Linux Front Title and Linux Profile?

Why doesn't CH consider putting Solaris or SunOS on the Linux front title?

Isn't SunOS a different format?

And why not have Ubuntu as a Profile choice, since its very popular.

I'm just making these suggestions, because I notice there's lots of inconsistency on this forum site.

http://www.computerhope.com/forum/index.php

[Web moderator]

Is ASP or ColdFusion listed under Web Design? No.

It's impossible to list everything under a specific forum. If Solaris and SunOS are a distribution of Linux, then why wouldn't "Linux" do?

[Moderator]

I'm just making these suggestions, because I notice there's lots of inconsistency on this forum site.

Obviously in each Forum/Sub-Forum we cannot possibly list everything...unless you want to look at 4 inch Headers for each Forum.

However if you recruit 100 users of Solaris; Sun and Ubuntu and have them sign up and be active Members for at least 6 Months we'll certainly take it into consideration...

Oh yeah Google's gOS and ChromeOS have gotten quite popular too.

Alright well just wanted to make suggestions.

Solaris is not a "form of Linux". Solaris is a UNIX-based operating system, and is certified against the Single Unix Specification. Linux is not a form of UNIX. "Recursive acronyms" are much favoured by 'nix people*, and some people say that "Linux" is no exception, and that is stands for "Linux Is Not UniX"

*Others include WINE Is Not an Emulator, GNU's Not Unix, LAME Ain't an MP3 Encoder (although it is).

No way, SunOS is unix-based, well go figure that.

I knew it was a different format, but, Unix?

interesting. 

What tends to be more stable, Linux or Unix?

No way, SunOS is unix-based, well go figure that.

It's pretty well known. To be pedantic, only Sun 'nix versions 1.0 to 4.1.4, based on BSD Unix, are known as "SunOS". Version 5 and later are based on UNIX System V Release 4, and are marketed under the brand name "Solaris".

Whats more tends to be more stable, Linux or Unix?

Well, how long is a piece of string? The most stable OS is the one you know how to use most stably. Some hard-core veteran system administrators use OpenBSD, claiming it is the most secure and most stable. Personally, I'd go for Solaris 10, but that's just my own choice. Linux can also be brought up to SE Linux*, giving you a very secure system. Of course, all falls down if you do not know what you are doing.

*Security-Enhanced Linux (SELinux) is a Linux feature that provides a mechanism for supporting access control security policies

and Free Solaris CD's, ship fast.  That's the other cool part.  Man I don't know how they manage that.

Shouldn't we throw the Mac board in the Unix board too. Since it actually is Unix.

What tends to be more stable, Linux or Unix?

Yes.

Actually, I read somewhere once that NetBSD or FreeBSD hasn't had a security vulnerability in something like ten years.

They would probably need a Sub-Category from Unix called Mac, so people wouldn't be confused.

Soon people would learn that Mac is nothing more special than another Unix.

No vulnerability in ten years, no wonder people poke fun at Windows.  Just use Linux and its already locked down tight.

Once I comprehend Open Operating Systems, I'm switching from Windows.  But, knowing me, I'll want best of all worlds... Ubuntu, Mac+Hardware, Windows and a forth OS.

I said BSD, not Linux. BSD is a Unix. And Mac is so far ahead of Linux or Unix it's not even funny. There's a thing called "user friendly" that Unix and Linux still haven't gotten yet. Macs only have a Unix kernel, everything else is purely Mac.
People poke fun at Windows because everybody uses it. They don't know anything else. If everyone had Macs, they would find everything wrong with them and poke fun.
Your fourth OS could be BeOS..... check it out. It's kind of fun.

I know you were talking about Unix.  Just saying that Linux seems more locked down than Windows.

BeOS, yeah I recall seeing that one, I like the Window tab.  Makes it easier to notice the X button on the left side.

Which is better NetBsd or FreeBsd?

Which is better NetBsd or FreeBsd?

Depends on your application. Check out the info on the related websites.

I see one problem with BeOs, its DisContinued and Haiki just started Alpha, (this year) '2009.

Actually, I read somewhere once that NetBSD or FreeBSD hasn't had a security vulnerability in something like ten years.

Nobody really knows, if you think about it. There have been no known vulnerabilities, but it's almost 100% there are vulnerabilities that simply have not been exploited yet; or are relatively inconsequential if they are.

