Who is to blame?

[neo_x500]

CP/M kinda had a little bad luck, they could have been in a very powerful position today, but I don't know if I really feel sorry for them, since they ptobably would have taken microsofts place as a monopoly. IBM, well, nobody really feels sorry for IBM since they are just as corrupt a any other greedy corporation. Microsoft is a company built on runs of good luck, and Backstabbing. He screwed over the Company that made Qdos, which ripped it off from CP/M. Later he blackmailed Apple into giving him rights to their OS programming, by threatening not to release some Applications MS had designed for Apple, and helped him win the lawsuit filed against him, when MS used the technology Apple had designed, stuff Apple owned the rights to. And now Gates complains about people making some copied software off of Windows. Fucking Hypocritic asshole. His company is so corrupt, tha aventually it will fall one day, it's corrupt from the bottom up, and anyone knows that you can't build an empire on a weak foundation. I'm on a full blown rant now, but this shit is pissing me off. Hey, MS User, I hope you have a comment on this, so what if one OS works better than another, maybe you should consider it from a moral stand point. Your helping a monopoly corrupt the planet, but forcing other companies out of Business. Do something usefull, help take down these evil, greedy people, who don't deserve what they have. Of course that's just my opinion.

-Neo
"the matrix has you"

[voidmain]

quote:Originally posted by lazygamer:


Ok, but if it was DOS capable of using modern technology or ancient technology, multi-tasking, multi-user piece of technology totally untouched by Microsoft? Then would it be the best you can get for simplicity, power, fixability, and stability?

Then it would be called "UNIX".

Modern DOS is just as brain dead as the DOS of old.  UNIX had been around for a LONG time before that. Wonder why they didn't just use their UNIX OS for PCs then, and skip the crap in between?  I mean hell, M$ actually had a version of UNIX of their own (XENIX) that they actually used to write the first DOS versions.  But they charged an arm and a leg for XENIX, and charged very little for DOS, maybe because it was crap.  Now they have piled more crap on top of the original small pile of crap and they just have a bigger pile of crap.  Only now it is significantly higher priced.  If they just would have started with XENIX maybe they would have a secure and reliable OS today.  It took Apple quite a long time to figure it out.  I don't think M$ will ever figure it out.

Maybe it's IBMs fault for thinking they needed a new proprietary small and dumb OS for these little machines...

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]

[lazygamer]

Well that settles it, Unix r0x0rs. Wouden't you want to use a modern system that uses Unix? Thus Linux=Unix and Unix=l33t so Linux=L33t. Should be reason enough to switch, although Xpee user probably imagines Unix as being "outdated, slow, buggy and bloated" thus Linux=Unix Unix=unl33t and thus Linux=unl33t.  

[voidmain]

In my opinion BSD, SYSV, Linux, AIX, Solaris, HP-UX SCO, IRIX, Darwin, etc, all ~= UNIX.  Well, maybe not SCO, because I hate SCO.      But that is my definition of UNIX.  It is so much easier to say "UNIX" than "UNIX Like".  But I stand the chance of getting the BSD peoples panties in a wad over my definition. But hell, SCO actually held the rights to the name for a while so who really cares.  I say they are all UNIX.  They all have the basic POSIX compliancy. They all have the same basic file system layout and structure.  They all operate in very similar ways.

And UNIX certainly is not outdated. When you design something properly from the beginning and constantly improve on that design, as all of the above OSs have, then it will never become "outdated".  Now when the design was flawed from the beginning and constantly hacked into something worse, then you end up with Windows XP.

Why do you suppose Linus decided to create an open source version of a UNIX kernel rather than an open source version of a DOS/WIN kernel?  Because DOS/Win sucks, that's why. It's extremely hardware specific (M$ tried to port NT to other arcitectures and failed miserably, back to x86 only they are). It's not very scalable. It's as fucking boring as watching grass grow.

Why is it that there are many UNIX like operating systems and only one Windows?  Well, there are actually several reasons for this question.  First and formost M$ doesn't want to play with others.  Some of the other reasons I mentioned in the previous paragraph.  All UNIX Like operating systems are based on standards that everyone agrees on.  They are designed to interoperate with the others. M$ has deliberately designed their OS not to interoperate with others.  And as soon as someone reverse engineers their protocols they crap out another version with something changed, always trying to stay one step ahead of someone trying to interoperate with them.  They do not publish their protocol and API specifications (at least not accurately and detailed).

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]

[lazygamer]

Wow, regardless of the learning curve with Linux, hearing so much about Linux's father Unix make you fantasize about what the other side(teh rebels) must be like!

I wonder if they'll still be using *nix stuff 150 years from now in 1trillion MHZ super computers? I'd say yes. Chances are firearms will be here 150 years from now. Firearms are an incredibly simple concept compared to lasers, electricity, or plasma. In the same way, Unix could be considered the "incredibly simple and effective concept" for computers. Windows is your complex energy weapon... complex energy weapon made with very cheap parts and flawed design in a poor black market factory.