Thread: Whats your OS?

Originally Posted by parkerskouson

When it does release, left us know the name!

My pleasure! It will be in a couple of weeks.

Originally Posted by Wullie

Oh, did I say I HATE Win7?

And did I say I dislike any Win stuff?

Originally Posted by AdamN

It is sad that they can't make more standards in the Linux world. The distros are all so different. I personally think the OS should be standardized and the rest should just be value add by the vendor.

You are missing the main point about Linux. Linux it is NOT a distribution or an environment, it is just a kernel. Nothing more than an operating system kernel. And, being an OpenSource kernel, everyone can use it to build a distro around it.
I call this freedom of choice. If you like the Ubuntu UI or the Fedora UI - and this also goes for the slight differences among file system organizations - then you found your favorite distro.
Apart from this, all the Linux distros are very standardized because all of them are based on the very same components - the Linux kernel and the X environment, for example - allowing you a great freedom of customization. A software developed for Linux will run on every distro, with the added benefit of using it in the environment you like the most.

Originally Posted by onimaru55

I have a refurbed Mac Pro with Mountain Lion. If you partition a drive you lose the recovery partition. Really easy to reinstall with a little app called Carbon Copy Cloner even after the fact.

Happily I had been using CCC as a backup after TimeMachine (or whatever it is called) died a slow and painful error-ridden death late last year. No, the issue was that the IT guys who originally set up my MBP did not partition the drive correctly and a recovery partition was never created with Lion. So when I tried to install mountain lion it gave me an error (cannot create or access recovery partition, or something) and sent me back to the Lion OS. Problem was, each time Lion booted so too did the failing Mountain Lion install, which would then proceed to the exact fail point as previously described, and I got stuck in some hideous Apple loop of Death (minus that stupid beachball, thank God!).

After illuminating discussions with the friendly Apple customer support people it turned out that the best solution was to completely format the drive and reinstall Lion, re-download Mountain Lion, re-upgrade, and restore my files. All round it was a tremendous experience that cements in my mind the question of why I forked out so much extra money for a mac when I could have enjoyed the exact same experience on a Dell with windows for a fraction of the cost.

(Anti-Apple rant ends. )

James.

I do own a mac. Cant remember the OS think maybe snow leopard. Has been a while since I booted it lol.

But to be honest I don't particularly like the OS so I pay for PC hardware as i can get more for less.

Geek

Originally Posted by razorguy

You are missing the main point about Linux. Linux it is NOT a distribution or an environment, it is just a kernel. Nothing more than an operating system kernel. And, being an OpenSource kernel, everyone can use it to build a distro around it.
I call this freedom of choice. If you like the Ubuntu UI or the Fedora UI - and this also goes for the slight differences among file system organizations - then you found your favorite distro.
Apart from this, all the Linux distros are very standardized because all of them are based on the very same components - the Linux kernel and the X environment, for example - allowing you a great freedom of customization. A software developed for Linux will run on every distro, with the added benefit of using it in the environment you like the most.

I am missing no point. I understand that Linux is a kernel, I understand the philosophies pioneered by Richard Stallman, I know Linus Torvalds' history, and understand that nearly every attempt by every consortium has failed to produce a better guideline for the base structure of a Linux based OS. And the kernel of any like release varies greatly from one distro to another. Some feature sets are modular, some are chosen to be compiled in the kernel, some are left out. And building a custom kernel, while a great learning experience, is not fun, is time consuming, and usually other problems get introduced.

I am just coming from an enterprise standpoint, where I, daily, have a headache because of discrepancies among distros. Especially when, let's say, an HP 10GB NIC is certified on Linux, yet their documentation and binaries don't apply to your flavor. Then you think you'll be safe using Red Hat, because it is established and widely used. Then an IBM LTO3 drive's new driver fails to install because of a library dependency that you have to go at lengths to resolve because it is not in a yum repository. I think that even if package management and dependency cheching were standardized, Linux would be adopted to a much greater scale. X and kernel release may be similar, but the libraries vary greatly, and app development is very specific to certain library releases.

For a home desktop, you can pretty much pick any distro that will give you the easiest time configuring your peripherals. In an enterprise, your remote management tools are lacking, and the server side can be solid, but you are almost forced to purchase support agreements with every Linux vendor you have in your environment. IME, employers don't want you spending weeks troubleshooting an issue. Things need to work out of the box and remain stable, because there is always new work coming down the pike with a deadline that needs attention. Free is an idealistic view, in reality it has plenty of costs and shortcomings.

That being said, I prefer to be on a UNIX/Linux box over Windows any day. The flexibility and memory management is much more efficient. Though, Windows is getting a lot better, especially since PowerShell, and is necessary when remotely managing our Windows workstation or servers. I have been a user and an advocate for Linux, OpenSource, and the Free Software Foundation for many years. I will continue to be. But there is a lot of "Pie in the Sky" views about Linux that just aren't accurate.

Originally Posted by AdamN

And the kernel of any like release varies greatly from one distro to another. Some feature sets are modular, some are chosen to be compiled in the kernel, some are left out.

This is something I am missing: the Linux kernel is just one. Things are different in case of customized uses in which you deliberately use a different and adapted kernel, such as Android or embedded systems, for example.

Originally Posted by AdamN

And building a custom kernel, while a great learning experience, is not fun, is time consuming, and usually other problems get introduced.

I have always compiled the kernel myself and never had a problem. Sure, compiling a kernel requires you to exactly know what you're doing. It is not something for the "average user" who, of course, just wants a working system without bothering about technical stuffs. And I do agree on that, of course.