I see one problem with BeOs, its DisContinued and Haiki just started Alpha, (this year) '2009.

Did they finally make it to alpha? I've been waiting for that for years......

Can't argue that Haiku is a good concept.  But, than ReactOs isn't too bad of concept either, don't know how their going to keep up with Microsoft.  What I do know is that it will take years before they both reach beta.

After watching a Bsd Presentation on YouTube, I'm totally turned off by Bsd and wouldn't want to support them.

I think I'll stick with Solaris for now.

I think I'll stick with Solaris for now.

I've tried to get into *nix operating systems, but I think I'll stick with Windows. It's so much easier to support.

Ya, do know, you can make your own Iso with the stuff Pre-Installed, don't ya.

and Free Solaris CD's, ship fast.

I'm assuming you mean OpenSolaris. Last I seen Sun does not ship free Solaris CD's.

And why not have Ubuntu as a Profile choice, since its very popular.

I do think this is a good idea instead of only having "Linux Variant" The best study's do far report that about 30% of Linux users use Ubuntu.

apostrophe alert

Yeah, but there both Solaris.  I'm aware that the Non-Open-Solaris isn't free.

Can't argue that Haiku is a good concept.  But, than ReactOs isn't too bad of concept either, don't know how their going to keep up with Microsoft.  What I do know is that it will take years before they both reach beta.

After watching a Bsd Presentation on YouTube, I'm totally turned off by Bsd and wouldn't want to support them.

I think I'll stick with Solaris for now.

Yah, both concepts are nice but I doubt either will succeed in the OS market.
I think BSD is way too complicated for most people, I think I would have a difficult time using it. I would like a link to that Youtube video though if you could get it.

CH might not allow me to post that YouTube video, its a bit adultish.

Anywho, I have this feeling that some OS will make, some sort of dent in Windows.
I wouldn't dis OpenSource just yet.

Ubuntu was close, but I'm predicting that another one will make a dent, don't know the name though.

I think the only OS that will come close to making any kind of dent in the Windows market share will be Apple. Linux is still run by geeks who don't get user friendliness (ever heard of rtfm?). Windows and Apple both understand that being user friendly means making a simple and effective gui with easy to understand steps. Sure there are steps for everything in linux and unix and even a very in-depth manual, but have you ever tried looking at the manual? If not, try "man ls" or "man mount" in a linux shell and see what you think.

I find the man pages pretty useful and, as for "rtfm", well, it's true. All you have to do is r the f manual. Some people don't like everything decided for them by the folks at Redmond Or the Apple place.. People who use the word "geek" is a derisory way to mean Linux advocates are actually labelling themselves as technophobic Joe Sixpacks.

Ubuntu
openSUSE
LinuxMint
Fedora
Debian
Debian
PCLinuxOS
Puppy Linux
CentOS
MEPIS
Slackware
ArchLinux
Gentoo

 

I have this feeling that some OS will make, some sort of dent in Windows.
I wouldn't dis OpenSource just yet.

Ubuntu was close, but I'm predicting that another one will make a dent, don't know the name though.

Well I still think Ubuntu has it, I know many people are not switching to Windows 7 but to Ubuntu instead. 30% of all Linux users use Ubuntu. I'm also starting to see many programs also being available for Linux but only Ubuntu or Ubuntu 64 (sometimes they will also work on Debian & OpenSuse though). I'm also very happy to see many products at the stores (cameras, mp3 players, flash drives, printers...) listing Linux in theyre system requirements. A year ago I was gonna buy a USB flash drive and none that I could find said anything about Linux compatibility, I went yesterday and most said they were Linux compatible. Every year (since near Vista's release) Windows loses a decent bit of market share (I think up to 5% a year), and two-thirds of that is gained by Mac and the other third by Linux. If any Linux distro will challenge Windows I think it's a very good chance that it'll be Ubuntu.

Mac is also going to be a huge threat for Windows and I think Apple will be a big player in the OS market for a long time to come.

I love how people talk about competing companies that have been around at least as long as MS in the future tense.

"well, they're gonna be a big threat to MS"

This same type of quote has been repeated ad nauseum since the original DOS versus system 7 stuff. It never amounts to anything but shrill yelling, especially when there aren't any facts to back them up.

