General discussion

  • Creator
  • #2186568

    Fill in the blank – I use *nix because __________


    by jaqui ·

    ]:) just cause it gives a chance to actually expound why… and to poke The Trivia Geek for his thread yesterday.

    editing to add:

    and to start it off:

    I like having original software to work with, not cheap, badly written cloned software.
    after all, everything that windows has is a copy of something developed for a *x os first.

All Comments

  • Author
    • #3152266

      In ten words or less, I use free unices because:

      by apotheon ·

      In reply to Fill in the blank – I use *nix because __________

      1. They’re awfully easy on the wallet.

      2. They’re “free as in speech”.

      3. They don’t support mopolistic business practices.

      4. I don’t have to worry about rampant virus/worm infections.

      5. SSH. ‘Nuff said.

      6. Ah lurvs mah multi-user architecture.

      7. Modular monolithic kernels rawk my socks.

      8. FreeBSD has hawt mascot babes at conventions and trade shows.

      9. Penguins are tougher than moths.

      10. No software has been better for my paycheck than Linux.

      11. Linux User Groups are the best tech support ever.

      12. The productivity boost is like a drug. (I swear I can quit any time.)

      13. I finally realized how much time Windows upkeep wasted.

      14. It’s nice for glitch fixes to make sense.

      15. Patch times. ‘Nuff said.

      16. 18,000+ software packages in the Debian archives. ‘Nuff said.

      17. APT. ‘Nuff said.

      18. Linux taught me a lot about Windows.

      19. Ten one-word answers:
      a) screen
      b) bash
      c) grep
      d) mpd/mpc
      e) apache
      f) WindowMaker
      g) mutt
      h) vim
      i) iptables
      j) GIMP

      20. XFS, ReiserFS, and ext3 kick the hell out of NTFS (pretty much in that order).

      21. I don’t like having a computer tell me I’m stupid.

      22. I prefer to maintain ownership of my own data.

      23. My Windows machine is in the shop.

      24. Uptime. ‘Nuff said.

      25. Security, stability, and flexibility are not accidents.

      . . . and (at slightly more than ten words):

      26. In a world without fences and walls, I don’t need Gates and Windows.

      • #3152172

        You didn’t…

        by dawgit ·

        In reply to In ten words or less, I use free unices because:

        Leave much for anyone else 🙁
        This is gona be a short stroke now. and I was gona plug my 16 bit DOS too. ah geeez

        • #3152140

          I use 16 bit DOS because

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to You didn’t…

          I like the ASCII-based Hack and Willie the Worm games.

        • #3152071

          Why Thank you sir :^0

          by dawgit ·

          In reply to I use 16 bit DOS because

          And to think people were thinking (oh-no :0 ) I was the only nut here.

        • #3153348

          Love DOS

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Why Thank you sir :^0

          The foxpro applications that I used to develop on DOS were blazing fast and accomplished all that a normal user wanted from the application.

        • #3160579


          by noyoki ·

          In reply to Love DOS

          LOL! My mother worked for a company that developed software for school districts with special ed kids. The original version was written with FoxPro (and later FoxProX) and good lord did I have a fun time breaking it.

          Around (or even before) age 9 or 10, my mom would bring me in to work sometimes, after many drs appointments (I always had ear probs) instead of going back to school ’cause they would usually take all day. I got the job of beta tester or data entry… Fun times… The programmers hated me because they wouldn’t take what I did seriously (who takes seriously a 10 yr old kid??) and then the customer would come back after that version was released with the exact same issue…

        • #3269210

          FoxPro is still fast….

          by wcoupe ·

          In reply to Love DOS

          Even with all the ‘Windows bloat’… I do miss the days of DOS/Xenix/Mac cross platrom development in FoxBase+ though!!

          I’ve often wondered how much faster things would run with today’s hardware… without all the overhead!

        • #3270439


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to FoxPro is still fast….

          Try Paradox on for size. It’s about as quick as it gets for lightweight database work.

        • #3151763
          Avatar photo

          Lemmings was quite

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to I use 16 bit DOS because

          Cute too on DOS.

          I really can’t come to terms with the latter version though as they are just not the same and the Lemings don’t make the same mess when you kill/Explode or drop them off a high wall. 🙁


        • #3151724


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Lemmings was quite

          I remember that game! Lemmings was awesome!

        • #3151644
          Avatar photo

          And they have just released a new version of it to run on XP :(

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Dude!


        • #3160573

          As long as…

          by noyoki ·

          In reply to And they have just released a new version of it to run on XP :(

          they still have their voices… and the lines (coming from a voice that sounds very ‘drag-queen’) “We win, we’re all queens now” stays in the new version, that’s awesome.

          (My sister and I would have [i]fits[/i] of giggles when that side won… I think I just found another OS for VMWare to install for a legacy game….)

        • #3152100

          There are still plenty of answers to offer.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to You didn’t…

          For instance:

          “I use free unices because . . .
          . . . they do 16b and 32b DOS better than Microsoft.
          . . . it’s nice to have direct access to developers.
          . . . I get to read snarky comments in Linux source code.
          . . . people like apotheon always have something intelligent to say.”

        • #3152069

          Oh, that…

          by dawgit ·

          In reply to There are still plenty of answers to offer.


        • #3152053

          How about…..

          by choppit ·

          In reply to There are still plenty of answers to offer.

          because I can

        • #3153595

          good one

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to How about…..

          I like it.

      • #3153640

        While I agree with what you have said

        by mjwx ·

        In reply to In ten words or less, I use free unices because:

        I don?t agree with your overuse of “‘Nuff said”. When there is “‘Nuff said” you should not continue as there has been [b]enough said[/b]. You on the other hand, however continued to speak (type?) not once but five separate times after there was a “‘Nuff said” in place. Please try to curb this in the future 🙂

        Also, I don?t think there can be “‘Nuff said” about Linux.

        And the deliberate misspellings, “lurvs”, “rawk”, “hawt” and “mah”. You sir, should be taken out back and shot for such blatant and wanton disregard for the English language.

        one of mike’s angrier personalties. 🙂

        • #3153598


          by dawgit ·

          In reply to While I agree with what you have said

          no need to get ruf on us ole tuf guys. B-) enuf

        • #3153593

          The feng shui of your bedroom must be awful.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to While I agree with what you have said

          You really have an attitude problem.

          I don’t have a problem with ironic poetic license with the English language because I’m not unthinkingly fanatical about the English language. I have a healthy respect for the language, and am one of the strictest spelling and grammar fascisti I’ve ever encountered. Perhaps you should take a step back and realize that there are times when it might be appropriate to play with the language a bit, ya stodgy old fart.

          As for the repeated use of “’nuff said”, I was speaking in each case of the facts that A) that one argument should be enough (though there are other arguments as well, thus the reason I continued), and B) that very little needed to be said to get that one point across. Context, m’friend. Context.

        • #3152705

          I was being sarcastic,

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to The feng shui of your bedroom must be awful.

          My sense of humour stems from the British and Australian sense of humour which yanks can quiet often fail to grasp. I was just attempting to engage your sense of humour.

          Now I will be the first to admit that my sense of humour is a bit off beat and sometimes difficult to understand. Especially as you are reading text a lot of the actual communication is missing (tone of voice, facial expression, gestures) only about 25% of communication is actually verbal. But now I only ask that you take a step back and look at my comment in the way they were intended. Secondly, I’m not really a grammar Nazi my spelling and grammar are just as bad.

          Feng Shui, Please I am a practical Man.

        • #3152692

          fair ’nuff

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I was being sarcastic,

          I don’t have any problem with dry humor. I’ve been accused of causing dehydration with my own sense of humor in the past. Your presentation wasn’t really tailored very well for textual-only communication, though, and came across as serious rather than drily humorous.

        • #3152616

          Fair enough to say,

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to fair ’nuff

          As I said, (even face to face) I have an off beat sense of humor. But hey there is nothing worse than being just like everyone else.

        • #3151922

          something worse

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Fair enough to say,

          “The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.”

        • #3160793

          25% of communication?

          by vetch_101 ·

          In reply to I was being sarcastic,

          I was told 10% when I was on a sales course…

          I asked if the lecturer could conduct the rest of the course in silence, and I would still come out with 90% of the information I would have otherwise…

          I think that’s one of those moments where someone has pulled a statistic out of the air, and somehow it has become an urban myth…

        • #3160385


          by jaqui ·

          In reply to 25% of communication?

          spoken words are 75% of communication.

          body language it only 25%.

          tone of voice is roughly 15% of the total.

        • #3160176

          115% ? those days are gone

          by dawgit ·

          In reply to nope

          I used to get credit for producing 110% ( when it was probably 115% ) But, those days are dun-gone! And with communications these days with at least 50% b-s, it means roughly 65% effective communication at best.

        • #3160701

          What percentage of communication

          by haarhzh ·

          In reply to 25% of communication?

          .. is actually verbal depends from person to person. There are those who over-communicate verbally to compensate for the lack of other means of communication.
          There are also those who over-communicate using non-verbal means, such as facial expressions, gesticulation, frequent change in pitch, etc.
          I am certain that you can come up with at least one example for each case.

      • #3152948

        I bet you didn’t know it….

        by unclerob ·

        In reply to In ten words or less, I use free unices because:

        but your #26 makes you sound like a poet!

        Seriously I like that alot, you could use that catch phrase as text underneath the website main logo, i think it would look pretty cool!

        “In a world without fences and walls,
        I don’t need Gates and Windows.”

        – it’s catchy, every now & then someone will say something to me that just resonates a little longer than most written words

        If you have a website, you should post this statement up on there and then send me the link so I can see it in action. Heck send me your website link anyways, anyone who can come up with words like these probably has more good stuff that needs to be read! Ever thought of a career in writing/journalism?

        – keep it up!

        just my 0.02 cents cdn.

        • #3152688

          unfortunately not original

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I bet you didn’t know it….

          I paraphrased a statement I’ve seen floating around elsewhere to get that one. I didn’t make up that use of metaphor — can’t really claim credit (honestly).

          I have come up with similar stuff in the past, however, and will probably come up with similar stuff in the future. I just didn’t need to reinvent the wheel this time because some anonymous someone else had already done it for me.

          By the way, I’ve written a number of articles for TechRepublic and I’ve managed/edited an op/ed news analysis website in the past (and written my own editorial pieces for it). You’re not far off with the “career in writing/journalism” thing. I’m keeping a running tally of stuff I’ve had published at TR here:

          Thanks for the encouragement, even if it was based on the assumption that I invented a bit of poetic phrasing that was in truth only borrowed. Here’s a bit more that I didn’t make up myself:

          [i]I’m a poet
          And I don’t know it
          But my feet show it
          ‘Cause they’re Longfellows[/i]

    • #3152065

      Ok, but…

      by dawgit ·

      In reply to Fill in the blank – I use *nix because __________

      is anybody else useing ‘forth’? It’s a great programing lang for running machines, it’s even benn ported to run the ‘Lego’ Robots. (I haven’t tried that yet. Too many $$$$ for playing right now.) It also does great math (even with-out a math co-processor)

      • #3153173

        Forth !!!!

        by yobtaf ·

        In reply to Ok, but…

        I was a Forth user around 1978 -90. I worked in the film
        business and used a camera motion control system that ran on
        Forth. It was much more versatile then the current systems that
        all run on Windows but required some knowledge of language
        because there was no GUI. It was all command line and ran
        custom scripts.

        I found it pretty easy to use, but haven’t heard if it since.

        As far as math goes, you have to be careful that all the numbers
        in the buffer are used, or you can get some unexpected results.

        • #3154176

          The problem with Forth

          by linux&windows ·

          In reply to Forth !!!!

          The idea of Forth is great. Like Lisp, the rules of the language are brilliantly simple. And for low memory applications, you simply can’t beat it. However, the string handling is atrocious and this has stopped it being taken seriously. If someone could get it to handle strings as well as Perl or even BASIC then I would use it over anything else.

        • #3160811

          Forth83 / ZenForth

          by 0ldan ·

          In reply to The problem with Forth

          I still have my old DOS based versions of FORTH laying around on a disk somewhere. I even check to see if the old windows based versions of FORTH still exist – Todd Zimmer’s Win32 Forth.

          And of course, I used to play with Quartus Forth on my Palm.

          I was hoping that it would take the world by storm. Oh well, PERL, anyone?

    • #3151952

      10 words: The computer was invented to compute more quickly than humans.

      by absolutely ·

      In reply to Fill in the blank – I use *nix because __________

      10 more: The computer was NOT invented just to draw prettier cartoons!

    • #3153591

      another one

      by apotheon ·

      In reply to Fill in the blank – I use *nix because __________

      . . . because there’s no C++ in the kernel.

    • #3153492

      My IQ passed 80…

      by x-marcap ·

      In reply to Fill in the blank – I use *nix because __________

      ‘nuf said.

      • #3153431

        Hey apotheon!

        by charliespencer ·

        In reply to My IQ passed 80…

        Remember that slang term I redefined over on the other thread? This is what I was talking about.

        • #3153418


          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Hey apotheon!

          poking fun at products is fine, I can see that, but it’s not the fault of the poor employee if their boss is to stupid to switch to a better os. 😉

        • #3152902

          Much better.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to ~lol~

          This has the advantage of placing the blame where it belongs.

        • #3153008

          Tech not smart to recommend to Boss.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to ~lol~

          We Microsoft shop.UGH… Love pay money to Gates. Make him poorer…

        • #3152682

          I think you lost me.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Hey apotheon!

          Slang term? Other thread?

          Link, please.

        • #3152621


          by jaqui ·

          In reply to I think you lost me.

          go into the 10 words or less I don’t use linux discussion.

          where you and Palmetto were discussing militant penguinistas. :p

        • #3151846

          Jaqui, thanks

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to link

          I was off line today. Thanks for answering apo’s question.

      • #3152836

        now that’s a good one

        by dawgit ·

        In reply to My IQ passed 80…

        yup,I like that one (even if did come from a jar head 🙂 )

        • #3153014

          We prefer

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to now that’s a good one

          Gotta poke fun at yourself once in a while…

        • #3154311

          Who we?

          by dawgit ·

          In reply to We prefer

          I prefer barking at the moon, always have. I guess it’s an old dawg thing ?:|

    • #3153354

      I use *nix because __________

      by jon paul ·

      In reply to Fill in the blank – I use *nix because __________

      it was here when I accepted the job!

    • #3152811

      Could there be an age thing ??

      by dawgit ·

      In reply to Fill in the blank – I use *nix because __________

      I’ve noticed that those here in this discussion if not older, have at least more time in computing, than in the ‘…do not use’ discussion. Is it because we knew of of other OSs and other ways of doing things, before there was a MS window thing? Oh, :0 knowlege sets you free. :^0

      • #3152710

        Interesting theory

        by charliespencer ·

        In reply to Could there be an age thing ??

        I think you may have something. The older you are in this field, the more likely you are to have pre-GUI experience with CLI OSs on a variety of big iron. The younger you are, the more likely the only machine you’ve ever used was a Wintel PC. Of course, part of this is due to the increasing ratio of PC’s to mainframes.

        • #3152684

          on the other hand

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Interesting theory

          While I’ve seen/touched mainframes, I’ve never directly used one. I’ve always used microcomputers (typically called PCs). I started before the GUI was widely available, with DOS and some other CLI-based OSes (like Atari’s from the early ’80s), but early experience with the CLI isn’t the only reason I use it, and isn’t the only reason I’m willing to step outside the comfortable world of the Windows GUI.

          I’ve noticed that the most fervent defenders of Windows are, as far as I’ve been able to determine, almost entirely inexperienced with alternative modern OSes, with the possible exception of MacOS <= 9. I'd rather use Windows than any version of MacOS before MacOS X, myself, so I can hardly blame people for thinking Windows is great if their only other experience is Macs before MacOS X. I can't even blame them for thinking Windows is great if they've worked with mainframes, MacOS 9 and earlier, and Windows, but nothing else really -- and I've come across a few Windows defenders for whom that was exactly their range of experience. Basically, MacOS "classic" was crap for everything but a very small range of tasks, mainframes and many proprietary unices are generally entirely unsuitable for anything but back-end server heavy lifting, and Windows is a more general-purpose desktop/workstation system. As a result, anyone with only those experiences of OS environments should prefer Windows functionality for a general-purpose desktop/workstation system, since it's the one best suited to that purpose. The problem comes when people who've worked with an AS/400 (running OS/400), MacOS 8, Windows, and maybe DOS, extensively -- but haven't used something like Linux at all, or have only spent about two hours being frustrated by RedHat 5 -- start generalizing their experience to include all OSes. They tend to lump MacOS X in with MacOS "classic", and to lump recent Linux distribution releases in with mainframes and SCO Unix or HP-UX. The notion that age or length of computer experience correlating to some extent with positive opinions of unixy environments has some merit, but only because greater age and/or length of computer experience increases the chances that the individual also has a greater breadth and depth of computer experience, I think. The longer someone has been working with computers, the more likely that person is to have used more OSes, and thus the more likely that person is to have extensive experience with something like Linux or *BSD -- in other words, with free unices that make excellent desktop/workstation systems. That's my take on it, anyhow.

        • #3152619

          extensive experience with? or

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to on the other hand

          willingness to take a serious look at other operating systems, which would mean grabbing a distro and installing it on a system then using it for a while to evaluate it.

          The longer someone has been working with computers the more likely they are going to jump on an idea and start looking at it rather than come up with reasons to not implement it.

        • #3153873

          Apotheon, I prefer X on Unix to anything…

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to on the other hand

          Does anyone prefer windows who has a balance of experience? I say no. They seem to be only able to use the LCD of applications/OS anyway.

          IMHO, The SCO releases that had CDE were fine, and they worked well.

          I prefer CDE/Motif to all the rest. That is personal taste. Windows is merely a base for Exceed or Open/X to connect to UNIX servers/Linux server/Solaris servers to me. The browser war is over for me, I like firefox. I only USE IE when it os absolutely necessary.

        • #3153072

          To overgeneralize …

          by tommy higbee ·

          In reply to on the other hand

          Just about everyone who likes Unix/Linux has some “story” to tell about how he got involved in it. Most die-hard Unix/Linux haters are operating based on impressions.

          Yes, I know there are exceptions.

          I’ve noticed that AS400 shops tend to use the AS400 wherever they can, and Windows everywhere else. I suspect it’s just because they’ve never gone the Unix or Linux route before. This, even though the AS400 has some features that work very well with Unix.

          New Linux users may be a different story, but older Linux users and Unix users almost always have a story to tell about how they got there.

          This is mine.

          No, not really. One of my first observations after encountering and using Linux/Unix is that DOS/Windows started out as a “hobby” or “toy” system that has had to grow up with the PC. At some point, you realize the design was just inadequate. Which is why Microsoft has spent so much time re-designing the OS (No snide comments, please. Help yourself to snide thoughts, however.)

          Linux and/or Unix, on the other hand, comes from the opposite direction: a system that was overdesigned for the early PC’s, but comes into its own as the PC gets more powerful. At some point in the growth of the PC, the advantage shifts heavily to Linux.

          For example, to this day, even the smallest Linux installs are muti-user in ways that even the most modern server versions of Windows probably never will be. Citrix had to solve all the hard parts of making Windows look like a multi-user system, because it was so foreign.

          I warned you I was overgeneralizing….

        • #3153049

          . . . but on-target

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to To overgeneralize …

          You may be overgeneralizing, but your points are good.

        • #3153006

          PCs have run xenix since 386 days well.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to To overgeneralize …

          The Gui is the massive overhead.

          When you run C programs even a 386/16 had good response. Better in fact than a 400MZ running Bills’ 98se.

          The Gui is the overhead. I could run 16 users on a 386/25 with a stallion Anvil card in Xenix. This is before windows 3.X

          The difference was there was no Gui… all CUI.

        • #3154318

          on the other hand

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to PCs have run xenix since 386 days well.

          The codebase on which Windows was originally built ran on a 286. No fully functional Unix work-alike ran on anything less than a 386. I think Minix did, but it also lacked much of what made Unix what it was.

        • #3154058


          by lonnie ·

          In reply to on the other hand

          Yep, I have installed Minix on an 8086, nothing to brag about, but it would run.

        • #3146155

          gnu ran on 8086’s

          by slowboatskipper ·

          In reply to on the other hand

          Sorry but the 80386 thing is pastently incorrect.

          Years ago I had two S100 Compupro boxes with Intel 8086 processors. One m/c running gnu and another had AT&T system 5 unix.

        • #3147702


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to on the other hand

          There never was a complete GNU OS, unless you count GNU/HURD — which is a very recent phenomenon (and definitely doesn’t run, in toto, on the 8086).

        • #3147687

          GNU os..

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to on the other hand

          or, more correctly, the Free Software Foundation’s GNU project os, after years of work they had all the core utilities but the kernel. Linus torvalds and his group had spent years working on a unix like kernel for the 80386 processors, and nothing else. GNU approached the Linux Kernel group and asked if they would be willing to combine projects to get a working os.
          when the Kernel group agreed, we would up with the operating system correctly named GNU-Linux, version 1.0
          This is more commonly called Linux.

          until 1994, GNU did not have a unix like operating system in tot, they had the shell and base utilities.

        • #3147370

          Precisely, Jaqui.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to on the other hand

          Unless (s)he has some magical card to pull out that explains the statement that (s)he was using “gnu” on an 8086, I’m going to have to go with the assumption that (s)he’s full of it.

        • #3147346

          Thanks Jaqui

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to on the other hand

          That’s the way I’d always heard the history. Thanks for clearing up my temporary confusion. Well, temporary confusion on this one point; I’m always confused about something or other.

        • #3146595


          by jaqui ·

          In reply to on the other hand

          most linux distros have some sort of documentation that has exactly the info I posted included in a small history of linux somewhere.

          what I think is funny is that people think that linux is so much older than windows, when in reality, it is far younger.
          windows 1.0 came out in what, 1982?
          linux 1.0 with kernel 1.0 was 1994.
          linux 1.0 did very quickly have a gui available, since the port of the xserver from commercial unices was trivial, so linux has had a full blown gui available for as long as ms has had the gui only bloatware they are calling windows.

        • #3157038

          I have a Microsoft Xenix for a 286 on 5 1/4 in floppies

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to on the other hand

          26 of them with the word processor…

          I used it for maybe a month until SCOs 386 Xenix was available… I had to get a cert before I could buy it…

          I also have Oracle 5 for SCO on 5 1/4 in floppies. It is a stack!!!

        • #3154170

          Memory lane – a little

          by pkr9 ·

          In reply to PCs have run xenix since 386 days well.

          I was running a AS/400 and OS/2 shop some 12 years ago. The network was TokenRing 16 M/bit, with about 150 users, all early pentiums, 75MHz or so with 16 MB RAM running WARP.

          PC-server was an IBM thing 100 MHz with whopping 2GB disk in raid5, 40MB ram running OS/2 Warp Server, and generally 100 users connected. We used network-versions of Lotus Office in pure OS/2 versions, later changed to MS/Office due to group requirements. Not because what we had didn’t work, it performed admirably, but clean politics.

          I had NO complaints about speed, and PC- and servercrashes were non-existing. The AS/400 was running by itself, needed a new tape every day and a fixpack about every 6 months. The WARP server was stability itself, and the GUI was very good, administration easy and flexible with a lot of buttons to tune if you wanted. I was in real chock when I saw that the only tuning instrument on a Windows machine was the wallet – buy more RAM or faster HW. Throwing good HW after bad SW.

          Connecting users to ressources was drop and drag, which MS haven’t mastered 12 years later. You could have different fonts pr window – even different keyboard layouts pr windows, Russian keyboard in one, US, Danish or whatever in the other. We ran Windows inside OS/2 and could administer the windows settings pr user, and it acually worked, contrary to Microsoft roaming users, which had to be solved by Citrix. You could tune every Windows session, and have multiple running simultaneously – in different languages if yuo wanted to. When Windows crashed or locked-up, the rest of the PC was untouched as it Windows was just an application and not in any way locked into the OS/2 system.

          Boot time was about 2 minutes, which was unimportant as it was a once-a-day affair, carried out while you were hangingh your coat and collecting the cofee. Naturally PC security was not up to todays standard, but server security was very good. The AS/400 – now iSeries- haven’t seen a virus or been hacked in 19 years.

          Why on earth do we select the fluffy stuff from Redmond ?

          So back to the thread:

          I use *NIX because in the version I use, I can do most of these things.

