Poll: Your OS?

[GonzoDaGr8]

Using a removable HDD rack in same machine:

Drive 1 gets WinXP/Win98(for the rare 2 games of my kids that won't play in XP)
Drive 2 gets SuSE 8.0 personal. (Or Mandrake9 when SuSE pisses me off )

 

[SaigonK]

Ah yes...a map that i cant even see....gotta love all those text items over the top.

 

[GonzoDaGr8]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
interesting to see that the OS forum patronage is only 65% windows users.

I'm surprised there is no OSX votes yet. :Q I still have OSX, just no Mac anymore. Does that count?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: GonzoDaGr8

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
interesting to see that the OS forum patronage is only 65% windows users.

I'm surprised there is no OSX votes yet. :Q I still have OSX, just no Mac anymore. Does that count?

I would have voted for it, but Im more excited about OpenBSD right now.

 

[Topher]

Now I can't go back and vote for the right OS! Oh well, I guess I'll still be the 1 "other" vote.

 

[Topher]

its dead for users.

Not true. Close, but not true. I'm running PTSDOS on a little Toshiba Libretto 70. I use it for old DOS games as well as simple web surfing with the Arachne web browser. I also use Peanut Linux on that machine and can access a faster and better machine via X Windows. It's ultra portability is the only reason I still bother with it anyway, but with a P120, Windows just bogs it down, even Win Lite.

 

[lowtech1]

Originally posted by: CTho9305
windows
edit: those yoper screenies are CLUTTERED!

The screen shot aren't the best, but I just got YOS configured and menu bar in KDE 3.1 is the most logical prettiest that I have seen for Linux (nicer than Knoppix, Licoris, RH, ELX, SUSE).

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Topher

its dead for users.

Not true. Close, but not true. I'm running PTSDOS on a little Toshiba Libretto 70. I use it for old DOS games as well as simple web surfing with the Arachne web browser. I also use Peanut Linux on that machine and can access a faster and better machine via X Windows. It's ultra portability is the only reason I still bother with it anyway, but with a P120, Windows just bogs it down, even Win Lite.

i KNEW someone would post something like that

 

[BurnItDwn]

hmmmm
Win2k, Redhat 7.2, Mandrake 9.1, Redhat 8

Redhat 7.2 has the greatest uptime ... and gets heavy use
Win2k gets the most use though due to gaming ...

 

[Fencer128]

Hi,

Windows XP Pro/Redhat 8.0

Nothing quite like sitting on the fence to cover your back

 

[Ynog]

Just a note, I wouldn't call Redhat an OS.

Nor would I bunch WinNT and Win9x.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Ynog
Just a note, I wouldn't call Redhat an OS.

Instead its a collection of programs and a kernel that will run on hardware... Hrmmm... Sounds OSish to me.

 

[Ynog]

So if I download KDE and the latest version of the linux kernel.

That would be what OS? KDE?

 

[thornc]

LFS...
LFS...
LFS...

There are 3 votes... hehe... So besides me and Electrode who's using LFS here?!?

 

[thornc]

Originally posted by: Ynog
So if I download KDE and the latest version of the linux kernel.

That would be what OS? KDE?

Well you would need more than that!!
You probably end up with a gentoo/lfs lookalike which you could name whatever you wanted!

But it would still be an Operating System, since it wouls allow you to operate your system!!!

 

[Ynog]

See I would argue that programs that run on an OS do not make up the OS.

As far a Linux goes along. I would say the KERNEL Operates the System.

Nothing more. You can run a single board computer with the Linux kernel on it and
nothing else. That means the kernel is operating that system. Everything
else is just software on top of that.

This is off topic but this points to the debate between Stallman and Linus.

Linux is called Linux despite its large quantity of software by the GNU project.
Why cause the Kernel was developed by Torvalds. Not by the GNU project.
If the GNU project ever gets their kernel running stable like the linux kernel,
you will see a new os running much of the same software.

As a last comment. Upgrades to a kernel don't change the OS.

 

[thornc]

Well, there are a set of tools that can be considered part of the OS....

Just look at MS-DOS.... You had the Kernel (IO.SYS,MSDOS.SYS), the shell (or command interpreter command.com) and the rest of the tools....from assign to xcopy! Those were all part of the OS!!

On a linux distro, the Linux Kernel plus the other tools be them GNU tools, BSD tools, BusyBox or whatever are an OS also!!
At least in IMHO!

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Ynog
So if I download KDE and the latest version of the linux kernel.

That would be what OS? KDE?

That would be a kernel and a Desktop Environment. You are still missing much of the OS, which RedHat includes.

If you want to get triflingly anal, RedHat is not an OS. It is a distribution of GNU/XFree86/KDE/Gnome/BSD/Linux. But who in their right mind is going to bother with that BS? Its like saying BSD/Windows NT. It may technically be correct, but why do you care?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Ynog
See I would argue that programs that run on an OS do not make up the OS.

As far a Linux goes along. I would say the KERNEL Operates the System.

Nothing more. You can run a single board computer with the Linux kernel on it and
nothing else. That means the kernel is operating that system. Everything
else is just software on top of that.

This is off topic but this points to the debate between Stallman and Linus.

Linux is called Linux despite its large quantity of software by the GNU project.
Why cause the Kernel was developed by Torvalds. Not by the GNU project.
If the GNU project ever gets their kernel running stable like the linux kernel,
you will see a new os running much of the same software.

As a last comment. Upgrades to a kernel don't change the OS.

I disagree. A kernel is not an OS, a kernel is a part of the OS. An OS that is useless (like the Linux kernel by itself) is not much of an OS. An OS with supporting software (all of the GNU crap) makes it useful and therefore able to operate.

If a kernel is the OS, like you are saying, then an upgrade to the kernel would upgrade the OS.

It almost sounds like you think it should be GNU/Linux.

 

[butch84]

Perhaps "windows" is a bit too general? I hardly think windows 3.11 needs to be in the same catagory as winxp pro, or win2k for that matter. Just a thought.

Butch

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: butch84
Perhaps "windows" is a bit too general? I hardly think windows 3.11 needs to be in the same catagory as winxp pro, or win2k for that matter. Just a thought.

Butch

so the poll is a bit non-windows centric, it offsets the rest of this/these forum(s)

 

[cleverhandle]

Other #3!

Basically LFS (heavily customized of course), but repackaged from the ground up using RPM. Configuration is all text based, but includes a lot of extra commentary and docs where necessary, and keeps the whole layout as clean as possible. Kind of Slackware like in style, I guess.

Also OpenBSD, Windows XP, and Windows 98.

 

[eplebnista]

Originally posted by: NeoMadHatter

Originally posted by: bacillus

Originally posted by: Reliant
Windows

 

[Johnnie]

win xp pro

 

[Flatline]

4 different flavors of RedHat (6.2 to 8.0), Mandrake 9, SuSE 8.1, Slackware 8.1, Yoper, and I'm trying out Sorceror (so far it's pretty spiffy)

I also have a Win2K box, but it hasn't been used in weeks