HP buying Compaq?

[RICoder]

...and<br><br>tu gratia<br><br>

[Luciano U. Werner]

Does this have something to do with the story that Compaq is supporting Linux?

[Turnip]

RICoder, I again owe you an apology: you've been using computers longer than I have (though I'd claim familiarity with all the listed OS's, Warp notwithstanding). Now, let's jump away from all that jazz.<br><br>I love Windows about 90% of the time, and I love how powerful its software has become. However, the things that drive me nuts are as follows:<br><br>1. Hardware control. Who the hell can figure it out, if you're not writing the code? Plug and play is mysterious enough to begin with...if that doesn't work, where do you go? Nuts. <br><br>2. Microsoft's feeling that it can establish a new standard, whenever it feels like it. HTML is a great example...go ahead and write something as per the w3 standards, and see if it shows up the same way in IE as it does in netscape, or any other standard browser. Now, we script to IE - rather than to the w3.<br><br>3. It crashes. Lots. And it's difficult to tell why - the messages are cryptic, at best. <br><br>4. Anytime something needs to be re-configured, you have to reboot the machine. Argh!<br><br>5. I miss DOS.<br><br>Now, Linux has proven to be just what the doctor ordered for me. Granted, it takes weeks to get the installation just how you want it - and God forbid having any plug and play devices. But once you get it going, and see how everything is controlled via symlinks and scripts, it's amazing the control you have! Most importantly, when stuff breaks, you have the option of going in and fixing it. Anyone who's into coding has to appreciate that. <br><br>But, in essence, I think it all comes down to the eye of the beholder. 99% of the population is very satisfied with MS, and would probably be equally satisfied with MacOS <shudder>. Most people don't care about turning off hardware interfaces individually, or recompiling kernels. If you do, you know where to turn (or at least, where not to turn). <br><br>Microsoft is an empire - and for good reason. It brought just what the computer industry needed, just when the industry needed it. I disagree with their breakup, and with the idea that they violate anti-trust laws. Microsoft has produced superior products for the last ten years (probably more..PC-DOS didn't ever quite compare to MS-DOS), and has escalated to a place of control as a result of demand.<br><br>Regardless, I still find myself more fond of Linux than Windows, and will continue to support open source.<br><br>Lastly, before this becomes a novel, let me add that I was a /<-rad kitty in my early days. I even ran a warez bulletin board on a 486DX2/66 with a gig of space. I was in three different distro groups, and spent most of my time on irc in #warez5, or in my room modding out PCBoard, Renegade, iNiQUiTY, or MBBS bulletin board software. Fortunately, I outgrew that phase...but in retrospect, I have to admit: it was fun living on the edge. Hahahahahahhaahhahahah! <br><br>Cheers.<br>

[Dan East]

Turnip - Have you used Windows 2000? IMO it is the best thing Microsoft has ever produced. Period. And, considering the direction MS is heading (.NET, etc), it is the best thing they will ever produce.<br><br>I find myself in a more-neutral stance as time goes on regarding the whole OS thing. I started out on the Amiga (my first "real" machine). At that time it made the IBM machines look like the totally crap, text-based, EGA, single tasking, weakling machines they were. Amiga's shell was very similar to Unix - sort of like Unix sans multi-user. From there I went to Sun Sparc workstations running X Windows, which of course run Sun's rendition of Unix. I was heavy into the whole Unix world. I used to host scripting competitions at YSU, I traveled across the US and Canada representing YSU at programming competitions on unix machines, I had complex scripts that optimized my X Windows workspace depending on the Terminal I logged into based on its display capabilities. I loved Unix, and with a programmer's mentality, I could do almost anything I could imagine with relative ease. Since leaving the academic realm nearly a decade ago, I have seldom used Unix / Linux. But, here's what's been "happening" to me as time goes on. At one point, I wanted to tweak every single thing I could, be it GUI or otherwise. If it could be skinned, I would skin it. If I could change the font, color, etc., then I would. If I could find a Window Manager that made my terminal look cooler than everyone else's (OLVWM ), then I would work for many hours on end building, configuring and tweaking it. After doing that so many times on so many platforms, I realized that it accomplishes nothing. I want something that is reliable, consistent, and is conducive to the somewhat rigid routines I follow today. To that end, I open up my laptop and click a few times in Windows 2000, and get to the point. I have gone so far as to take a few seconds to select a custom image for my desktop background.<br>So my point is that I do not want to invest the time to tweak anything at this point. Of course I have the technical knowledge to tweak all day long, but does it bring me pleasure? No; the OS should work 98% of the way I desire it to out of the box. Do I have far better things to do (aka, "Create" )? Of course.<br><br>Just my opinion on things. I was MAJOR anti-Microsoft at one time. Especially during my Amiga and Unix years. Of course at that time, MS was pushing total crap like Windows 3.1, so it was easy to denounce them. Today, their products are many times better, and I find it beneficial to be as mainstream as possible with the type of work I now do. However, I am still extremely critical of MS. <br><br>Dan East