        • #3153719

          Yes, and no

          by justin james ·

          In reply to Interesting theory

          One thing that I have found is that “old timers” are more willing to use a UNIX in a command line situation. Younger people are more than happy to use UNIX, but they seem to require a “pseudo-Windows experience.” For what I use UNIX for (servers), X/GNOME/KDE are naughty words. That’s just system resources wasted; my server sits at the login prompt, where it belongs. Heck, one of my BSD servers does not even have a video card in it. Now that is trust. I trust the OS to the point where I feel that if anything ever breaks, I can either fix it via SSH or it will be a hardware failure and I need to open the box.

          Younger users seem to rely upon YAST, aptget, RPMs, and other package managers. I cannot count the numbers of posts I have read on TR, emails from friends, etc. all from “devout Linux users” who are unable to do something as trivial as unpack a tarball and run “make install”. This is actually a giant compliment to the people working on desktop Linux. It is now easy enough so that you do not actually have to know UNIX to run Linux. My first encounter with Linux was Slackware Linux, sometime around ’96 (don’t remember the exact year). You needed to recompile the kernel just to get the sound card working.

          I grew up surrounded by Wangs and VMS systems. The first language I learned was BASIC (complete with line numbers!) on a green screen; at the time, it was a “priviledge” to play with the 386 if you finished early. After that, it was COBOL on a creaking mainframe (not quite sure if it was System V or VMS, but pretty sure that it was System V). My point is, I am well accustomed to working in the command line environment, and I do not count on a GUI. I can use Windows without a mouse. I can use UNIX without a GUI. For me, the idea of a GUI-less UNIX is “just right.”

          It will be interesting to see how the UNIX’s, particularly Linux, change in respond to the influx of users migrating away from Windows.


        • #3151850

          Both young and old

          by andy goss ·

          In reply to Interesting theory

          I am sure this is true for the older generation of IT workers, after using mainframe OSes for many years before meeting the DOS PC, I have no inhibitions about junking M$ for something that, for me, works better.
          My children, who have used both Windoze and Linux at school, have no problem switching between them. It is people like my wife, who is stubbornly computer-illiterate and has only ever used Windoze, who feel that M$ is somehow inevitable, like death and taxes, and must be endured.
          There are others, who believe that M$ is a sacred institution, and that the Linux heresy will bring down plagues of boils upon us.

        • #3151813

          changing times

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Both young and old

          It’s good to see that schools are starting to teach more than one platform, including open source OSes on commodity hardware types. I guess we’re fast approaching the point where there’s a “middle age” for computer users — if you’re in that age group, you’re more likely to be a Microsoft cultist, but if you’re a little older or a little younger, you’re more open to other options.

        • #3151773

          That would be…

          by dawgit ·

          In reply to changing times

          The ‘dark ages’ then.

        • #3151722

          Hmm. Good name for it.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to That would be…

          I’ll have to start writing up an anthropological history of computing at some point, I think — and I’ll call that period the “Dark Ages”. Thanks for the inspiration.

        • #3151699

          any time

          by dawgit ·

          In reply to Hmm. Good name for it.

          any time at all, you’re more than welcome. -d

    • #3152771

      BSD is free, secure, stable, and mature

      by justin james ·

      In reply to Fill in the blank – I use *nix because __________

      ’nuff said. I would probably have gone with Solaris if it had been free when I jumped into using UNIX for personal use. Unfortunately, I get the impression that the order of software availability on *NIX goes:

      HP-UX, AIX, System V, etc.

      … on a rather logarithmic scale…


      • #3152683

        pretty much

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to BSD is free, secure, stable, and mature

        The drop-off rate for software availability is pretty significant, even between *BSDs (have you evern compared software availability, including drivers, between FreeBSD and OpenBSD?).

        I don’t really see much point in using Solaris for most purposes with *BSD and Linux around, personally. It doesn’t get much more secure and stable than OpenBSD — which, as far as I’ve been able to determine, kicks the holy hell out of Solaris on both scores. Sure, there’s stuff out there that’s probably more secure and/or stable than OpenBSD, but I don’t think any of it runs on microcomputers.

        • #3153874

          Differences between BSDs

          by justin james ·

          In reply to pretty much

          Unfortunately, you are quite right about the differences in software/driver availability within the BSD family. I originally started with OpenBSD, and after about three days of trying to get things working, I went to FreeBSD and was up and running within a day. I would much rather prefer to be using OpenBSD, for all of the reasons you mentioned, but I just can’t bring myself to do it.

          Solaris? I hated Solaris with a passion for years. I later found out that my problems with Solaris stemmed not from Solaris, but from incompetent people managing Solaris systems. I am willing to give it another shot. Sun has some of the smartest, brightest engineers on the planet on their payroll. To me, my desire to try Solaris is like my desire to drive a Saab. I want to know what it is like to drive a car made by a company that also makes fighter jets. That’s how I feel about Solaris. Sun is a company of brilliant engineers with zero business sense.


    • #3153792

      by hopefulcoder ·

      In reply to Fill in the blank – I use *nix because __________

    • #3151727

      I use *nix because __________

      by sleepin’dawg ·

      In reply to Fill in the blank – I use *nix because __________

      It isn’t @#$%^&* Windoze!!!!!!!!

      [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

      • #3151613

        ahh, I see you

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to I use *nix because __________

        have had enough of the “mushroom treatment” to not want it from your operating system as well. ]:)

      • #3153286

        So why not a Mac?

        by charliespencer ·

        In reply to I use *nix because __________

        It isn’t Windows either. Why not DOS?

        • #3153221

          a mac?

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to So why not a Mac?

          spend even ore money to have even less software?

          why would you want to do that?

        • #3153104

          I can think of a few reasons

          by justin james ·

          In reply to a mac?

          To be brutally honest, GNOME, KDE, X, etc. are all even less friendly that the command line in UNIX, IMHO. At least the command line does not seem to spaz out over a less than common video card or something. All of the UNIX GUIs that I have used are pretty unusable. Occassionally from a technical standpoint, and always from a usability/interface design standpoint. You can slap all of the themes and different systems you want on it, the people who write them seem to spend WAY too much time on technical wizardry, and not nearly enough time on making is accessable.

          This is what Apple get really, really right. It has been ages since I used a Mac. But during my time working telephone support, I could troubleshoot problems on MacOSX, despite having only used it once in my life (for about 10 minutes). Furthermore, the Mac users seemed a LOT less knowledgable about the inner workings of their OS. Why? Because they never had to delve into it. But when they needed to, it was easy for them to do. That really changed my opinion on the Mac. OS9 was horrible. OSX is really attractive to me.

          UNIX has been coming a long way. It is a powerful statement that most of the people who picked up Linux in the last few years are completely clueless about it. Technical minded, yes, but still clueless about the command line, rc.d, inetd configuration, host files, ifconfig, etc. etc. etc. UNIX is getting much easier to use. But it just isn’t there yet.

          As you say, buying a MAc is indeed spending more money for less software and weaker hardware. But you could have all the software in the world and the most power ful computer in the world, and it is still just a doorstop if you can’t use it.


        • #3152995

          CDE available for many years.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to I can think of a few reasons

          Frankly your knowledge is limited. You are ignorant, now I didn’t say stupid. We can investigate that now if you wish…

          You weren’t exposed. The command line is easy to get to. Right click on desktop for Solaris and pick from the menu bar in HPUX or other IX…
          A dtterm is wonderful I can make the font big enough for this old guy to read without glasses…

          CLI is CLI… Unices are simpler if you know what you are doing…

          “ifconfig lan0 up” is one heck of a lot easier than finding the right ICON.

          ifconfig plumb lanX is simpler than trying to find the right driver from a list of choices…

          If you know UNIX it is soooooo much easier…

          Plug and Pray interfaces are great the 2 in 5 times they work. Have all slots full, and I have seen that you still can have interrupt ptoblems…

          Better to know what you are doing.

          ifconfig plumb lanX
          ifconfig lanx X.X.X.X Y.Y.Y.0 up

          Dang! that’s simple…

        • #3160238


          by justin james ·

          In reply to CDE available for many years.

