Seriously, I don't get the impression from using linux that it is a great deal more stable than Windows 98. Probably my fault, for actually wanting a GUI front end, but I just hate typing commands.<BR>I can just imagine a neopyhte trying to configure their SB Live! card under Linux. HAHAHAHAHA!
Be has f*cked its users up the ass.
- Thread starter Geon
- Start date
- Status
I read a reference about mandrake7 autoconfiguring a sblive today. What Be is doing makes sense. They have limited resources to develop applications and according to what others say, an advantage with multimedia. To concentrate on internet appliances seems appropriate. As far as Linux goes, what you say today may already be outdated.
Where can I find Mandrake 7? *rubbing hands together* View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<BR>I WANT IT.<BR>I have to say, Mandrake 6.1 was a very easy install.
No offense, but you probably aren't using Linux right if you don't get the impression that it's more stable than win98. Right now I've got linux on my computer, and my mom and sister have win98 on the computer I used before this one. Win98 crashes *at least* 3 times a week. My box never crashes, and I've got kernel patches, kernel hacks, and plenty of stuff on my box. Oh, and i do use a GUI front end when I use my computer (when I don't use my computer, I exit X because it takes cpu cycles away from rc5 
)<P>And, as for your comment about "a neophyte trying to configure his SB Live! card under linux. HAHAHAHAHA!", linux is NOT for neophytes! Linux isn't for newbies, it's not for people who don't want to know "why?", it's not for people who don't want to put in the time to learn and grow. Windows 98 and iMacs are for people who just want to sit down at a computer and start working; linux is not. If you're one of those people, fine, use windows; it really doesn't bother me. But don't assume that the goal of linux is to assimilate ALL users into it. That's not what it's for. It's for people who *enjoy* computers, not people who just *use* computers.<P>If you want to keep people from using linux, if you want to spread the bad word about linux, go ahead. Tell people it's hard to configure. Tell people that some of their hardware isn't supported. But don't tell them it's unstable--that's just lying.
)<P>And, as for your comment about "a neophyte trying to configure his SB Live! card under linux. HAHAHAHAHA!", linux is NOT for neophytes! Linux isn't for newbies, it's not for people who don't want to know "why?", it's not for people who don't want to put in the time to learn and grow. Windows 98 and iMacs are for people who just want to sit down at a computer and start working; linux is not. If you're one of those people, fine, use windows; it really doesn't bother me. But don't assume that the goal of linux is to assimilate ALL users into it. That's not what it's for. It's for people who *enjoy* computers, not people who just *use* computers.<P>If you want to keep people from using linux, if you want to spread the bad word about linux, go ahead. Tell people it's hard to configure. Tell people that some of their hardware isn't supported. But don't tell them it's unstable--that's just lying.<I>And, as for your comment about "a neophyte trying to configure his SB Live! card under linux. HAHAHAHAHA!", linux is NOT for neophytes! Linux isn't for newbies, it's not for people who don't want to know "why?", it's not for people who don't want to put in the time to learn and grow. Windows 98 and iMacs are for people who just want to sit down at a computer and start working; linux is not. </I><P>Wow, you've sure changed your tune from the other day. Nice to know you've joined us all in reality.<P>And <B>that</B>, jemfinch, is why linux will never be a commercial success. <B>That</B>, is why it will never unseat Microsoft. And how ironic, since <B>that</B> seems to be exactly the reason it was created in the first place (or, at least this is the impression I get every time I visit /. and see billborg lookin' back at me).<BR>
Hey Dan, just thought I would let you know, you can download Mandrake 7.0 off www.linuxberg.com. <P>It is in an ISO that you will have to burn onto a CD, but I must say its installer is very elegant and smooth and my computer illiterate dad could probably stumble through it with now problems.<P>JD
All that this situation means to me is that I'll get to try out BeOS. I've always wanted to try it out but I've had other things that needed my money first, and 70 bucks seemed a little high for something that I'll probably just play around with a bit. Now I can just download it and see what all the fuss is about. Sounds like a good deal to me.
