts like this one from occuring.

Kevin =)


-----------------------------
kevin@mayday-anime.com
http://www.dainteractiveonline.com

Edited by - grasshopa55 on December 22, 2000 1:25:51 PM

Like OpenGL, I would use Linux if my computer didn''t blow up every time I even mentioned the word. (You see that sticker? It says designed for Windows 95. Wonder why it might say that? )

---

''Smile, things could get worse.''
So I smiled, and they did.

sharewaregames.20m.com

MadKeithV, I hardly think its fair to judge on OS on the performance of a single application. I could write a crappy Web browser for Windows, and promise that it would crash every 5 minutes. Would that stop you from using Windows? I doubt it. There are other browser options. This board is very x86 centric so the most common browser would be Opera (which I personally like) and there are numerous browsers-in-progress. So maybe you don''t like Linux, but to base that on the performance of a single application is assinine and based on some of your posts in forums here, I believe you''re above that.

Psionic, its interesting that you mention huge corporations sending their servers to KDE to have Linux installed instead of a $16k OS and software. Linux is only about 10% behind MS in the server market and gaining fast. If you include all forms on UNIX and BSD (and why not, they dont seperate based on different versions of MS), the *NIX portion of the market is ahead. Just because it doesn''t cost $16k means nothing.

AvianRR, you''re pretty much on the mark with your comments. The needs of the average server don''t change very often, and if its a home network or small business or something similar a 486 will do great. These are usually the people claiming uptimes of 1+ years. And its possible with a well configured machine. Obviously hardware will need to be upgraded sooner or later, but not at the rate Windows expects.

As for the whole GUI issue, thats not a concern of mine. Its completely subjective so there''s no use refuting an argument whose sole supporting statement is "X looks like crap there are no good GUIs". I even partially agree. I think XWindows is an outdated, bloated piece of garbage. I''m eager to see what the Berlin project turns out in a few years (www.berlin-consortium.org). But there are workable themes. And in the end I remind myself - "The OS and Window environment are tools". If I can get an editor up, a compiler running, and a debugger, I dont care if the window is a naked picture of your mom (directed at no one in particular), I can still get work done. Sure I might not want to look at it, but it wont stop me from programming.

Anyway as you can tell, I''m a Linux fan. But I work on Windows computers. Its not bad, but I''ve never seen them do anything I couldn''t do under Linux (in terms of development). There have been cases were I wish I were in Linux (I love the ability to debug from a core file when something crashes). I''m actually eagerly awaiting MacOS X because it looks to be a good blend of a solid interface (don''t comment on this if you''ve never used NeXTStep cause you''ll just sound ignorant) and a UNIX core (BSD to be exact).

Here''s just a little graph to show you OS usage

Mac OS - Lowest possible IQ requirement, what you use when you still need to count to 11 with your toes.

Windows OS - A couple steps up from Mac OS use this when you start being able to walk.

Windows NT OS - Stability Windows Geek heaven use this when you''ve either found the loop hole in windows 98 at school or you''ve gotten sick of restarting

Linux, Unix, etc - Stability with a touch of confusion use this when you like the idea of being able to make you desktop a virtual .insert weird things here.

Ok just for the sake of letting the next poster have something to argue with I use Windows 2000 because it''s the happy medium I''ve been waiting for since DOS (Which was left out for obvious reasons) it''s got speed it''s got power and it''s got a killer UI.

"Don''t make me come down there..." -GOD

LOL

This thread is so funny :-)

I''m glad someone else thinks the x server is a piece of crud! As I learn linux I''m gonna look into writing my own windowing system (just for the h of it) if it happens to catch on cool!

Merrry x-mass to all and to all happy coding!

quote:

---

Original post by Julio

If linux was comparable to Windows, then why does linux have an emulator to run window apps? kina seems like an oxy-moron to me.

---

let me see: if linux has a windows emulator, that proves that windows is really superior to linux?

ok, let''s accept that, for the sake of argument.

windows also has a linux emulator. does this then prove that windows is better than linux, while linux is better than windows?

or could it possibly be that there are good and bad applications for both operating systems, and people like being able to use good apps, regardless of what OS they were written for?


(Seriously: people who get religious over their OS are idiots, no matter which one they like. windows has good and bad points, linux has good and bad points. get a life, people