          I beleive you read my post wrong. I am a firm, form, FIRM beleiver in the UNIX CLI! I probably did not make it clear enough; I labeled the UNIX CLI unfriendly, and barely implied that I think it is good. When in UNIX, I live in the CLI, period. The existing GUIs stink (and that includes CDE too). What OSX brings to the table is a usable GUI.


        • #3157034

          I guess we have to agree to disagree.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Miscommunication

          I make the ICONS for my administrative tasks and it takes a second to get the right one.I use Screen1 for Production and the background on the windows are red… Screen2 is Development, Screen3 is TEST, Screen 4 is for command line stuff…

          To each their own, but you may not be the X-head I am and could use a pointer to make it easier…

        • #3153098

          Cost not a criteria

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to a mac?

          sleepin’dawg’s answer was that *nix wasn’t Windows. He didn’t mention saving money, (or security, or access to the code). Apparently the only reason he runs *nix is that it isn’t Windows, so I wondered why he rejected the other alternatives.


        • #3153048

          then you were mistaken

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Cost not a criteria

          as macosx is *nix


        • #3154343

          Not the first time.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to then you were mistaken

          So it’s possible he’s using a Mac. Thanks for the enlightenment.

    • #3153174

      Where’s All the nix shops?

      by jerome.koch ·

      In reply to Fill in the blank – I use *nix because __________

      Outside of Universities, large database servers and webservers (primairily Sun OS), I cannot find that many nix servers in use.

      I work in a Novell Netware shop, and SuSe hasn’t caught on at all. We will move to Windoze before ever going over to SuSe.

      Most of the shops around here are still offering only Windoze. If Linux was catching on, there would be alot more demand for certified and trained CLPs. I’m wedged between Detroit and Chi town, Lansing, and Indianpolis. Yes, ancedotally, people will say they know of X or Y company that is using Linux, but overall I don’t see it. I’ve been a Netware person for a decade, and the few of us left have seen most biz going to Windoze and not Linux.

      • #3153062

        Not where you are, evidently, but they’re out there

        by tommy higbee ·

        In reply to Where’s All the nix shops?

        A Novell Master CNE I know tells me that the new Novell Linux (SUSE) is catching on pretty fast. Why would you do something as disruptive as ditch a Novell network and replace it with Windows, when you could have the same services running on top of Novell Linux with virtually no disruption at all? Generally, when people make such a huge change, it’s because of a mandate from Higher Up.

        I sure wouldn’t generalize based on perceived demand for certified and trained CLP’s. Most Linux shops don’t put as much stock in certifications, because the certifications are still pretty new. Unix shops in general have never relied too much on certifications either.

        Novell Linux is still new. Before that, Netware was bleeding profusely, and Windows picked up virtually all the lost Novell business. It’s too soon to say if Novell Linux will stop the loss of business, but early signs are promising.

      • #3153038

        timing and tunnel vision

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to Where’s All the nix shops?

        You’re a Novell NetWare guy, you say — and have been for a decade.

        That’s why you’re not seeing any Linux shops or Linux migration. Until very recently, when Novell got into the Linux business, the “natural” migration path from Novell was to Microsoft. The reason for that is that Novell’s solutions provided an integrated network operating system solution designed to bring network administration into the world of “easy management”, where “easy” means things like clicky icons. The OS family that was bringing that into the server space, aside from Novell’s, was Windows. Unices still did (and for the most part still do) operate on the principle that one doesn’t run superfluous crap that’s not needed on a server, including a GUI.

        Companies like RedHat and Novell are bringing the GUI, and all the technical philosophy that goes with it, to the server space for unices. It’s only in the last couple years that any kind of natural migration path from older Novell systems to Linux/Unix has really begun to emerge. As time goes on, I think you’ll start seeing more of the older Novell customer base moving to Linux instead of Windows, though I’m not sure that Linux will ever get “most of” the Novell migrations (not even Novell/SuSE Linux), because in addition to server migration there’s the question of network-wide OS homogeneity (older Novell networks all run Windows clients, for the most part, thus providing additional conceptual incentive to migrate to Windows servers).

        This all is particularly applicable in countries like the US. Much of the older Novell customer base is in third-world and nearly third-world countries, however — emerging industrialization over the last decade has netted a lot of European and African business for NetWare and other Novell technologies before Novell got into the Linux business. These countries’ Novell shops are more likely to look to technologies outside of the mainstream Windows space, in large part because of licensing and cost issues. It’s in certain parts of Europe and Africa that Novell will probably see the most NetWare-to-SuSE migration, in terms of market share percentages, largely because of social and cost factors.

        It’s your timing and market niche that puts you in a position of not seeing the Linux migrations and Linux/Unix shops that exist around you. As a jack of many trades in the IT world, a consultant, industry analyst, heterogeneous network administrations guy, and so on, I tend to get a lot more context from the wider industry than some other people — as a result, I probably have a more comprehensive idea of what’s going on in the small to medium business server market than you do, but for Novell administration I’d almost certainly defer to you at all times despite CNA/CNE studies in 2000.

      • #3153015

        Linux not large DB servers We use HPUX for that.

        by x-marcap ·

        In reply to Where’s All the nix shops?

        Linux is often used as a reliable DNS server. I do say reliable as Windows DNS isn’t that…
        Reverse lookup is always messed up in 2003.

        Linux is used for Apache server…

        You are in a benighted area…

        • #3154310

          Why not for DB servers?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Linux not large DB servers We use HPUX for that.

          The Wikimedia Foundation, which serves some of the highest-traffic websites in the world with some very heavy database loads because of the nature of the sites the Foundation supports (think: Wikipedia). Those database servers are running on Fedora Core Linux. I installed and configured some of them myself.

        • #3154029

          Management Fear, HPUX is mature, and our standard.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Why not for DB servers?

          The truth is our Corporation has two standards. HPUX and WINDOWS.

          If it has to run in a UNIX it is preferable to be HPUX 11i. That is the Corporate Standard.

          We also have Solaris7-9, SunOS4.2. We are implementing large Linux cluster 16-32 nodes. Depending on the numeric modeling software performance.

          Our ERP is in HPUX… on a 16 way 1GZ PA-RISC with ~14T EMC RAID gulping IO…

        • #3160241

          Linux is weak on more than 8 CPUs

          by justin james ·

          In reply to Why not for DB servers?

          Linux has a reputation for not scaling well on more than 8 CPUs. For a large DB server (say, a 64 proc server), you really want an industrial UNIX, like HPUX, AIX, Solaris, etc.


        • #3160151

          What?? Now you you got me..

          by dawgit ·

          In reply to Linux is weak on more than 8 CPUs

          Really riled up. Linux ‘IS’ the OS of choice, world wide for ‘High-Performance-Computer-Clusters’, If you want I can give you several examples. (after I take my BP pills) I don’t know if there is enuf room here ?:| Anyway you know better. -d

        • #3160078
          Avatar photo

          Better not tell IBM that

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Linux is weak on more than 8 CPUs

          They sell 5000 CPU Blades mostly with either Red Hat or SUSE installed.

          It’s Windows that really lacks the ability to be properly scalable when you start looking at a real big server. Even with the 2003 ES product on it’s release it only allowed a Quad processor Server to run at 20% of each CPU’s capacity. That’s as at the Release of the product as demonstrated by MS on a Quad HP Server.

          But I believe that a Service Pack address that and you can now get CPU Usage up to 21% of the available capacity. 😀


        • #3151568

          JJ– More than 8???

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Linux is weak on more than 8 CPUs

          Unless you have a superdome, or a large super scalar computer, 8 cores should be enough to smoke a MS server by a factor of 3. Just don’t short it on RAM.

          A Dome can have 128 itaniums on it running HPUX. or it can be broken up into smaller Cell based systems of N^2 where n=2,4,6,8 for linux.

          I prefer HPUX because of stability and speed. I wish HP had brought the PA-RISK up to 3.0 GZ…

          As it is. 1GZ 4 way PA-RISC can smoke a server with 2003 on it trying to run an equivalently configured oracle. Put that on a 4 way itanium and Zounds!!! It flies. The 15k SCSI hard drives help, too.

      • #3161342

        are you kidding me?

        by nigel ·

        In reply to Where’s All the nix shops?

        Our data centre is full of linux people. We had a meet and greet your neighbours and 30% of the people there use windoze beacause they didnt know how to use linux. 50% used linux and the rest used a combination of sun and unix. Netware sucks. Its time to upgrade your skills or be left out in the cold.