I haven't been using BeOS for very long but I think it is far better than Winblows in just about every facet (except SW availability) I would say Linux is better, but editing in vi to change my resolution seems a little stupid. When it comes down to it usability is important for neophytes and hard core users. To get work done you need to be able to spend time working, not screwing around looking for the right line in some file so you can change your color depth.<P>
Just for shits and grins. <BR> Linux is becoming much easier to use on a day to day basis. The reason it is so *unruly*, is because it's architecture is based on system 5 unix. An operating system that's been around for a hell of a long time. Also because the majority of the work that was being done on it, was performed by hackers. Now that companies such as RedHat and others have picked up the torch this operating system should begin to take a different (more ruly) shape. You must admit though linux is a phenomenal operating system for what it is. An operating system that was built largely by a collection of free programs and the linux kernel written by Linus Torvalds. The fact that it is open souce only means that it's more stable and inherently more flexible<BR> Let's also focus on what the main intent of each operating system is.<BR>Be: Multimedia applications. Jean Louis Gaussie(I don't think that's right) said this himself.<BR>Linux: Stability and security and personal choice. Linux is also seeming more and more to be the choice for web appliances. Most large companies are grabbing hold of it as being the driving force for these devices.<BR>Macintosh: Ease of use.<BR>WinDo$e: A bloated gui.<BR>Win2k: Intended to be a secure platform. Also intended mostly for the server side of computing, though this will eventually phase out the win9X series.<P>All said and done, I think that Be would have a hard time ever becoming a real mainstream OS. I could be wrong there. But I mail Be Inc. and asked them a couple of questions about possibly going open source and possible security issues. The reply I got back was from Jean Louis himself. His answers were, NO, it would almost certainly never be open source and they had no intention of implementing security features. <BR> Personally I would like to see them open up the source. I don't think the operating system would be improved upon much, but then atleast the open source community would benefit from the work that Be Inc. has put in to Be OS. It'd certainly be exciting to see some of Be's features incorporated into Linux. All said and done, I think that Be was doomed from the start. Let's face it. People really don't want another proprietary operating system. Especially one that has no hardware support(or atleast very little). Later.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Personally I would like to see them open up the source. I don't think the operating system would be improved upon much, butnthen atleast the open source community would benefit from the work that Be Inc. has put in to Be OS. It'd certainly be exciting to see some of Be's features incorporated into Linux. All said and done, I think that Be was doomed from the start. Let's face it. People really don't want another proprietary operating system. Especially one that has no hardware support(or atleast very little). Later.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Oh, yeah... so why in the hell should the open source community be allowed to benefit from the work that Be, Inc. has put into BeOS? Did they just win some kind of Karma lottery or something? I can't believe the arrogance of those statements, and I _like_ the idea of open source. If the OS can't be improved upon much, why in the hell do you want the source? It's completely selfish to insist on getting your grubby paws on someone else's hard work, for no other reason than to steal it. I don't believe that the open source community would do anything to help BeOS if the source was released, and probably would try to scavenge anything cool from the BeOS source that they could. Makes me sick. It's one thing if Be, Inc. goes under and BeOS dies because the source is lost with the demise of the company, but it's a completely different one to wish the demise of Be just to get a look at the source. If you are such a hacker, and you want to see the source code, why don't you try to get a job with Be? Yeah, right...<P>I doubt that any of the technologies of BeOS could be incorporated into Linux, being that the kernals are so different, and that BeOS is built with those technologies in mind. Having them hacked and kludged into Linux wouldn't benefit Linux, and definately wouldn't benefit BeOS.<P>edit: fixed something.<P>[This message has been edited by PinheadX (edited January 25, 2000).]
Scott Tarr
Ars Praefectus
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I doubt that any of the technologies of BeOS could be incorporated into Linux, being that the kernals are so different, and that BeOS is built with those technologies in mind. Having them hacked and kludged into Linux wouldn't benefit Linux, and definately wouldn't benefit BeOS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>That is perhaps the most simple and sane explanation as to why Be <B>shouldn't</B> open up the source. <P>
- Status