Linux
sucks... so does this movie
shareOMG TEH LUNIX!! YUO HAVE UNHAXORED TEH LUNIX AND YUO MUST PAY!! YUOR TARBALL WILL GET FPROTTED!!1 YUO = INVADED BY HANS REISER FILESYSTEM WHO PWNS YUOR MOM!! YUO = TEH FAGGORTER!!! YUO!! = SUXORING FAGGORT!!
shareI haven't seen the film (and after hearing some things, I really don't want to) and therefore I don't know if this is some kind of inside joke or not, but just for clarification: Linux does not suck. It's more than tenfold more powerful than Windows and Mac OS X, far more secure and you probably just can't wrap your mind around its complexity because you never managed to make it through kindergarten.
"sudo rm topherb420" plz, kthx
"It's more than tenfold more powerful than Windows and Mac OS X"
Nice to see you have an informed, balanced viewpoint on Linux there. Luckily as my brainpower is 2.43 times more powerful than yours, I know that Linux isn't any more "powerful" than those operating systems, its simply different.
Well then I must be off the proverbial chart with intelligence ...because 'Linux' predates and is contained within both both OSs and was also the defacto basis for computer language, programming and communication since ARPANET in the 1960s. Unix (officially trademarked as UNIX, sometimes also written as Unix with small caps) is a computer operating system originally developed in 1969. And for factual basis UNIX processes is at the very core of both OS's 'kernels', be it Apple A/UX or IBM XENEX based sustem both rode the backbone of interconnected computers since 1969 by way of UNIX.
UNIX: or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unixhttp://www.levenez.com/unix/
So it begs the question of "How can an operating system, created by and consisting of that which is at its very core, be any more powerful than itself." ...Hmmmmmmm ...wrap your 2.43 times around this one!!!
http://www.levenez.com/unix/indexunix_a4.pdf
http://www.levenez.com/unix/unix_a4.pdf
*************************
Related Macintosh And Sun History
*************************
Xerox Alto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Alto, the predecessor of the Apple Lisa, Apple II ...all the way up to present iMac, which was also UNIX based OS therefore the 'quote, unquote' software must as well speak UNIX in order for it to operate. http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/alto.html
'Mesa' programming language a direct lineal desendant of
UNIX) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesa_programming_language#Descendants
Apple Lisa: "By late 1979, Steve Jobs successfully negotiated with Xerox for his Lisa team to receive two demonstrations of ongoing research projects at Xerox PARC; when the Apple team saw the demonstration of the Alto computer they were able to see in action the basic elements of what constituted a workable GUI. A great deal of work was put into making the graphical interface into a mainstream commercial product by the Lisa team. Head of the Hardware Development Team for the Lisa was Robert Paratore." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lisa#Hardware
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A/UX#Decline
A/UX (from Apple Unix) was Apple Computer’s implementation of the Unix operating system for some of their Macintosh computers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A/UX
Macintosh Software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Macintosh#Software
*************************
Related Microft/IBM and Windows History
*************************
Microsoft XENIX OS was announced 08/25/1980. XENIX was an enhanced version id the UNIX operating system is similarly the basis for PC language architecture.
url]http://www.tacktech.com/display.cfm?ttid=30[/url]
http://www.nukesoft.co.uk/msdos/dosversions.shtml
http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/windows.htm
Dislike what UR viewing _what UR hearing _whatever's happening! U could go elsewhere or turn it off
Close, just a few niggles with the statement"
"'Linux' predates and is contained within both both OSs and was also the defacto basis for computer language, programming and communication since ARPANET in the 1960s"
Linux is a free implementation of the Unix kernel that began in 1991 by a Finnish college student name Linus in 1991. Unix is what you are referring to as being developed in the '60s. Linux is actually just the kernel, not a full blown operating system.
And the early processors were not capable of running the Unix O/S developed on mainframes of the time. It wasn't until the 486 was created that there was finally a "minicomputer" that had the raw horsepower to execute it.
