Re: Operating Systems

[Scott Ingram <scott@silver.jhuapl.edu>]

John Howard wrote: 
> [deletions]
> On 28 Jul 1997, Skip Carter wrote:
> > John Howard <jhoward@sky.net> writes:
> > |> On Tue, 22 Jul 1997, Robert D. Yexley wrote:
> > |> > Looking for some objective opinions.  I am a new programmer and am
> > |> > going to be doing it for a living and will be buying a new computer
> > |> > soon. I am trying to find out what will be the best and most
> > |> > practical operating system to run on a home computer that will be
> > |> > used for programming a lot.
[snip]
> >       My experience with Linux is that it is EXTREMELY reliable.
> 
> I did not mean to imply that Linux is not reliable. But I tried to show
> that Linux cannot always do the job. It does not have the patented
> technologies used by IBM, Apple, or Microsoft for home users. For example,
> Linux does not have IBM VoiceType technology or anything comparable.
> 

Having never heard of "IBM VoiceType technology," I don't feel as though
as
I missing out on anything.

I am not aware of any operating system that can "always do the job."

> To me the focus of the original question is about a home computer user
> wanting the option to develop software for as many multiple targets as
> possible from a stable host environment. (Also I don't even believe Linux
> is stable. There are too many variations of Linux to call it stable. Your
> Linux can very well be reliable. But how stable can Linux ever be when
> each end user is free to modify the base operating system and introduce
> incompatibility. Linux is "hackerware". That is not necessarily a bad
> thing.)

I first experimented with Linux as an alternative to "commercial" Unix
systems
for PC architecture in a (startup) small business environment.  What I
found was:

1)  Linux was far more reliable than the other Unixes, and far more
reliable than
any Microsoft variant in use.  (The modem server, in which the modem
board was 
three times the cost of the box it went in has been up continuously for
13 months.)

2)  The advent of some good package managers makes installation and
maintenance of
easier than any other system I have worked with (OS/2 being notably
lacking in my
resume.)  (Debian and Red Hat spring immediately to mind.)  Using these
packages, it
was easy even to build a workstation via telephone with otherwise
computer illiterate
personnel doing the actual installation.

3)  Even though there are hundreds of kernel variants, "stability" has
not been a
problem.  Most of my Linux boxes are configured for a particular use,
including home,
and the configuration pretty much fixed (except at home, where I
experiment with stuff
that looks interesting.)  I gather (but haven't had time to fiddle) that
there is a
thread library issue using GNAT on linux.

[snip] 
> Unix compatibility and "hackerware" are the greatest strengths of Linux.
> Most home users don't really care about Unix compatibility. If they did
> then Microsoft Windows 95 would be supporting Unix. The next greatest
> strength behind Linux is the popular belief that you are getting something
> useful for nothing. The real question of Linux is "how useful compared to
> other operating systems". If your business has the resources to maintain
> the code or pay someone else to maintain it then Linux may be cost
> effective compared to purchasing an operating system for each machine. But
> the business use of a computer system is not always the same as home use.
> 
[snip]

In his original post Robert D. Yexley mentioned that he is intending to
use his
home machine for programming, and if he can afford it, he certainly
should
consider adding OS/2 to whatever his new machine comes with; and I
certainly
wouldn't hesitate to add Linux as well.  It never hurts to have more
than enough
tools :-)
-- 
Scott Ingram
Sonar Processing and Analysis Laboratory
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory