Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/01/29/16:25:39
"DR. Andras Solyom" <solyom AT eik DOT bme DOT hu> wrote:
>>> That's just because the average end user doesn't know crap about
UNIX.
>>> Linux, AFAIK, is simply UNIX written specifically for the 386
processor.
>>No kidding. That's why it is not an end-user product. And I think it
>>could be. Other Unices work out of the box, why can't Linux do
>>that?
>If you are experienced with an operating system then you can solve the
>problems that arises when you install anything on it. If you are a
>newbie ...
>First: I have never had any problem installing Linux, if it included
I couldn't get Linux to install correctly, I've never had a problem
with anything else, but 7 attempts at slackware resulting
in 3 DOS partition wipes [that's right, wipes, as in no files]
and 4 installs that didn't bring up a login prompt I gave up on
slackware. Yes, I did acquire the sources multiple times to ensure
that wasn't the problem. Determined not to let this thing get the best
of me, I went for debian which booted with a boot disk, showed me all
those lovely messages and then proceeded to reboot my system, it
repeated this process about 20 times before I was positive it wasn't
testing hardware or anything like that. Than I'm told to try RedHat,
I looked at it, the docs instructed me to download 3 files, so I
followed the path given only to find 2 files. Figuring it might have
been a typo, but it wasn't. I'm thinking about FreeBSD, but the
distribution I don't like. All those 256K files. Sheesh!! I think
I've had enough headaches from Linux for everyone. Next time
it will be via a CD-ROM, the one that comes with Using Linux
from Que publishing whom I've always had luck with in the past.
>Second: If you have installed your OS, you can manage it even with
>control panels, at leas in Windows and in Linux. (In Linux you can use
>the RedHat distribution which has a Win95 like X window manager with
>taskbar, start menu, control panel and the like, etc.) And the design
Never even tried X-windows, just Linux.
>The reason, IMHO, that we do not want to switch to Linux from DOS is
>that we want our computer to be compatible with the majority of the
>software (e.g. games )out there.
Actually there is more software available for Unix than DOS. However,
Unix not being a Home-user's OS as was mentioned, means there isn't a
lot of home-user type software. I can only balance my checkbook so many
times before I want to type a letter in WP. ;-)
>But I am a little bit sceptical about OpenDOS's future. It is too late
>now for DOS. Like it or not the dominance of DOS was a result of
>Microsoft's and IBM's software strategy. Now everyone (except us...)
>wants to use some version of Windows.
Not really, a 32bit dos that still supports old 16Bit Apps could have a
future if enough commercial companies helped it along, etc.. However,
MS pays big bucks to advertise and hype their products, so it is not
likely to happen. IBM had little to do with DOS's success other than
needing an OS for a system they weren't sure would succeed [many failed
during that time] and foolishly licensing and not buying DOS which
would have either prevented clones or allowed IBM to make money off of
them. DOS was a friendly OS with little to no maintenance, and still is
today.
- Raw text -