PureBasic Forums - English

Dare2 wrote: So which is best? Well, depends on how you were brainwashed as to how you answer that. Because you and I were brainwashed, or at least patterned.

Well personally, I was patterned with pink polka dots and tuille stripes but you might be different (and no, I don't drink!!)

freak wrote:But you have to admit, that the Win9x systems were crap, when it comes
to security and system stability.

Well, at least they fixed the stability part for Win2k, but lost it for Win XP. I have Win2k, Win2k3, and WinXP on this computer for development reason. MS F#@$@D up some of the winsock calls in XP, removed stability (I can crash XP easily with VB, running the same code that works perfectly in Win2k), XP is more bloated then win2k, and runs slower even with the eyecandy turned off.

Win2k3 Server is more stable and more secure then XP if configured properly as a desktop OS.

I still have yet to find a decent Linux distro to develop in, that will not mess up my partitions.

Just my 2 cents.

Just fun... *lol*

lol @ Fangbeast, merendo

I agree and don't agree...

I've worked with computers for about 25 years - and I tried to keep away from Microsoft as long as possible...

At the moment I work with ASP (Application Service Provider), programming and a lot of other stuff...

When we started our ASP-service we set up our environment with both Unix and Windows platforms (about 50 / 50). Unix for firewalls, mailservers, webservers, monitoring and so on... and the "user-environment" on Windows platforms... This was 6 years ago...

Sorry to say, we are dumping more and more Unix machines for the following reasons,

01, They are more expensive to maintain
02, It takes more time to update the machines then the Windows equal
03, It's harder to get people that are good at Unix - and when you get one, they are more expensive then people that knows Windows platforms
04, With Microsoft server 2003 - Windows is faster then the equal Unix server... For the first time in history...

We would like to keep our Unix environment, but within a couple of years it will be gone...

---

Then we have the aspect of Unix people... *LOL*

as one of our Unix administrators said one day at a meeting...

"People that doesn't know witch one of these nine ADA compilers to use, shouldn't be allowed to use a computer."

techjunkie wrote: I've worked with computers for about 25 years - and I tried to keep away from Microsoft as long as possible...

01, They are more expensive to maintain
02, It takes more time to update the machines then the Windows equal
03, It's harder to get people that are good at Unix - and when you get one, they are more expensive then people that knows Windows platforms
04, With Microsoft server 2003 - Windows is faster then the equal Unix server... For the first time in history...

Then we have the aspect of Unix people... *LOL*

as one of our Unix administrators said one day at a meeting...

"People that doesn't know witch one of these nine ADA compilers to use, shouldn't be allowed to use a computer."

I've worked with computers for 30 years:):)

Points 1 to 3, yes, I agree totally.

Point 4, that's not what I heard except from Microsoft engineers caught unfairly tweaking their hardware. But, you never know, it could happen:):) With Linux, you have to compile the kernel to the machine you are using and then tets it fairly because that's how Linux was designed.

Uhh, we are talking about Linux and not generic Unix right. Hope I didn't get that wrong.??

About the aspect of Unix people, true. But also the same for Windows people. It seems that the more people know, the more arrogant they get with it and this is not restricted to a single platform. I've yet to meet someone with incredible amounts of skill and credentials who doesn't want to hit someone over the head with it and I have known a lot of them:):)

Heya Fangbeast, techjunkie.

You two want to fire up your walking frames and join me in the Seniors lounge? We can discuss Hollerith card systems and the abacus over a warm milk!

Maybe the competition to windows (in SOHO/Personal area) will come from linux

This, I think, is the crux of the matter. I don't want to see Linux, Windows or Macs defeated.

What I do want to see is Microsoft being squeezed by some decent competition.

In the short term, there are benefits to a monopoly. Microsofts monopoly has established Win32 as a standard around which others could concentrate their activity. During intence growth, this was beneficial.

The problem is that it has left the company without any serious competition. In the long term this is bad for everybody. When Microsoft put up all the license fees they had to back down because the customers threatened to switch to StarOffice. What would have happened if there had been no credible alternative?

It has been mentioned how much better winXP is with regards to security and stability. Do you believe that these products would be so rock solid without the threat of Linux?

