First to Fox- I was wrong (not the 1st time and not the last I'm sure) on the thread now deep in the netherworld of BN about the evolution of MACS. here is the post that I made for that:
"Mac OS is the trademarked name for a series of graphical user interface-based operating systems developed by Apple Inc. (formerly Apple Computer, Inc.) for their Macintosh line of computer systems. The Macintosh user experience is credited with popularizing the graphical user interface."

I was wrong and admit it. Maybe that is what Separates myself from others here. MY willingness to acknowledge that I am wrong. But to admit one is wrong requires not having an over-inflated ego.
So Fox, educate me on what source code the original Macs used since the original mac os seems to be more of a GUI than a code based OS. Also, the 1st 3 phases of MACS list a "?" as to operating code. Apple 3, I believe, used a code named Sara.

If I am wrong on this than educate me.
Also, the only relation that I made between Norton and a Mac was that a Mac only can use this security software (according to reps) so, if true, this means the OS code won;t allow for better security security software or are you going to argue that Macs don't need security software? If this is the case why then why does reps and sales people mention that you can only use a trash security software like Norton? Or are you going to argue that Norton is a fine piece of security?

Also when I am wrong, I like to do research and try to correct my error. Here's a trip down memory lane which some who used MACs back then might remember:
"One of the Apple ///'s many problems was it's poor ventilation. The heat often caused the logic boards to warp, which resulted in the chips coming loose from the board. It is reported that when one called Apple to report this problem, they actually suggested you pick the computer up and drop it a few inches from the ground. Good old fashioned way of fixing things... nice to hear a story like that when nearly all tech help today is actually no help at all." I would agree that Tech support, in general, is sorely lacking today.

Now as far as Linux- I just started trying open office so I am not in a position to make a comment versus Office from MS . I will say that I'd rather see a company takes it's time than issue eternal beteas,rcs,prercs (like say Ksapersky) so I don't have a problem with the issue of time. I use XP and have found no problem using open office so far.

One point that I would make is that it seems that All OSs and Google seem to operate under some degree of proprietary rights. If I am wrong then flame me.

So from an user standpoint, Open Source, while maybe having a ways to go, does offer an alternative but, at the end of the day, Just use what you feel comfortable with and just make sure your security is good.
I know this doesn't add much to this discussion but there are a lot of people on here that have way more experience than me on software. I took classes but in the days of card punch which maybe turned me off to software development today but I see here, on all sides, people who know quite a bit about software and it's development and my hope would be, from a consumer point, that the flaming would stopped and people like all of you here would work together because some of you are very intelligent no matter what OS or other software you use.

To the fans of one OS or another, I would say this- use your talents to create programs that work on all platforms instead of flaming one another. Because of my many mistakes, I am fair game and that's fine. Just don't use your talents on bringing out the flame-thrower but use them for something constructive.

We now return to our regular broadcasting.

I give Linux 5 stars because Windows don't let me run any linux programs. That makes sense in Hollywood___

Too bad your post makes almost no sense since there are very few, if any, Linux programs that Windows won't run.

"...and Intel are the top four companies contributing to kernel development."

This genuinely comes as a surprise to me.

Last I knew, Intel supported M$.

Yes, let's all use an O/S that doesn't run half of the s*** out there just so we can thumb our noses at Microsoft.

Idiots.

WOW, really? It doesn't run half the s*** out there?

Oh, you mean software that you buy. I can come up with > 10,000 applications that do run on it.

That includes Word and Excel; Oracle and Apache; and thousands of other utilities and applications.

Oh, not only does it run them, I can run them on any head at any time by simply creating a custom "shortcut".

IE to run Evolution from my middle PC on the screen on my left PC:

[Desktop Entry]
Encoding=UTF-8
Version=1.0
Type=Application
Terminal=false
Exec=ssh -XC andrew@middlePC 'evolution'
Comment[en_US]=Evo running on middlePC
Name=Evolution
Comment=Evo running on the middle PC
Icon=evolution

then to run Visio on my main head from the PC on the right:

[Desktop Entry]
Version=1.0
Terminal=false
Exec=ssh -XC andrew@rightpc 'wine "c:/Program Files/Microsoft Office/Visio11/VISIO.EXE" '
Icon=/home/andrew/Icons/Visio.png
Type=Application
Categories=Application;Office;Diagrams;
StartupNotify=false
InitialPreference=5
Name=Microsoft Visio
Comment="Visio 2003 running on the right PC"
GenericName=Diagrams

Then to run Firefox on the head to my right from the PC on my left:

[Desktop Entry]
Version=1.0
Name=Firefox Web Browser
Comment=Browse the World Wide Web
GenericName=Web Browser
Exec=ssh -XC andrew@leftpc 'firefox'
Terminal=false
X-MultipleArgs=false
Type=Application
Icon=firefox-3.0
Categories=GTK;Network;
StartupWMClass=Firefox
StartupNotify=true

:-D

Thanks.

