Linux with Windows

JackFrost22 · Post by **JackFrost22** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 5:03 pm

About what Sparkfist just said. The NT kernal was in development with IBM and Microsoft. Microsoft left IBM. Microsoft released Windows NT. IBM then released OS/2. OS/2 rocks. It even runs windows programs

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 6:48 pm

IBM never had anything whatsoever to do with NT. NT always has been Microsoft's crack trip. All the bizzare crustiness in NT is the fault of ex-DEC engineers MS picked up cheaply. OS/2 was a joint venture between IBM and Microsoft, which Microsoft tossed out when they realized it was too bloated. (the ram requirements made power users quake in their boots in the late 80's) About the only thing that crossed over is NTFS, a slightly warmed over HPFS. I have a copy of Microsoft OS/2 1.2 somewhere still...

Post by **Sparkfist** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 6:56 pm

Anonymous wrote:OS/2 was a joint venture between IBM and Microsoft, which Microsoft tossed out when they realized it was too bloated.

Am I the only person that finds that odd and funny. Microsoft is nothing but bloat now-a-days.

JackFrost22 · Post by **JackFrost22** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 7:04 pm

I thought os/2 used the NT kernal

. Guess I was wrong

.

jellywerker · Post by **jellywerker** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:57 am

no sparkfist you are not, that's great

I have used os/2 warp 4, it's shweeet, only about the equivalent of windows 98se or 2000, but really nice nonetheless, has some great art programs actually, some are out of date, but some are about as powerfull as ps or the gimp.

scherzo · Post by **scherzo** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 10:46 am

just this week, I backed up my important stuff on my laptop running XP, wiped it clean, and installed Gentoo Linux. There was enough documentation and forum posts to get all my hardware working. I've decided to go completely without Windows. I had been using a pirated copy of XP. My knowledge and comfortability with Linux, especially Gentoo, has reached the point where I feel I can ditch M$ for good.

I felt that eventually M$ would crack down on bigger numbers of people using pirated and cracked versions of their OS.

I was at CostCo the other day and I saw the upgrade for XP for over $150! The UPGRADE!!! AT COSTCO!

Anyways, I honestly feel that Linux has matured to the point where I can use it as a primary desktop environment.

Now, here's another debate... KDE or Gnome? I just installed and tried both. Both are feature rich. It seems that KDE has more suppporting admin and config apps for doing everyday maintainence of a Linux box. But its GUI seems slower to me. I'm liking Gnome more for now.

scherzo · Post by **scherzo** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 10:50 am

Oh, and since we seem to be touching on every OS under the sun, what about BeOS? That seemed to have a lot of potential and then died.

Post by **Sparkfist** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:04 pm

Well I'd say have both so that you can take advantage all they have to offer. I going to be using fluxbox, its phisical imbodiment of what I think a computer should work, have all the utilities and simple.

BeOS, no the only place I heard of it was on TSS. However if you the person that uses it or tracks is development I doubt you'd say that. I think it just fell out of the public's eye, but hasnt stopped. I thought the samething about Phlak, got and email about a week ago guess I was wrong.

scherzo · Post by **scherzo** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:13 pm

Wow, yeah, I just checked out fluxbox's website. It has a lot of good dark themes. I like dark themes. It reminds me of Enlightenment. Too bad E hasn't seen a major release in a long while.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:11 pm

The biggest problem with BeOS is that its not UNIX. So none of the huge mass of UNIX/Linux apps out there will run on it without significant modification. The only real chance it had for success was as the replacement for the classic Mac OS (it would have done that well). But Jobs came back, so he just bought up NeXT instead and churned that into OS X. Given the choice between the two (OS X and BeOS), I'd take BeOS, its far lighter-weight and responsive. Though now that X Windows is part of the default install, you can indeed run all those GUI UNIX apps you want on OS X.

Post by **gannon** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:14 pm

scherzo wrote: Now, here's another debate... KDE or Gnome? I just installed and tried both. Both are feature rich. It seems that KDE has more suppporting admin and config apps for doing everyday maintainence of a Linux box. But its GUI seems slower to me. I'm liking Gnome more for now.

I prefer KDE, but GNOME isn't too bad I guess. I just can't stand Nautilus

HK-47 · Post by **HK-47** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:00 pm

scherzo wrote:Now, here's another debate... KDE or Gnome? I just installed and tried both. Both are feature rich. It seems that KDE has more suppporting admin and config apps for doing everyday maintainence of a Linux box. But its GUI seems slower to me. I'm liking Gnome more for now.

I perfer gnome to kde. KDE dosnt seem to like my computer - it looks horible when I start it up. I think gnome looks better. My 2 cents.

makuraken · Post by **makuraken** » Sun Jan 30, 2005 8:57 pm

If I install linux on my laptop, would I be able to still see how much battery life I have left and such? Also, I want to have the bare minimum processes running so that my CPU does not do much thinking (which takes up battery, since when it thinks, it gets hotter and then the fan turns on, that sucks my battery dry). (well, not really dry, isnt Li-ion a dry cell or sorts?)
Anyway, which distro would be best for having hardware compatibility, internet (decently protected), all while not using the CPU much.
My brother-in-law told me about Fedora (sp?) Project and I was wondering if this would not only be a good choice, but would it teach me linux as well?

Post by **Sparkfist** » Sun Jan 30, 2005 9:04 pm

Yeah I've heard from almost anyone that has used a lot of Linux (distros) the say that RedHat is the best to learn from. It also has a lot of printed books on them, for example the Linux Pocket Guide is based more on Fedora then anyother distro (but good referance non the less).

If your looking for a distro that doesnt hog resources then look at the minimalist one. You can find a nice big list on distrowatch.com

Post by **gannon** » Sun Jan 30, 2005 9:52 pm

I use fedora and love it, but it's a resource hog like winXP. I think the minimum ram is 192MB and the smallest gui install that I've seen is around 1.2GB.

Also, lithium-ion batteries are liquid cells while lithium-polymer batteries are dry cells. The kind of li-poly batteries standardly used are actually called lithium-polymer-ion batteries which are gel cells.