[Turnip]

Nice, Dan. I'm still stuck in the tweaking phase - so I'm going to stick with *nix for a bit.<br><br>You were an Amiga man eh? I used to use Amigas for graphic animations. It was by far the best machine for anything complex, back then. My first personal computer was an Apple II plus, and my first real exposure to computers: Oregon Trail.

[jongjungbu]

I wonder if someone has successfully installed Linux on an @migo. <br><br>I miss the days of programming for DOS. Nobody wants a DOS game anymore but I had the most fun in that era. Now it just seems more work when I want to do some programming.<br>

[Luciano U. Werner]

Jong, et tu editing posts?<br>Diego made some disciples.

[jongjungbu]

I was his first disciple the moment I joined.

[RICoder]

Turnip,<br> On the subject of stability see Dan's post about 2K, I agreee.<br><br>  On the subject of plug-n-play, well now you might have found my discontent.  I have to say that I REALLY liked it when the USER was in complete control over IRQ and DMA settings, I found life easier.  BUT, having said that, if you get a MoBo that has an ESCD reset on it and you run 2K, for the most part it works really well.  Even with 2 video cards, which is sweet.  This also takes care of the general LACK of IRQs in the x86 architecture.<br><br>  Your gripe about Linux taking WEEKS to set up is well noted, but I gotta admit, Windows is no easier.  Used to be that at least I could 'ghost' it when I got a config I liked (I tend to modify EVERYTHING including the stupid start menu).  Now, I really suffer.<br><br>  Again, though, I really TRY to stay non-demoninational about OS and Language stuff, but I really do prefer Windows.  Like I said in the other thread, its an interesting debate, I just don't know if there is any clear answer.<br>

[Dan East]

Let me add just a bit more. Of course in comparing any two items, you'll find strengths and weaknesses in either. Windows 2000 narrows the gap between Windows and Linux, especially regarding reliability and perhaps security. At this point I do not see that either is phenomenally better than the other in any particular area. The real issue for me is that I do not use computers just for farts and giggles. I write software, which must run under an OS. Thus it benefits me greatly, for obvious reasons, if I write software that will run under the average, or most used, OS.<br>And, most importantly, when I go to download software off the web, the little Drop List where you select your Operating system always defaults to Windows. I save precious mouse clicks by not having to select some other OS.<br><br>Dan East

[RICoder]

...which leads to another point I started on earlier, the 'unified os.'  There was a time, when this was a serious endeavor, and for good reason.  Back in the days of GEOWorks.<br><br>And so, like Dan, I am tasked with developing software.  In my case for corporations.  In this regard Windows is the obvious choice because<br>1) It provides the most thorough and usable and friendly development studios.<br>2) It is on nearly EVERY desktop in the corporate world.<br>3) VB exists, for better or worse, and is the fastest way to get a product to market.<br><br>Unfortunately Java and Linux have crept in to this realm, and from my experience I have seen that, with little or no exception, the powers that be can give me no REAL reason for their choice to switch except to say that someone told them it was better.  What this has lead to is the use of 'new' tools like BEAWebLogic and WebSphere, which both REALLY suck and are VERY complicated and archaic to deal with.  It seems that the days of COM+ integration on the Application tier are going away, and I want to know why?  I also want to know the REAL business benifit of doing this...where is the $?<br><br>I will now go start another thread...perhaps we can continue this thought elsewhere.

[RICoder]

I put the new thread in Anything Discussion, that seemed most appropriate.<br><br>I never read the little descriptions before...hehe.  Nice touch.

[jongjungbu]

I use to think GEOWorks was da bomb