Fangbeast wrote: I've yet to meet someone with incredible amounts of skill and credentials who doesn't want to hit someone over the head with it and I have known a lot of them:):)

You have yet to meet me!!!!

Dare2 wrote:Heya Fangbeast, techjunkie.

You two want to fire up your walking frames and join me in the Seniors lounge? We can discuss Hollerith card systems and the abacus over a warm milk!

Hehe... and why not changing of disk pack,

http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/datasaab/operatris.jpg

and cool terminals...

http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/datasaab/D220.jpg

I built my first computer 1972 and was a student at Datasaab 1974 - my mentor was the guy that set up Swedens first computers... BESK and SARA in the 50's

Hmmmm - we have to set up a new forum... "Vintage PureBasic Users" *LOL*

lol. I remember those - on the days I remember anything

And huge airconditioned rooms with windtunnels leading in, housing a monster with 8k of memory.

Dare2 wrote:Heya Fangbeast, techjunkie.

You two want to fire up your walking frames and join me in the Seniors lounge? We can discuss Hollerith card systems and the abacus over a warm milk!

Geez, I swapped the walking frame 20 years ago for a 15 mile an hour, 3 wheeled, laptop loaded speeed machine called the "Geriatricus 4000". This is a programming forum after all and walking frames are so passe. Only thing I cannot get past is the milk, it has to be soy :)

@Techjunkie, before 1972, I remember sitting in my parents cubbyhouse soldering up my first computer (soldering from scratch, not just building (smirk)) and going crosseyed over the tiny holes. I think it was a Signetics 1650 (but since I am so old (apparently) I cannot remember)

:) (Lots of smirking happening here)

Red Hat 9 recognized all my hardware "right out of the box."
It co-exists with XPhome and partitioned things quite nicely.
I started with paper tape and TTY.
Did have to sort punch cards by hand once though.
I'll pass on the warm milk.
Joe

Wheeeee - Unix vs Windows!

Windows for desktops, Unix for servers. Though in recent months I've come to (somewhat) respect Windows in the server arena - you'll never get me away from FreeBSD for anything I care about.

01, They are more expensive to maintain

How is software expensive to maintain? If you mean the salaries of those paid to admin, I know many Windows "admins" that get paid far more than any Unix "admin" types. The price of the OSes are right too - FreeBSD and Linux both free as the wind.

02, It takes more time to update the machines then the Windows equal

cvsup all-supfile
make buildworld;make install world
compiles every binary from source (after grabbing the latest).. Seems pretty easy to me

I can't recall the last time a kernel-level security issue was discovered in FreeBSD so upgrading the kernel/os is generally optional.

03, It's harder to get people that are good at Unix - and when you get one, they are more expensive then people that knows Windows platforms

I guess it depends on what Unix you're talking about. Every hacker in the world plays on FreeBSD and Linux. If you're running OSF/1 or some such nonsense then yes, I can see your point.

04, With Microsoft server 2003 - Windows is faster then the equal Unix server... For the first time in history...

Plenty of people say it - I've yet to see anyone prove it... Besides, even if it is true, speed is hardly everything. I've NEVER had a FreeBSD system crash on my when it wasn't a hardware issue (bad ram, melted hard drive).. I crashed Windows 2003 Server about 10 times last week playing with my Windows server app (written in PB!)

Again, I've grown as lot more respectful of Windows since I started programming for it a few months back (well, 10ish months) but I've not seen anything that makes me cancel my FreeBSD subscription to Walnut Creek

01, They are more expensive to maintain

How is software expensive to maintain? If you mean the salaries of those paid to admin, I know many Windows "admins" that get paid far more than any Unix "admin" types. The price of the OSes are right too - FreeBSD and Linux both free as the wind.

Linux is not FREE if you have it in your home yes it's free in a business it cost more than windows server as we found out when we almost got sued by that EVIL RedHad corp. they made us buy 15 site lic. that cost us more than $5000.00 for the same MS Server so if you think Linux is FREE your are badly misteken and just brainwashed from linux Peeps that keep saying it's free and if you have Linux in your comp. then you need to buy the Lic. befor RedHat owns your Comp. then you won't think Linux is all that good when they put you out of a job will you...

P.S.
Look it up on redhat site for Corp. use you can't have a linux server without paying for the Lic.

Sean