Windows vs Linux [It's own thread]

You're saying Microsoft developed a PC platform that happens to be "far superior", for no particular reason - you mention DX - than a platform that's a better multitasking, device-interface, generally less complicated (more open) Unix derivation, which itself was designed with C as a development platform for that language?

I don't believe it...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Don't get the wild fishtailing of this thread...and PS Japanese inventors are not credited with the invention of the transistor.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah, so I made either a gross error, or a blatantly incorrect statement in that case?
Thanks for clarifying that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I thought the original question was inferring for the purpose of programming in C+, not the for general use.

In which case isn't the answer Windows, as they seem to be highly in-mind for the majority of programmers? Despite all of the many Linux improvements, it's abilities are generally behind. Unless you are a very experienced programmer that needs no assistance from computer clarification (which is most pros) Windows is best. I assume if he's asking, he's a not a pro.

 

So it's true; no MS programmer has a clue where C came from, or why Unix was developed at Bell Labs; who DEC were, sfuff like that.

 

how about directX? what is the Linux equivilant and why doesnt Linux have good games?

 

Not sure why, I assume it was from the creation of "Information Theory".

Also my father used to work at a location that used Multics as its system which was extremely useful for programming and overall maintenance. The way things were done in time sharing in this standard were done by a mix of request and overall priority.

I assume it was designed to allow for independant hardware to have internal "time sharing" which is probably the origin of run-time.

Perhaps this implementation was later used in Bell for something?? I'm not sure the specific use.


The thing that was unique about Unix was its self containment, it's premise was the foundation of later OS. Ironically the furthering of those later Operating Systems was more in the direction of Multics... Especially with the integration of internet and homenet...and the entire .NET platform has really lessened the gap between home computers and servers. Much of communication is done entirely on foreign servers never really altering permanent hardware on the users computer (Other than perhaps Cache Data), so again the computer has become slave to time sharing. Only this time...the sharer is public, the content is more vast, and there seems to be no one in control. A truly scary thing, but it might be outside of the topic of discussion.

 

I'm not sure if Xorg is the equivalent...I think it is. I know for sure it's the most common GUI handler in any case. There are additional video drivers for different hardware, but that just unlocks capabilities of the hardware.

 

C was developed from a language called "B". B was developed from a language called "A".
Multics was the runtime OS that Unix was based on. The original versions of "Unix" - apparently a pun of sorts on "eunuch" and "Multics", or "castrated Multics", so to speak, ran on DEC PDP-11 architecture.

Unix was developed in response to a need for a more "programmer-friendly" OS; the command shells, process spawning and termination; the signalling and interrupt trapping; the lexicographic systems that arrived; the compiler compilers.

Unix was as open a system as its designers could make it. It became a standard because it was less restrictive, way more programmable; every configuration is available and editable as a text string in some file; a file can contain anything - structure is the user's concern, addressing file pages is the OS job; the graphical windowed interface design, which MS borrowed heavily from, was added on as a user-level system of interacting processes, all the parameters are of course, configurable as text.

Unix is a text-based paradigm like NT, and like VAX/VMS, except MS decided to hide a lot of it as binary-encoded, proprietary information.

 

So was A and B compiling code intended for self-contained systems? Or was it still behaving in a time-sharing fashion? Or was it the software code used by the physical computer that did the proccessing in time sharing?

Note: that seems familiar, since I think they also used FORTRAN. Or was Fortran still part of the C language?

 

Are all UNIX users such bigoted rednecks or is it just you. "sorry mod's but the above quote is ludicrous"

Lets see, oh my memory of that is a little fuzzy, I was learning to walk and wipe my own ass back then. Im sure it was great for its day. But computers have come a very long way since then and modern languages are much better suited for OS development.

So Vkothii an OS developed nearly 40 years ago with a language that is inherently insecure is better the Vista? rhetorical..

C and its younger brother C++ has an inherent fault called buffer overflow. Good coding practise can mitigate this flaw but produces slower code. You cant trust programmers to follow the rules.

Vista is written in C# a language that is designed not to allow buffer overflows. Until Linux is written using a modern language like C# or Java it will always have at its heart the ability to run unsecured code. A fatal and damming flaw.

 

So What?
Are you saying the Unix model is obsolete? Bearing in mind how much use it's had, in various forms, including the development of "microkernel" architectures; it was, as I said. a system designed by programmers with their own ends in mind. C has always been a "use with care" language, it's about as close to the underlying hardware as a compiler can get.
As long as you use the stack properly, don't break the rules with procedure and function calls, it shouldn't be a big deal.