Originally Posted by AdamN

I think that even if package management and dependency cheching were standardized, Linux would be adopted to a much greater scale.

I do agree on this. A standardized way of distributing packages would be nice. The problem is that the file system organization may vary from a distro to another so vanishing a standardized package distribution. You still have the chance to compile the package from the source, although I understand this is not an easy task for the average user.

Originally Posted by AdamN

X and kernel release may be similar, but the libraries vary greatly, and app development is very specific to certain library releases.

Kernel and X are the same for all the distros. It is the way you use them to change things. But it is just a customization: the foundation is the same. Just consider KDE and Gnome: they basically are window managers for the X environment, but the X layer is the same.

Originally Posted by AdamN

In an enterprise, your remote management tools are lacking, and the server side can be solid, but you are almost forced to purchase support agreements with every Linux vendor you have in your environment.

I have always and happily managed all of my remote systems with just one tool: telnet/ssh. Never had a problem on this regard.

Originally Posted by AdamN

IME, employers don't want you spending weeks troubleshooting an issue. Things need to work out of the box and remain stable, because there is always new work coming down the pike with a deadline that needs attention. Free is an idealistic view, in reality it has plenty of costs and shortcomings.

I understand this point of view, however, to me, the adoption of OS systems was not just idealistic, it really meant saving huge development time and maintenance costs.

Originally Posted by AdamN

I have been a user and an advocate for Linux, OpenSource, and the Free Software Foundation for many years. I will continue to be. But there is a lot of "Pie in the Sky" views about Linux that just aren't accurate.

Yes, for sure. It depends on what side you are watching it. To me, having always been a software designer and system administrator, the "Unix" way always worked great for me. On the contrary, I can see too many "Pie in the Sky" views about win(you mention it), Mac and all the rest. In my experience, when the project required (against my will) the adoption of win(will not say it) systems, we always ended up being in serious troubles, either because of the buggy systems, serious security flaws or huge limitations.
In about 30 years of experience in software design and development, security system design, I can tell there is no "perfect system", Unix is not perfect, of course, but it is the one offering the best from any point of view, development and system maintenance. Linux, although it is largely based on Unix and takes its founding concepts from many Unix flavors, is not perfect as well. I understand that.
Saved the fact Linux can offer a better hardware support and device drivers, in my opinion FreeBSD is better in terms of system performance/concept/stability. (And, of course, I also use that, too).

Originally Posted by Wullie

XPpro at home and that DAMNABLE Win7 at work.

Oh, did I say I HATE Win7?

This is the most bizarre comment in this thread. I get that some folks dislike Windows, but IME Win7 (64-bit) is much better than XP and it seems that the opposite scenario is more common; using Windows 7 at home but stuck with XP at work.

Originally Posted by commiecat

This is the most bizarre comment in this thread. I get that some folks dislike Windows, but IME Win7 (64-bit) is much better than XP and it seems that the opposite scenario is more common; using Windows 7 at home but stuck with XP at work.

I have to agree, Windows 7 64 is solid, with many compelling features over XP, besides that XP will shortly be unsupported and end of life.

Originally Posted by AdamN

I am missing no point. I understand that Linux is a kernel, I understand the philosophies pioneered by Richard Stallman, I know Linus Torvalds' history, and understand that nearly every attempt by every consortium has failed to produce a better guideline for the base structure of a Linux based OS. And the kernel of any like release varies greatly from one distro to another. Some feature sets are modular, some are chosen to be compiled in the kernel, some are left out. And building a custom kernel, while a great learning experience, is not fun, is time consuming, and usually other problems get introduced.

I am just coming from an enterprise standpoint, where I, daily, have a headache because of discrepancies among distros. Especially when, let's say, an HP 10GB NIC is certified on Linux, yet their documentation and binaries don't apply to your flavor. Then you think you'll be safe using Red Hat, because it is established and widely used. Then an IBM LTO3 drive's new driver fails to install because of a library dependency that you have to go at lengths to resolve because it is not in a yum repository. I think that even if package management and dependency cheching were standardized, Linux would be adopted to a much greater scale. X and kernel release may be similar, but the libraries vary greatly, and app development is very specific to certain library releases.

For a home desktop, you can pretty much pick any distro that will give you the easiest time configuring your peripherals. In an enterprise, your remote management tools are lacking, and the server side can be solid, but you are almost forced to purchase support agreements with every Linux vendor you have in your environment. IME, employers don't want you spending weeks troubleshooting an issue. Things need to work out of the box and remain stable, because there is always new work coming down the pike with a deadline that needs attention. Free is an idealistic view, in reality it has plenty of costs and shortcomings.

That being said, I prefer to be on a UNIX/Linux box over Windows any day. The flexibility and memory management is much more efficient. Though, Windows is getting a lot better, especially since PowerShell, and is necessary when remotely managing our Windows workstation or servers. I have been a user and an advocate for Linux, OpenSource, and the Free Software Foundation for many years. I will continue to be. But there is a lot of "Pie in the Sky" views about Linux that just aren't accurate.

I don't disagree. It depends on your environment and what you're trying to accomplish. If you have the luxury of compiling the kernel and building the OS Gentoo-style for a customized server, say a hardened Apache webserver, as a VMware template, then deploy identical (both OS and "hardware") VMs as needed, you have as many servers built to do exactly what you need and nothing you don't with no more investment in time than any other system. An Ubuntu laptop set up for word processing and home "stuff" is an entirely different animal, but both are Linux. And so is the non-Windows appliance that some vendor sold you that supposedly require no OS maintenance. Basically, the planning is more important, but the level of customization is the benefit.