That includes Word and Excel; Oracle and Apache; and thousands of other utilities and applications.


Office 2003 had some issues. :p Worked under one release, WINE got updated, and suddenly it no longer installed. Had to downgrade, install, and then upgrade again. Heh...that was fun.

...and you're not implying you can't run Windows on multiple desktops and easily manage them, are you? :p

Nope, I'm talking single applications not complete desktops or desktop management. ;-)

Absolutely Office 2003 has issues still, things like Outlook don't work etc. I wasn't implying it was seamless, or even easy to set up.. I was implying that his assessment was wrong. ;-)

Nope, I'm talking single applications not complete desktops or desktop management. ;-)

ATi Hydravision. I can modify my application shortcut so that it displays only on Display ID 2. How is your example different? :p

Absolutely Office 2003 has issues still, things like Outlook don't work etc. I wasn't implying it was seamless, or even easy to set up.. I was implying that his assessment was wrong.

Kinda sorta... His implication, at least as I understood it, was that the vast majority of software in use today is not compatible, or at the very least, not native to (or even ported to) linux.

That is an arguable point, I wouldn't be able to say it was flat-out right or wrong. I'd be more than happy to debate it though. :p

I'm displaying it on a completely different PC. I can even display it over the internet, that's how it's different. :-P

as for debating it: meh, I'm not that interested in debating it. I lost interest in that argument years ago, but now and then I'll throw a post or two out there if it seems like it's necessary.

I'm displaying it on a completely different PC. I can even display it over the internet, that's how it's different. :-P

Ahhh.

Totally missed that bit. I can't imagine that it's impossible to do in Windows, or that someone hasn't written an app for it, but I can honestly say I haven't looked. I may have 3 systems, but I generally only need one at a time. ;)

It's a killer feature for me, I use it all the time.

May not run the most programs, but about the only category it doesn't cover thoroughly is games.

So use OpenOffice. It even supports all your M$ files.

This is me being glad I don't have to. :)

One at a time is plenty. :p

Heh...

Not mine. :)

mix it with synergy when I'm sitting at my desk and I can get a lot of work done using a lot of horsepower (5 total cores, and 7GB of RAM across systems), and I don't have to alt-tab.

Sure, it does a decent job, but due to the closed, proprietary nature of the M$ formats, 100% compatibility is not possible. It will still be impossible even with the M$OOXML format as history has shown time and time again, M$ will "extend" the format with their proprietary "value add" features that no one else can implement.

One step from taking over the world, eh? :p

I, for one, welcome our new BBS writing, Linux-coding, overlord... ;)

Yeah, I'm surprised that people actually download that code anymore. :-D

It was what it was, in it's time it was cool.

I'm working on much bigger and better fish these days.

;-)

When they're done bloating the kernel to death by 2.7 it will be as slow and unstable as everything else. You can't become an alternative without inheriting some of the problems it seems. But I'm glad there's more effort being put into kernel development. That keeps pressure on Microsoft and Apple to not go back to being lazy and stupid.

Everything in the kernel is modular, and since it's not all in memory at the same time it's not really bloated.

"After ten weeks in development, a couple of weeks longer than most kernel updates in the recent past, the modifications made to the latest 2.6 series include at least one million lines of code to the code base of nine million lines."

A million lines of code in ten weeks?!

Cross-compiling Vista.

Linus has Help from a few thousand kernel hackers...

Eh? You can keep your slow, DRM infected code to yourself, thanks very much. :D

Don't know the difference between proprietary and open source, do you??

I tought I did but maybe you can enlighten me further..?

If it was my code that I'd keep to myself and several 100 Million paying customers I'd for sure have better things to do than answer you ;-)