I hear people complain about Vista, but it's almost always someone who's not using it. I've been using it for about 6 months now, and while it was annoying at first--as has been every OS I've ever used--once the learning curve is over, it's not that bad. There are still bugs, but not as many as I experienced with XP at this stage. (BTW, I've use Mac OS X and Ubuntu 8.04 as well)
Some claim that that Microsoft's mention of the next OS is proof that Vista is flawed and not worth bothering with, except they forget Microsoft's reason for doing Vista in the first place rather than simply upgrading XP--new OS's require new purchases. Wanting to bring out a new OS, doesn't mean Vista is flawed, it just means Microsoft wants to make money by producing a new OS, rather than free updates. There will be a limit to how quickly MS can pump out new OS's without people getting frustrated and it seems they're testing the boundaries of that now.
I only went with Vista because the new laptop I got last year came with it. I was pleasantly surprised with the improvements and amused by the complaints. The biggest complaints came from Mac users, who had never actually tried Vista, so were oblivious to the fact that Vista is much more Mac-like that XP. Why would Vista be worse than XP when it's more like their own cherished OS than XP? Are they confessing that there's something wrong with the Mac OS?
Personally I'd be really curious about OS (and browser) choices in comparison to political and ideological demographics. Which OS do those who prefer laissez faire economics prefer as opposed to those who prefer Keynesian economics? Which browser do they prefer? There's a reason I ask. Laissez faire economics want the economy to be autonomous and dynamic. They want economic forces themselves to control the economy. Keynesian prefer government control. In the US almost all of our economic policies are Keynesian for some odd reason. Yet, I'd bet that while the Keynesians prefer a tightly reigned economy, they lean toward a free, open-source OS, while those that prefer a free economy prefer a commercial OS. Odd how those concept have the illusion of flipping, when they really don't.
I know that Apple's been trying to buddy up to the open source "community" by basing the later Mac OS's on Linux, not that that makes it actually open source, but the Linux fans are thrilled with at least that little bit of attention.
Meanwhile Vista remains the "hideous" white elephant produced by the "greedy", "evil" Microsoft--except it still performs well out of the box and has tons of affordable software that will run on it--two things neither Mac nor Linux can claim (Mac software is limited and expensive, Linux requires a lit of configurations few people know how to do, even using Ubuntu)
Posted by Danny Carlton at June 2, 2008 9:53 AM
Comments
I thought Apple's OS was based on BSD, not Linux. You learn something new here every day.
Posted by: Tom at June 2, 2008 6:23 PM
It is based on FreeBSD, not Linux. They're pretty close though, so it's not surprising that neither of Danny's other readers noticed.
Posted by: Non Ame at June 2, 2008 8:06 PM
Lenscrappers used to market a polycarbonate lens they called "featherlights". They copyrighted the name, and then claimed that they were sold exclusively at their shops. It was the same polycarbonate you'd get anywhere esle, except since they copyrighted the name "featherlights" you coudl only get polycabonate lenses which were called "featherlights" at lenscrappers.
You can call it what you want but it was unix until someone made a free version then it was linux, but I've dealt with it since the early 80's and it's still the same OS.
Except that FreeBSD (started in 1993) is based on 386BSD (started in 1982), and was written by William and Lynne Jolitz. Linux (started in 1991), written by Linus Torvalds, is based on Minix (started in 1987), written by Andrew Tanenbaum. Minix is system-call compatible with Unix7, which is why it (and Linux) behave the same as FreeBSD does. They are NOT the same OS.
I guess it really doesn't matter though. No one expects facts, accuracy, or truth on this blog anyway. Why should this post be any different from the rest of them? I guess I'll give this post a resounding "Close Enough Danny!" Good work. Sorta.
Posted by: Non Ame at June 3, 2008 8:16 PM
I was using Unix in 1981 and what your talking about are different flavors of the same thing. When I get itno the Mac OS X shell, it's basically a Unix like environment. People can call it what they want, but it's still the same to me. If you make a copy of the Mona Lisa, did you really "create" anything?
I doubt you were using Unix in 1981, but it's irrelevant. Even if you were, it in no way makes FreeBSD and Linux the same as each other, or that particular Unix. I tell you what though, I'll take your analogy and run with it. So, according to WikiAnswers, the Mona Lisa is worth over $500 million. Do you think there's a person in the world that would pay me $500 million if I were to copy the Mona Lisa? I suppose your watch is a Timmex too. Close enough right? It's just another example of facts not mattering to you, just as long as it's close enough for you.
Posted by: Non Ame at June 4, 2008 8:02 PM
According to Danny's definition, Windows with added software is Linux as well because Cygwin and Microsoft Windows services for UNIX both give a shell and UNIX functionality to Windows.
The shell does not define the operating system contrary to your observation.
Even though both os's can use the same shells (bash, ksh, csh, etc) these are not the base operating system.
Usually when people talk about which version of POSIX based operating system they are using they are referring to the kernel. Example: If you use Solaris (a Sun version of UNIX) you don't call it Linux.
I can see how Linux, BSD and UNIX might look the same to a person that does web programming in languages like Perl or PHP, but under the hood (C and assembler) they are different.
So they were written at different times, by different people, on different continents, have different kernels, different names but are "the same thing" because they "look alike" if you don't know much about them?
This sounds like the "faith based" logic that so many conservatives get accustomed to using when reality does not agree with their views.
Posted by: Tom at June 5, 2008 2:35 AM
Some geeks love finding trivial faults that only they care about. It makes them think, at least for a moment, that they actually have a life.
It's not that all we can find about your "argumet" is trivial, it's just quite obvious you're not a reasonable person to argue with. I have several arguments about this particular blog entry, but it took 6 days to get even a sorta-admission to something you said being wrong. Even when it's so obvious. Even now, you just can't bring yourself to use the "W" word. Even for something, as you you described it, so trivial. I can't imagine the pure time sink proving that you're wrong on a bigger issue. Especially when I know, in the end, you'd just try to insult me to draw attention away from the fact that you are, after all is said and done, WRONG.
Posted by: Non Ame at June 8, 2008 3:55 PM
Post a comment
NOTE: I am under no obligation to preserve the incoherent mutterings of illiterate morons. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but make sure you actually know what you're talking about, or your comment will be removed.