Yes, Linux is becoming more recognizable- it's still practically a niche product as far as a desktop operating system, for reasons Michaewlewis outlined.

However, I don't think apple will make a "dent" of any sort if they continue with their higher prices, and not allowing the OS to run on any other system but a apple branded one.

OpenOS's, I think, whether its, Unix-Based, Linux-Based, Other-Based.  Actually OpenOS is a better term than Linux, since there's all types of OS's.

Which ever Distro becomes king, I think the only way for any one of them to become a real boom in the market is to create a universal system that understands how to *automatically* install things and put it in a controlled environment.  Controlled meaning that you can build on the OS, but don't make folks and at the same time make sure software (such as OpenOffice) is auto-install compatible, without the need of Sudo.  Although I guess Auto-Sudo would be a good idea.

Windows is a extreme case of software environment control, since they don't really listen to experts like Chris Pirillo.

Just take the complications out a OS and you got something.  Don't care if Micro has been around for years, their getting terrible.

Top Seven  Software companies
        Name          $$ millions   Growth
 1    Microsoft         49453       10%    
 2    IBM   ..           22089        11%    
 3    Oracle             17560        17%    
 4    SAP                11604           8%       
 5    Nintendo           7245       113%     
 7    Symantec          5692           8%   

Apple is way down the list. They make it in Hardware.   

[Moderator]

Pirrilo lost his edge awhile ago...

Which ever Distro becomes king, I think the only way for any one of them to become a real boom in the market is to create a universal system that understands how to *automatically* install things and put it in a controlled environment.  Controlled meaning that you can build on the OS, but don't make folks and at the same time make sure software (such as OpenOffice) is auto-install compatible, without the need of Sudo.  Although I guess Auto-Sudo would be a good idea.

Windows is a extreme case of software environment control, since they don't really listen to experts like Chris Pirillo.

Just take the complications out a OS and you got something.  Don't care if Micro has been around for years, their getting terrible.

Agreed, Installing programs on Ubuntu (it's what I use) can be tricky business. Last time I ended up with at least several broken dependencies. And yes M$ is getting worse all time. Many people are now turning to Apple.

However, I don't think apple will make a "dent" of any sort if they continue with their higher prices, and not allowing the OS to run on any other system but a apple branded one.

I don't think this will make too much of a difference for Apple. Some experts say it will actually help them beat M$. People love Mac computers, and Macs are the "in-style" just like ipods. Macs today are basically the same as PCs in hardware. Because of this the Mac OS X will work perfectly on a PC as long as you select compatible hardware before you build your rig. Many people rave how much Linux, BSD and Unix are much more stable than Windows. What most people don't know though is that the Mac OS X is a Unix variant (BSD actually). I actually talked to a lady recently who is a Mac user and has been involved in computers since the early 80's and she didn't even know this. Because the OSX is unix-based it has many of the advantages of Unix.

Apple hasn't been doing this good selling their computers since the very early 90's. I think Apple stands a good chance for beating Microsoft, especially if Microsoft doesn't start winning the war again (and Im not talking about those Linux attack ads). MS has been playing catch-up with Apple the past few years, if they want to hold their place they're gonna have to start getting back into the game.

If Steve Jobs (Apple) would learn to Love PC's, we would all benefit. 

First get rid of Apple Hardware and become a Software Giant, but that will happen when pigs fly.   

Apple hasn't always been Unix, however. I think it was 10-15 years ago.... when steve jobs took over, that they dumped their own kernel for unix.

Apple hasn't always been Unix, however. I think it was 10-15 years ago.... when steve jobs took over, that they dumped their own kernel for unix.

They started Using the Unix kernel in 2001 when they released the OSX. All versions of the Mac OSX are Unix-based. The classic Mac OS (version 9.x and lower) had no connection to Unix.

Yeah, that's what they said on Wiki.  They started with MacOS and than for whatever reason moved to Unix hence the 'X' in OSx.

...when steve jobs took over...

Also Steve Jobs never really "took over" Apple Inc. He was there from the very beginning.

They started with MacOS and than for whatever reason moved to Unix hence the 'X' in OSx.

Yup, that's correct.

Steve Jobs resigned for a while as CEO of Apple though, and then he came back (with much fanfare, as if nobody expected it or something).