    • #3153131

      Hate Mail

      by <brian lenon> ·

      In reply to Fill in the blank – I use *nix because __________

      All you do is Bash MS. Where is the user frindley desktop?

      • #3161341

        user friendly…

        by nigel ·

        In reply to Hate Mail

        Use a mac. It costs more but it is worth it. windows isnt worth the disc it is pressed on.

    • #3153109

      I use *nix because …

      by underground_in_tn ·

      In reply to Fill in the blank – I use *nix because __________

      … all the TechRepublic *nix Trolls say I’m a stupid, vulnerable sheep if I don’t. 🙂

    • #3153079


      by Anonymous ·

      In reply to Fill in the blank – I use *nix because __________

      Because I can’t afford not to…

      Literally, I am talkin about money here. I will admit, I favor Windows. I spend significantly less time fiddling, tweaking, patching, hacking, etc…, and more time getting stuff done. With Windows. I can have XP up and fully running in less than 20 min. Windows Server in less then 45. Never seemes to go that smoothly with Others. I have three different distros running at the moment, because I can’t find just one that does it all easily.
      Just recently, I started looking into building a media center. My choices, I can spend a bunch of moola I don’t have for Windows Media Center Edition, or I can spend hours/days, finding just the right (supported) card(s), for MYTHTV, and than spend several more hours wading though the installation process, which – based on the various posts I’ve googled – is not exactly plug and play. can’t say that I am looking forward to investing that much time in it. I have plenty of other things to do with my day, but at least it is in my price range.

      • #3153028

        Well, that’s odd.

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to Honestly…

        “[i]I can have XP up and fully running in less than 20 min. Windows Server in less then 45.[/i]”
        It takes me about 30 minutes to go from scratch to a fully customized desktop or server system with Debian GNU/Linux, on average. If I just want a basic fileserver, it takes less than 20 minutes. Because of the registry hacks and security measures that need to be made with a Windows install for a desktop system, it has tended to take me at least eighty minutes to go from zero to a fully-functioning workstation with Windows XP (assuming I don’t have disk imaging and other shortcut trickery at my disposal — which similarly reduces install and configuration time for a Linux system).

        My understanding (I haven’t set it up myself, but I know people who have) is that MythTV is damned near as “plug and play” as Windows Media Center, but a lot more flexible. I’ve never seen anyone take more than two hours to get MythTV set up. Maybe my friends are just lucky, or maybe this is a testament to the relative level of skill with computers that my friends have, but hours and days, as you suggest, spent futzing with setup is entirely outside the realm of the experiences of anyone I know.

        • #3152996


          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to Well, that’s odd.

          Much of it has to do with what you are most experienced with I guess. 20 min install is zero trickery, and with all the gizmos working. My record for XP WITH trickery is just shy of 5 min, (imaging) and for server is slightly < 10 min (a standard install, but installing as a VM, with a mounted ISO, rather than a CD, that CD drive is a serious performance bottleneck eh?) I log more hours with Windows than Linux. And since I haven't yet found a Linux distro I am really happy with, I have spread myself over a fairly large array of suprisingly different distro's (just discovered CentOS recently, and it looks fairly promising at first glance). Debian- I like the philosophy behind it. But have yet to get the GUI to "just work" first try. I Always seem to wind up having to fiddle with Textfiles, or Run Knoppix and copy resulting config files, or live with lower res, or poor display quality. I have worked with RedHat/Fedora Most. RH is out of the price range now, and FC is pretty hit and miss (FC3 failed during install due to a bug associated with the particular video card in my system. There was a posted fix: do a 'text install' start up in console mode, update the system...) And of course the networking sie of it... I have an AD environment up and running in less than Half an hour. A quick wizard or two and a smal handful questions to answer and I have network shares and printers, centralized passwords, policys to keep the kids out of trouble, scheduled backups... Not once did I have to scan a man page to help recall cmdlin args. No editing of config files... To be fair, I haven't tried installing MYTH install myself. I have just read a number of posts regarding the challenges of others. I should probably try it before I assume it is in fact difficult.

        • #3152986


          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Apparently…

          is RHEL

          just an open source version of it.

        • #3154313


          by ole man ·

          In reply to centos

          I use anything that I can besides Weenie-Blows and Applicitus because I am tired of their DRM crap and being spied on, held up, and ripped off.
          I’m not proficient with them yet, but i’m working on it, and the alternatives are getting better and better.

        • #3154073


          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to centos

          That is part of it’s “promising”ness, I think. The installer is pretty simple, and thinks seem to mostly just work. Last night was the first big test. Installed VMWARE server on it. I am happy to say it went very smoothly. Not quite as hands-free as the windows install, but pretty close. I only had one complaint really. I had to install gcc after tyhe fact because I hadn’t included it during the original install, and that turned into a game of musical disks, I switched back and for between disk 2 and disk 3 at least a half-dozen times. That is just plain silly.

          But other than that, I was pretty hapy witht he results.

        • #3154064

          that is definately

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Yes

          both a case of dependancy hell and a requires problem.
          gcc has to be installed, to install anything else.
          it is a required part of the os, so if you unselected it then the entire install should have failed.

          and dependancy hell is when the search for dependancies makes swapping disks a long process, or else if from ources, days of effort to find everything needed to get one small app installed.

        • #3154296

          I don’t see it.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Apparently…

          20 minutes from a CD, standard install? I’m having a very difficult time swallowing that. I’ve done more than 100 installs of Windows from CD (not counting other types of installs, such as from image, from ISO, et cetera) in the course of my life, and probably more XP installs than any other Windows release. I have yet to see a minimal Windows install, not counting any additional software, taking less than 38 minutes and change.

          It sounds like you’ve been uncommonly lucky with Windows and uncommonly unlucky with Debian. When I say “uncommonly lucky”, of course, I mean that I find it pretty difficult to believe that anyone got Windows XP installed from the CD in less than 20 minutes — fully installed, to the point where Windows is booted and functional — without any tricks of the trade. I’m willing to be proved wrong, but somebody should corroborate what you’ve said.

        • #3154215

          well it is possible….

          by sir_cheats_alot ·

          In reply to I don’t see it.

          to install a standard install of XP in 20 minutes if you have a 3.6 ghz processor or higher. i have a 2.8ghz w/800mhz FSB and 512MB DDR RAM, and i installed XP in about 27 minutes give or take a minute or two.
          as for less then 10 minutes…it’s highly doubtful unless you N-lited it to the point where it was useles beyond text editing(which may or may not work right after)
          less then 30 minutes i’ll buy, but less then 15 is a load of BS.

        • #3154075

          Good Hardware probably helps

          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to I don’t see it.

          Xeon 3.4 GHz, Raid0 Sata Drives, 3.4 GB Ram.

          As I said the 5 min. record was using Imaging SW, and a GB Connection. So I don’t really count it.

        • #3161073


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Good Hardware probably helps

          Why in the name of Gob an’ all that’s wholly would you install XP on that beast? You should be installing something a bit more capable on it.

        • #3161029


          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to woah

          I Think that has mostly been covered.
          A. It came with it (convenience)
          B. The install took very little time, and require no file tweaking.(convenience)
          C. The extra apps took very little time and required no tweaking. (convenience)

          True much of the time, the system is underutilized, but when I have to demo a virtualized multi-server/client environment, the extra horsepower gets used quite effectively.

        • #3154025

          I can do it with Ghost and the like in 20 minutes, but not from a CD.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to I don’t see it.

          We deploy tons of machines, and the real time may that of the 20 minutes to get an image, but not from initial CD unless the PC is far faster than anything I have ever seen.

          Linux is a slightly slower install, about 45 minutes to an hour and a half, but I don’t remember having to redo it many times over… (Debian disk checking aside… 14 is too many CDs)

          It also helps to have for a 100% gig E environment for GHOSTING…

        • #3161071


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I can do it with Ghost and the like in 20 minutes, but not from a CD.

          Why are you installing from the full CD set? You should be using the netinstall CD.

          . . . and how much are you using Aptitude during the install to get such slow install times? The last time it took me that long to install Debian, I was installing it on a 133MHz Pentium system.

        • #3161038

          The debian server at my house is an old HP pavilian 500 MZ.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Er?

