Which os is da best?

[NaughtyusMaximus]

As an OS, I like FreeBSD. Next in line comes Gentoo or Debian. If I could use Gentoo's portage with packages and not source, I'd be in heaven.

 

[Nothinman]

The main purpose of this poll was for me to see how many people enjoy Win XP, and prefer it to Win 9x kernel OS's.

For anything besides gaming, any OS is better than Win9X. Even Microsoft is considering them deprecated and isn't supporting them for long, infact IIRC Office 2003 (or whatever it'll be called) won't run on Win9X, only NT.

If I could use Gentoo's portage with packages and not source, I'd be in heaven.

But then what would be the point of Gentoo?

 

[Redviffer]

Stability above and beyond what Win 9x systems can give is why I like Windows 2000/WinXP. I'd have to go with WinXP for the ease of use. However, when I run across a system that wouldn't be able to handle XP very well, I install Win2k and never have any problems either.

You said that WinME is the best one for you? To be honest I never had any problems with my WinME systems either, other than the occational funky issues. However, I am of the belief that stability in a system starts at the hardware level.

 

[NaughtyusMaximus]

But then what would be the point of Gentoo?

Portage is a very well thought out package management system. It is also very well kept up, and almost always up to date. I can find many *useful* packages in the portage tree that I cannot find in any branch of debian's apt tree. Gentoo is also a very minimalist (by default) OS, and I like the way it handles rc scripts, and organizes everything.

Compiling everything from source is nice and all, but I don't notice a speed difference between optimized compiled programs, and programs built for i386.

 

[rbV5]

ie the features, the performance, etc that appeals to you.

XP appeals to me because of its ease of use, especially in a multi-user environment like my home. Its highly configurable, supports the latest hardware. Stability, my PC's are on 24/7/365, the only time I reboot is driver changes, software installs and updates. Multimedia features like the camera scanner wizard makes the digicam easy for the kids, and it handles multiple displays better than my old favorite Win2k, and the roll back feature actually works. It boots to the desktop quickly, fastest windows boot to desktop I've used. Even setting up a small network was cake...All my hardware works very well. Fast Gaming OS as well, and something thats overlooked quite a bit is the Help and Support Center, which I find pretty comprehensive. Half the XP posts in this forum would disappear easily if it were used more often.

 

[Nothinman]

I personally have almost never had anything not packaged in Debian sid that I really wanted. The only extra apt sources I have right now are for the blackdown jre and mplayer, everything else is straight 'official' packages.

 

[Chumpman]

Mad <3 lub fo da debian.

 

[drag]

If I was ruler of the Earth and god came down and said:

"There will only be one OS, I am tired of hearing all you guys b***h all the time. Pick wisely"

I would say: "Damn straight! Debian all the way, baby!"

 

[lowtech1]

It all depends on the software that I'm running.

 

[Matt84]

As much as I perfer using Red Hat 9, I must say that Windows XP Pro is the best OS at the moment for common use by a tipical user.

it has the larget insall base, application support, and hardware support which is what the typical user wants.

I must say that Linux as a whole is a more flexible and more powerful OS with quality applications and decent app/hardware supports, but from a typical users perspective it is inferior to Windows. This will most certainly change in the next few years.

 

[Nothinman]

XP does not have the largest install base, Windows in general sure does, but not XP. There's a ton of Win9X boxes floating around still that won't be upgraded until they're replaced. Hell my company alone is still atleast 50% NT 4, if not more.

And frankly there's still too many people scared of NT, they all kling to their Win9X and FAT32 systems like they'll die if they have to convert their filesystems to something better. It'll be a long time before XP has the largest install base in the Windows family.

 

[Matt84]

I ment to mean Windows in general has the largest install base, and XP is the latest incarnation of that.

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: SpeedKing
As much as I perfer using Red Hat 9, I must say that Windows XP Pro is the best OS at the moment for common use by a tipical user.

it has the larget insall base, application support, and hardware support which is what the typical user wants.