Windows is based of of MS-DOS (Microsoft Disk Operating System) which was based off of QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System) written before IBM released the 286 "PC". The computers QDOS and later MS-DOS was written for didn't have the power to run any true "Unix".
I don't know the history of Apple as well I know MSWindows and Linux, but it's my understanding that Apple's II and Macintosh lines took different paths. My understanding is that the Macintosh line was based on BSD, which is a free implementation of Unix that predates Linux.
mea culpa, scobb... so sorry for the confusion, this happens when I drag and drop things within this stupid interface whilst editing for cohesiveness. Below is what should have been posted.
Well then I must be off the proverbial chart with intelligence ...because UNIX a part of 'Linux' but predates and is contained within both OSs (Windows & Mac OS) and was also the defacto basis for computer language, programming and communication since ARPANET in the 1960s. Unix (officially trademarked as UNIX, sometimes also written as Unix with small caps) is a computer operating system originally developed in 1969. And for factual basis UNIX processes is at the very core of both OS's 'kernels', be it Apple A/UX or IBM XENEX based sustem both rode the backbone of interconnected computers since 1969 by way of UNIX.
Thanks for pointing out my oversight, I really should have proofread this better before I posted it. I had just home from a very long day, I started work at 6:00am.
PLUS XENIX and not QDOS was used in the formation of Windows OS, and not MS-DOS
And the early processors were not capable of running the Unix O/S developed on mainframes of the time. It wasn't until the 486 was created that there was finally a "minicomputer" that had the raw horsepower to execute it.
In 1986, [Microsoft] ported Xenix to the 386 processor, a 32-bit chip. Xenix 2.3.1 introduced support for i386, SCSI and TCP/IP. When Microsoft entered an agreement with IBM to develop OS/2, it lost interest in promoting Xenix. In 1987 Microsoft transferred ownership of Xenix to SCO in an agreement that left Microsoft owning 25% of SCO, which continued to market it. When Microsoft eventually lost interest in OS/2 as well, it based its further high-end strategy on Windows NT.
Microsoft continued to use Xenix internally, submitting a patch to support functionality in UNIX to AT&T in 1987, which trickled down to the code base of both Xenix and SCO UNIX. Microsoft is said to have used Xenix on Sun workstations and VAX minicomputers extensively within their company as late as 1992.[8] All internal Microsoft email transport was done on Xenix-based 68000 systems until 1993.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_architecture#See_also
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Unix_history-simple.svg/2000px-Unix_history-simple.svg.png
http://www.levenez.com/unix/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_68000_family
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/68000/
Although QDOS (Pre-DOS) could not execute anything above 8 bit code the XENIX OS which was formulated and ported for 16/32 bit code operation on the 386 chip and the 68000, which is basic chip used in every Apple or Macintosh computer since 1979). So since XENIX ran beneath both Windows OS (not MS-DOS) and Apple/Macintosh independent and colectively, I believe I've supported a sound argument of which one is better or faster.
The Question still is... how can one OS be better or faster than that which is contained within them both. Which is better ...none. As to which is faster Macintosh 68000 of course, since 8088 architecture couldn't even compete until the 486 chip.
Plus the Apple/Machintosh OS was formulated utilizing BSD 4.3 code and not FreeBSD nor any derivative thereafter as it had always been assumed, but incorrect. READ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution
...As was borrowed code of Xenix or BSD became a part of Windows OS. The break of the BSD code seems to occur at the start of FreeBSD, no affiliation yet borrowed code.
What do h*ll did you think Bill Gates, Steve Jobs or Linus Torvalds dreamt this stuff up, they all were working on these very systems therefore knew the code. They just prettied them up and made them useful for a variety of tasks they needed to get done. They didn't invent the code they rewrote some it to expand its original design, thats all. They were great proliferators, not geniuses.
Dislike what UR viewing _what UR hearing _whatever's happening! U could go elsewhere or turn it off share