          It isn’t much, but when running is snappy…

        • #3161035

          P4 Xeon 2X2.8GZ. Compaq 360.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to I can do it with Ghost and the like in 20 minutes, but not from a CD.

          By the time you put on Navi-agent from EMC, and reboot.

          Then you zone storage using EMC controlcenter to multiple fiber channel cards.

          By the time you put on power path from EMC and reboot.

          By the time you allocate 3.2 TB of Clariion storage, and get it mounted in 128 GB chunks, and tune the kernel for oracle install, you have an hour and a half.

          It is almost the samee amount of time for me to put debian on a 500 MZ P3, I have at home without the bells and whistles and a wireless ethernet card…

        • #3160988

          no wonder

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to P4 Xeon 2X2.8GZ. Compaq 360.

          That’s a whole lot more than a simple install.

        • #3160966

          That is a simple install for our enterprise…

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to P4 Xeon 2X2.8GZ. Compaq 360.

          The HPUX server installs are much more complex…

        • #3159468

          Faster Machines?

          by underground_in_tn ·

          In reply to I don’t see it.

          I just put together a Pentium D 930 for my home PC. I loaded XP Pro 64-bit, Virtual Server 2005 and XP Pro 32-bit on a virtual machine, standard installs plus installing IIS services on 64-bit. The complete installation took 35 minutes total, with each OS/application taking installs taking 10, 5 and 20 minutes respectively.

          System speeds affect installation times. You shouldn’t be surprised at shardeth’s numbers.

        • #3154195

          a couple of timings

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Well, that’s odd.

          on an athlon 1800+ with 256 mb ddr, I installed Suse 10, total time to install off the dvd..27 minutes, including basic configuration.

          to get it configured the way I wanted it, took another hour..getting rid of gnome, ripping the gui only boot out, ripping the graphic mode out of grub config. then was told there was no hard drive space..checked../usr had 4 gigs free. seems suse actually installs xfree desktops, apache, postfix etc into /opt.

          Mandriva, 27 minutes with a completed install and custom config on the same box.[ asgain off a 16 timers dvd rather than from cd or internet.

          debian, network install [ through a 10 mb chocke point ] 23 minutes
          I used a floppy boot, since if I installed base system crom the iso debian crapped out on me at installing anythinmg else…

        • #3154063

          Debian, again

          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to a couple of timings

          Out of the ones you’ve list is most intriguing to me. And I will say a basic net install is pretty honking fast. And they are finally makig progress with Hardware detection. The install interrogation process. In fact my NTP server is Debian, and I really likeit for that. Most of my struggles with Debian have been Related to Xwindows. It never seems to “Just work” properly.

      • #3154022

        XP installs in under an hour?

        by lonnie ·

        In reply to Honestly…

        Just curious as to what you are installing on.

        I have yet to get XP installed in less than an hour, and that includes an install on a 2.4 ghz XEON Dell server box.

        As for Win2003 SBS, if you want to waste a lisence for an internet gateway, you are welcome, but to set one up as an internet gateway/DNS server/file server, I have had the local pro’s in here, and not once did the machine work once it was re-booted, per the MS standard proceedure.

        As for Debian, I have a bit of experience with it, and I have won all of the battles I have fought with it. I sets up so very nicely on the laptops that I have installed it on, X up and running out of the box, so to speak.

        And, I don’t even know how many times I have had to use KNOPPIX to repair other’s Windows installs, getting the proper drives for NICs, video cards, etc. Even on a couple of XP installs.

        I use Linux, Gentoo and Debian, because they work and are fun to use. And I can fix or find the fix for any problems that arise with out fattening Gate’s bank account.

        • #3161027

          I woudn’t Touch SBS…

          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to XP installs in under an hour?

          With a 50 Foot pole. Piece-o-Junk (imho). Better off to stick with 2003 Standard. A ‘Tad’ too expensive for home use though.

    • #3154173


      by wilko ·

      In reply to Fill in the blank – I use *nix because __________

      Faster, cleaner, more configurable, much more secure, more robust. Also free and I’ve not found found anything I want to do in Windows that I can’t do in *nix.

    • #3160959

      I use *Nix because___

      by sir_cheats_alot ·

      In reply to Fill in the blank – I use *nix because __________

      It’s stable, fairly secure, it does what i need it to, no current virus truely affects it, and its free.
      Does anything else matter?

    • #3160946

      I’ll answer for all the Windows-cultists who don’t think they use an *x OS.

      by apotheon ·

      In reply to Fill in the blank – I use *nix because __________

      All those Internet-addicted Windows out there use *x OSes because that’s what’s running most of the Internet. Every time they connect to a website, chances are good they’re using *x on the server side.

      • #3160872

        Depends on the definition of “use” used.

        by charliespencer ·

        In reply to I’ll answer for all the Windows-cultists who don’t think they use an *x OS.

        To misquote Bill Clinton.

        Does that shoe fit on both feet? When a Linux user who swears he doesn’t run Windows visits a site designed or run by an MS shop, are those Linux-cultists using Windows Server, IIS, FrontPage, and / or MS SQL?

        • #3160856

          I don’t agree with Apotheon

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Depends on the definition of “use” used.

          The original post was meant to mean as the os on workstation / server in your home / office.

          not the tenuous remote use he defined. :p

        • #3160323
          Avatar photo

          What about all the people who don’t know that

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to I don’t agree with Apotheon

          They are using a form of Nix with their DVD Players, Washing Machines that are Microprocessor controlled, their Mobile Phones and just about everything not directly related to computers but still Microprocessor controlled that they use on a daily basis?

          My son is a perfect example of this if it aint MS he doesn’t want to know about it but he can not live without his GPS which runs on Nix. I just don’t have the heart to point this out to him. 😀

          Col ]:)

        • #3160299

          Good point.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to What about all the people who don’t know that

          I wonder how many supposed Windows-only users that “would never use Linux” have Linux-based router/firewall appliances in their homes.

        • #3160295

          That’s not a very good way to differentiate.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I don’t agree with Apotheon

          What about someone that uses a Windows laptop to access a remote Linux application server via PuTTY and other tools to manage things like email, IRC, file storage, development utilities, and so on? Does my Linux application server only count because it’s in my bedroom, then? What if I had a virtual server account somewhere that I used for this purpose?

          What about someone who uses a virtual server account for webhosting? Does that count?

          What about someone who uses a cheapo webhosting account, but chooses specifically based on what OS the webhost uses? What about someone that uses such a webhosting account without caring what OS is being used, but ends up with a Linux-based webhosting account anyway?

          Where’s the dividing line?

        • #3160696

          The dividing line

          by haarhzh ·

          In reply to That’s not a very good way to differentiate.

          … lies therein that “use” is meant in terms of familiarity and ease of use.
          Windows users often have misconceptions about *NIX, believing that to “use” it is a step back towards DOS. Although it is to some degree similar to DOS, it is certainly not a step back. If anything, it is broadening the fundament.
          I think what it is really about is that windows users have been conditioned to be expected to solve computer problems themselves. With *NIX requiring a lot of initial fine-tuning, many never take the jump.
          In short, as long as it all looks familiar and is easy to use, windows users will quite happily use *NIX. Just don’t expect of them to set anything up.

        • #3160284


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Depends on the definition of “use” used.

          Unfortunately, that means I’m using a Windows system almost every day, because there are a couple of online informational resources I use that are on ASP websites hosted on MS Windows servers. I’d say that more than 98% of my online activity involves unices of some description, though, rather than MS Windows systems.

        • #3160235

          The use of “use”

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Sure!

          You’re really stretching the word “use”.

          I also question the accompanying posts that declare those who own DVRs and other hardware applications as “users” of operating systems, regardless of what OS is under the hood. All of this is second-hand interaction, part of a system I purchased assembled.

          Say my contractor selects lumber from an eco-friendly timber company. Living in the house doesn’t entitle me to declare -I- use environmentally friendly wood, especially if I learn about it only after the house is built.

        • #3160173

          Purchased assembled?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to The use of “use”

          Don’t you realize most people buy their computers from companies like Dell, pre-assembled, with the OS already installed and configured, and treat the damned things like appliances and game consoles? I guess they should all be removed from the statistics, then. Suddenly, Linux has a significant share of the desktop computer OS market.

          I like that. Let’s go with it.