I once compiled a Delphi program that soaked up the entire virtual memory space of a 11/740; the compiler didn't warn me about the potential for a recursion to go too deep (and stack way too many memory assignments), in my random walk through a certain binary tree type graph. Big deal, no compiler can do that good a job yet - check the bounds of a resource-using loop or recurrence to see it doesn't potentially overwhelm those resources; the thing is, it compiled the code, and let me run it and bring the system to a crawl, before announcing a runtime error. Actually I had to kill the process from the shell - lucky I was running Unix.

Even the first release of Unix was a feature-rich programmable machine, a lot of versatile functionality that wasn't that hard to get a grip on, in those days that meant a command line and text files. Linux still requires the user to get to know this command-line level, what booting a system means, process spawning, filesystem layouts. It's still a bit nerdy, but you get a good result for the effort, bearing in mind not all motherboards are created equal.

Vista possibly is a good VMS derivative, but you would need to strip it down considerably to see the benefits on most contemporary PC systems; why has it not done so well as a personal upgrade to XP? Could it be that in trying to make it more accessible, more like an accessory or a multimedia system they haven't been able to make a modern PC look like a lawnmower?

Nobody ever will; most people who own PCs as home accessories will treat them like they are, like more complicated TVs, perhaps; most Microsoft users only ever use a PC in a peripheral sense, only a minority get close to the insides, and there's all the different levels of doing that, which probably no-one would be able to cover all by themselves, it's a pretty big area.

 

Yes, if you want security and reliability.

Its unfortunate that various subsystems still relay on the antiquated coding principles, but for CPU's and it various derivatives, development is moving it the right direction

You obviously don't know how to use windows, Any process can be shut down instantly within 4 mouse clicks, but if you don't like mice you can always use the CMD prompt to do the same instant kill.

We are talking about PC's right? Why would I want to strip it down? The benefits i get using windows far out way the slow downs you get from the eye candy. Oh you can always strip it down if you want. there is no need to run explorer, if all you want is a command prompt just shut it down, or remove it as a start up from the registry..

My god your right

Your almost there. The CPU, I/O systems and various components are not that difficult to use. It does not take much effort to write your own OS. A little BIOS hack, a couple of ROMs and the PC is all yours. A long time ago most people could not read or write.

(Vista)
Sorry says who?
Oh its sort of like a PC game developer. It may take a few years to develop a game and at the start clever developers will anticipate hardware developments. MS has made no secret that Vista was designed for future machines. Well now, most hardware platforms have no problem runing Vista.

Well i like my sports car to impress and be fun to use, unlike my lawnmower which I only use to keep the snakes away..

 

Don't tell me, you wrote your first PC OS before you got to high school?

 

No. but I had already written a few games in assemble.

On the most basic set up a OS is just a set of interrupt vectors. All the code could be NOP instructions..

I have written many games since then that ran from ROM's. The only code on the machines where written by me. So in a way i have written many OS's.

 

As an upgrade? Upgrades aren't as popular as pre-installed sales on new boxes.

Vista is selling faster as a pre-installed OS than XP did.

On Unix vs Windows, well, Unix had quite a head start to become the dominant OS, and even Microsoft sold Xenix for PC's back in the day. It didn't deliver what small businesses and home users wanted, however, leaving the door open for DOS and Windows.

You can rant all you want about why you think Unix is superior, but that is just your view. The marketplace says different.

Oh please, Xerox came up with all the ideas, and Apple sued everbody else. X-Windows wasn't that influential, it was just one of the emerging GUIs of the era. One feature of X that I don't see on any other windows platform is the built in ability to send a window from one machine to any other running X, the client/server aspect to it makes it a different animal completely.

 

Translation: "Microshaft has got every one of its resellers pre-installing it, there is no real choice".

That would be the marketplace defined by your (and 99% of MS users') paradigm, that keeps forgetting about all the other ones?

 

Not true, if you want, after you buy a PC with a pre-installed OS, you can get a refund from MS if you declare you intend to install a different OS instead. If you want to rant about choice, you chould actually go have a rant about Apple, who have far more restrictive policies.

Users, or buyers? I was talking about the marketplace, you know, where businesses make money. MS make $44Bn p.a. from their software in their marketplace. You keep trying to abstract this into something else, but utterly fail to come up with any numbers. So what if a bunch of disparate hardware vendors use a modified open source OS? You seem to think adding up the efforts of a bunch of companies with different products stacks up against one companies efforts, but that is apples to oranges.

 

What a child you are. You have no concept of how the free market works.. Did your mother beat you with a windows CD as a toddler.:shrug:

Oh look behind you as there is a MS operative ready to laugh at your current version of Nerdux.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I know MS Inc. has a big team finding out constantly for them.