I must say that Linux as a whole is a more flexible and more powerful OS with quality applications and decent app/hardware supports, but from a typical users perspective it is inferior to Windows. This will most certainly change in the next few years.

which is why i got xp when i made a system late last year
got a second box, put mandrake 9.1 on it....not sure i like it but i just did a mostly default install, gonna try a couple other distros and see if i can find something i can like, and learn something on
who knows, i may not learn a damned thing

 

[squidman]

hmmm...im rather surprised by how many people like and praise Linux...but what's BSD? FreeBSD? Goodness, so many versions!

 

[Nothinman]

im rather surprised by how many people like and praise Linux

Once you use Linux and move away from Windows it's very hard to use Windows again. Sort of like driving a BMW after being forced to drive a VW for years.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

im rather surprised by how many people like and praise Linux

Once you use Linux and move away from Windows it's very hard to use Windows again. Sort of like driving a BMW after being forced to drive a VW for years.

Some aspects of Linux make it feel kind of like a prototype BMW, but those are generally only untested rare things that the average user wouldn't ever get in to.

Nevertheless, prototype BMW > VW

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: jliechty

Originally posted by: Nothinman

im rather surprised by how many people like and praise Linux

Once you use Linux and move away from Windows it's very hard to use Windows again. Sort of like driving a BMW after being forced to drive a VW for years.

Some aspects of Linux make it feel kind of like a prototype BMW, but those are generally only untested rare things that the average user wouldn't ever get in to.

Nevertheless, prototype BMW > VW

How about a prototype BMW that you don't nessecarally have to pay for, (although the extra mula does get you leather seats)

vs:

A VW that costs as much as a 2 memory upgrades, were you have to phone home to it's manufacturer to be able start it if you decide change the type of air filter on it, tires, and shock absorbers all within a six (or is it 3?) month period , and you can only drive in one place (legally) and are limited to the number of passengers you can have.

 

[drag]

the BSD's are actually true unix operating systems vs the GNU/Linux one were it's a OS designed around the Unix model.


Once apon a time there were 2 major types of Unix. (still are) System V (5) and BSD.

System V Unix's (Xenix, Aix, OpenUnix, Solaris, Hp-ux) were ones that were decendants from the original AT&T-derived Unix. The last version of Unix made by AT&T (or at least AT&T code by a different company... not sure) was System V Unix and that's were it ended and was sold to different companies such as Sun. That's why it's known as system v -type unix. This is what is thought of when you think back to traditional high-end server mainframes used in major businesses in the 70's and the 80's.

BSD unix is a free version of Unix developed at Berkley University during the same time period. It's is tied in greatly with the creation of the internet. The people who designed that while working with the US Fedral Government (DARPA) were responsible for the creation of Arpanet -the forrunner of the internet and networking advances such as the TCP/IP protocol stack (btw this had absolutely nothing to do with Al Gore), which was first used in 4.1a-4.2BSD. Eventally after the Unix wars of the 80's 4.4BSD was the last BSD to be released.


386/BSD and NetBSD was created from the base code of 4.2-4.4BSD's and eventually morphed into the wonderful FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD that we have today.

They are completely free OS's that are much like Linux. However Linux has a more free-wheeling attitude and developement proccess, while the BSD's have a much more tighter controlled style. Also Linux has a more Sytsem V-type of design while the BSDs are more, well BSD. This is pretty nitpicky to most people, the differences manifest themselves in details, such as file design and start/shutdown proccesses. They are 85%-95% percent the same to end users. The major difference is in their liscencing, Linux uses GNU/GPL software liscences and BSD uses BSD software liscences. Not a big deal to most people.

Commercial mainstream Linux distros like redhat generally are considured much more newbie-friendly.

 

[NuclearFusi0n]

bah to you debian freaks.

somebody start a gentoo vs. debian thread and we can flame away. actually, i think i'll start that thread...

BOO! http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=34&threadid=1075024