Thu 10 Mar 2005 11:14:09 PM EST from Ford II@uncnsrd
that guy (whoever wrote that) is so full of shit.
First of all, in case anybody missed it, he's condoning, basically a unix monopoly. (now I happen to be a fan of monopolies, good ones, anyway :-) but coming from such a righeous dude... I dunno.
why do people flock around windows for developing software?
because unix and windows are the same he says? Please.
He shot his own foot off. with 20+ years experience, yea, he knows everything there is to know about configuring windows and any unix.
But very few admins have 20 years of experience. And if you've only got 1 year of experience, you're going to have a much easier time setting up a windows machine than a unix machine. The man is even more full of himself than I am.
Let's see, what else
oh, here's a good one, the unix people had a big war over the remote control while wintel just came in and took over.
Well, gee. It's legally impossible to compete with windows by making a variant of it.
I dare say that gives an advantage to the 'can't possibly have incompatibilities between variations' problem that unix has that windows doesn't.
Of course MS managed it anyway, with what we've come to learn is DLL Hell.
Please. Where did you find that article.
Heh... it's really a pity IBM killed OS/2.
I can't help but think that the Amiga might have lived longer, or even taken its place alongside the Mac as a minor player during the dystopian peak of Microsoft's reign, if they had only given it a Unix-based operating system.
As for OS/2 ... I clearly remember the pundits in the early 1990's saying, "If it's going to be OS/2 versus Unix, I think OS/2 will win!" (That's an exact quote, but I don't remember who said it.)
I've been using Unix based systems since 1985 or so. It really is an elegant design that has stood up to time and evolution gracefully.
If you look at os/2 and unix and windows and amigaos, each has its technical benifits and any one of them winning over the others would be a fluke.
Os/2 lacked inherent multi user support.
unix lacks perfection, or tidyness or whatever you wanna call it.
I dunno anything about amigaos, but I'm sure it's not perfect either.
So while unix 'won' I think it was just as much a fluke as anything else.
What about unix made it so great above all the others that it 'deserved' to win?
I think what it had going for it was that it was there first. Marketing or lack thereof aside, I don't see why it should have neccesarily won.
I think unix's winning feature is a kind of chain-your-stuff-together approach that makes it possible to do fairly dazzling things using the facilities that are already there.
let not forget *nix's ability to truely multi-task, and functions multi-user and multi-port, long before OS/2 and Micro_Sloth. The ability to fine tune a kernel to make it run efficently for your perticular application set still gives it a tremendus edge over WinBlowz. My first job out of collage was as a unix operator (Motorola/AT&T), we had several mini-computers (actual minis, not micros) running lines of duplication equipment. Each mini ran a dozzen serial attached devices and streamed data to them constantly in order to real-time mass duplicate media. I doubt a modern intel server running winblowz 2003 could keep up with that unix technology as a specialized application. WinBlowz works ok as a file server print server, but there are few true enterprize apps that run better off of a blowz box then a lesser equiped unix box. (I'm not just praising Linux, I'm including Sun etc... Mind you, I love my SuSE boxes, a well equiped farm of SUN boxes make me warm and mushy inside)
TCO has been tested over and over, and as long as you are willing to put aside the MS writen/dictated crap, Unix wins time and time again w/ truly third party/unbiased reports. Longer up times of the OS is one of the leading factors (of course, running SUN, DEC, HPUX, AIX, on their designated hardware is always going to have better uptimes then the ComCrap/HP/Acer/Altos/Dell/IBM intel servers out there. <Does Acer/Altos/A-Open still make anything close to a server that anyone would admit to running?>) Other factors such as cost of license may be skewed when compairing Oracle to MS-SQL, but when you factor function, longevity, and recoverability, time is also money.
Wed 07 Feb 2007 02:51:31 PM EST from IGnatius T Foobar@uncnsrd (Uncensored)
I never quite understood why Acer acquired Altos. They dismantled Altos almost immediately.
That's part of it. I also find unix to be an environment that doesn't
get in your way when you want to get something done.
It doesn't get in your way if you know what you're doing. The learning curve however, is astounding. Certainly a mac makes things easier to do, though it might get in your way because they didn't make the gui specifically enabling some particular thing you want to do...
Does the Mac give you a command line interface ?? I know how to get to it in Windows, but my Mac exposure has been short.
And I apologize for posting a Mac question in the UNIX room. Topic drift at work again.
Feb 9 2007 2:12am from harry @haven (Haven BBS)
Does the Mac give you a command line interface ?? I know how to get
to it in Windows, but my Mac exposure has been short.
osx certainly does...
Ragnar - Does the path you gave me refer to Mac OS X or all versions or what, Do you know ??
Feb 9 2007 7:49am from Ragnar Danneskjold @uncnsrd (Uncensored)