        • #3160143

          Big difference

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Purchased assembled?

          Please note in my previous comment I was careful not to name an OS. My comments apply regardless of the OS used by the manufacturer of the hardware device. I’m not debating Linux vx. Windows, I’m saying you are really reaching to justify your point of “Everyone on the net ‘uses’ *nix.” Connecting to a site is not ‘using’ it’s OS.

          There’s a big difference between the OS on a desktop computer and the one on a hardware appliance like a router or a DVR. The user of the computer knows he has an OS. It displays itself in some form during the boot. He has to know the OS so he can obtain the appropriate apps, hardware drivers, support, etc.

          The consumer doesn’t even know his single purpose devices even have an OS. Nobody’s DVD player pops up with “Powered by Brand X Operating System” when you boot it. He doesn’t upgrade it, load patches, install new apps, or use it for anything other than the one single purpose the device was designed for. He uses the device by interacting with some form of interface that runs on top of that OS; he doesn’t ‘use’ the OS.

        • #3160075
          Avatar photo

          If you ask most of the Appliance Owners

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Big difference

          What OS their Computer is using the vast Majority will tell you the Makers Name on the Splash Screen and not even realise what a [b]Windows XP[/b] is they’ll think that it’s some new form of window design to allow the sun in and keep the wind & pollution out.

          When you start looking at the computers sold as Appliances you’ve lost the plot as the majority of the people who buy these things treat them as a [b]Throw Away Object[/b] and will never consider having it repaired as it’s cheaper to buy a new one! Even if Data Recovery was much cheaper with NB’s at the sub 1K AU mark why would they spend several times that amount just to get their data back?

          In every case that I’ve seen from this crowd they treat their computer as appliances and a throw away one at that without any form of AV Protection, the destruction manuals and CD/s get carefully filed in the rubbish bin and anything not directly connected to making it work isn’t considered as necessary. They even will just go along with the provided ISP as it must be the best available because I got the first 6 months usage free with the system. :^0

          These people just don’t count as Computer Users they are players not users.


        • #3160694

          Well written, Palmetto.

          by haarhzh ·

          In reply to Big difference

          I could not have put it any better.
          Well, maybe without the spelling mistakes 😛

    • #3151579

      Windows can’t handle the load that oracle with 4300 users puts on it…

      by x-marcap ·

      In reply to Fill in the blank – I use *nix because __________

      HPUX and Solaris not just linux.

      Windows with Microsoft administering it couldn’t keep up with our little 16 way 1GZ PA-RISKway 16GB servers…

    • #3145151

      I DON’T Use *nix because…

      by nabilmish ·

      In reply to Fill in the blank – I use *nix because __________

      How about “I don’t use *nix because”
      – A few years ago I read Linux groupies saying, “If your old computer runs slowly with Windows, try it with Linux” – and when I put Linux on my 450 MHz machine that ran Win 98 at a respectable speed, the Linux desktop (KDE) was unusably slow… [I know you’ll say it wasn’t a fair test – but I was doing what they (/you) said without qualification!]
      – In setting up a *nix machine (FreeBSD in this case) I had to manually edit a system file (I’ve forgotten which one – it was a while ago. Something related to connecting to our network, I believe). I inadvertently added a pair of parentheses around something and when I rebooted, the system wouldn’t come up and we couldn’t even get back into vi until we ran three (arcane) mount commands.
      – I have tried to install several packages on Linux that required manual, error-introducing editing of configuration files – and also required installation of other programs that required similarly manual editing of configuration files. And then when you try to figure out how to configure it, you find things like “It has been reported that under Distro ABC it works to do this, but under Distro XYZ you need to do that”. This all contrasts with Windows in which you install a package and can configure it (relatively safely) through menus, and easily change the configuration through those same screens, and you almost never have to configure other packages to get a Windows program to work.

      Now, let me tell you that I’ve been working with computers most of my nearly 50 years, starting on FORTRAN in high school in 1971. I’ve worked on mainframes, in MS-DOS and in Windows since 3.1, so I’m no technophobe or total “n00b”. I just think that program installation and configuration should be as easy and painless, and foolproof, as possible. I HAVE successfully installed and configured some packages on Linux (Nessus in particular) but it is never as easy and evident and foolproof as running a Windows setup.

      • #3145099

        re:I DON’T Use *nix because…

        by sir_cheats_alot ·

        In reply to I DON’T Use *nix because…

        First of all. your in the wrong forum thread.. there was one specifically for reason you dont use linux.
        Second people would argue that BSD ISN’T linux.

        Third: how long ago was that? Linux has gotten much better then it was a few years ago. Also you don’t have to manually edit a system file to install something either. i imagine it has been a very long time since you have tried it.

        FOURTH: this thread is a month old…why did you bother?

        Check Out Ubuntu. it has replaced my install of windows 😉

        • #3145091


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to re:I DON’T Use *nix because…

          . . . and FIFTH: this guy obviously hasn’t tried a modern package manager if he thinks that’s what’s really involved in installing software on Linux systems in general.

        • #3144727

          re:I DON’T Use *nix because…

          by nabilmish ·

          In reply to re:I DON’T Use *nix because…

          First of all, I saw this thread and didn’t happen to see the other thread.

          Second, the thread doesn’t say Linux – it says *nix – and BSD IS in the *nix family. The FreeBSD manual calls it “The Free Version of Berkeley Unix”.

          Third: the 450 MHz machine was about three years ago. I later (last year) installed SuSE on a 650 MHz machine and the speed is usually barely tolerable.

          Fourth: I was going through my old Tech Republic emails because I finally got a short break in my work, and I wanted to respond. What’s wrong with that?

          Basic packages, admittedly, install fine from the normal package manager. There have been things I wanted to do and I found packages on SourceForge that were supposed to be good, but I ran into all kinds of trouble trying to get them to work…

      • #3143743
        Avatar photo

        And the funny thing here is

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to I DON’T Use *nix because…

        I’ve just done exactly the same thing in a .NET environment to get a program working again under several different versions of Windows.

        What the developer couldn’t understand is why something that worked perfectly on her own system failed to work correctly 100% of the time when exposed to different Networking conditions.

        I’m beginning to think I’m back at [b]School Teaching Again.[/b] B-)

        What makes it even worse is that it’s for a Doctors Surgery where a report automatically gets sent from a specialist to the GP and is automatically looked for on a regular basis by the GP’s computers and as the Developers Father is my GP I didn’t even get paid to do this work. :_|


    • #3145435
      Avatar photo

      [i]I Use Nix Because[/i] :p

      by hal 9000 ·

      In reply to Fill in the blank – I use *nix because __________

      Mr Flibble is the most dangerous Penguin I’ve ever had the misfortune to see and he insists that I use it or he’ll kill me. :^0

      He makes Billy Boy look Positively [b]Nice[/b] in comparison. 😀

      And for those of you who have never heard of [b]Mr Flibble[/b] he’s the glove Puppet Penguin out of [b]Red Dwarf Series 5 Episode 4 called Quarantine.[/b] So [b][i]SMEG OFF![/b][/i]

      Col ]:)

      • #3155407

        Ah – pop culture…

        by vetch_101 ·

        In reply to [i]I Use Nix Because[/i] :p

        Didn’t realise you got Red Dwarf out in Aus…

        It is definitely a classic episode – my favourite part (shamelessly lifted from when I realised I couldn’t remember it word for word):-

        R: If there is one thing I can’t stand it’s crazy people.
        L: Well we’ve passed the test, you can let us out.
        R: I can’t. The King of the Potato People won’t let me. I begged him. I got
        down on my knees and wept. He wants to keep you in here for 10 years.
        C: Could we see him.
        R: See who.
        C: The King.
        R: Do you have a magic carpet ?
        L: Yeah, a little 3 seater.
        R: So let me get this straight. You have a magic carpet and you want to fly
        on it to see the King of the Potato People and plead with him for your
        freedom, and you’re telling me you are completely sane !?!?
        R: I think that deserves 2 hours W.O.O.
        L: W.O.O ??
        R: With Out Oxygen.
        No oxygen for 2 hours. That will teach you to be bread baskets.

    • #3204559

      I have a picture for that:)

      by monkapotomus91 ·

      In reply to Fill in the blank – I use *nix because __________

      I have a picture to show why i use linux:)

Viewing 20 reply threads