Operating Systems

Operating Systems

[Robert D. Yexley]

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.  I have heard very good things about Windows NT, but dont know much
about it.  Are there any good books that could help me with this?  Can
somebody help me with what would be best for these purposes?  Thanks for
the help.

Re: Operating Systems

[Nasser]

In article <33D541EF.17B6@digiscape.com>, "Robert says...
>
>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.  I have heard very good things about Windows NT, but dont know much
>about it.  Are there any good books that could help me with this?  Can
>somebody help me with what would be best for these purposes?  Thanks for
>the help.

not sure what this has to do with Ada? if you mean you want to use Ada,
and trying to find which is the most Ada-friendly OS, then I would guess
Unix would be more, I am just saying that becuase I can use a GUI based
debugger on Linux (xxgdb) to step and debug in GNAT ada code, while on
windows I am not sure if even there is a GUI debugger for Ada, I know you
can use gdb, but that is not GUI based.

Other than that, If you want an easy to use system, and you do not like
doing system adminstrations, and reading manuals, and man pages, and 
configuration files, then I would go for NT, it has lots of nice applications,
good monitoring and performance tools etc.. else go for Linux, but then be
prepared to spend lots of time on tasks that on NT would be easier for the
home user to do.

other than that, you can get a powerfull Mac, and get the latest "virtual PC"
software for $159 that allows you to run NT and WIN95 and OS/2 on top of 
the MAC.

Nasser

Re: Operating Systems

[W. Wesley Groleau x4923]

> other than that, you can get a powerfull Mac, and get the latest "virtual PC"
> software for $159 that allows you to run NT and WIN95 and OS/2 on top of
> the MAC.

If you're going to get a "powerful Mac," you can add (for $99)
a Unix which co-exists with MacOS and has compilers for 
C C++ Ada95 Fortran and Java. (and includes full source code for
the Unix kernal AND all the compilers).

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA
Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS                  Tool-smith Wanna-be

Don't send advertisements to this domain unless asked!  All disk space
on fw.hac.com hosts belongs to either Hughes Defense Communications or 
the United States government.  Using email to store YOUR advertising 
on them is trespassing!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Operating Systems

[Robert Dewar]

Robert asks

<<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.  I have heard very good things about Windows NT, but dont know much
about it.  Are there any good books that could help me with this?  Can
somebody help me with what would be best for these purposes?  Thanks for
the help.
>>


I am unable to discern any Ada content here, but let's just assume that
it the "programming a lot" will be in Ada, or why would the question
have been posted here?

If so, then an attractive alternative to NT for program development on
a PC is Linux. It is less expensive than NT, and far more capable in
many respects. It is also much better suited in many people's opinion
to the task of program development -- Unix was really designed for
this purpose, while NT was designed primarily for other purposes.
This does not mean that it is impossible to do development on NT,
and indeed the judgment somewhat depends on what kind of development
you plan to do.

If you want to fiddle around with user interfaces, e.g. the sort of
thing that is probably best done in Visual Basic in any case, then
NT is certainly attractive.

if you are planning on developing large scale complex programs, then
Linux seems a much better bet. For example, the command line support
that comes with NT is truly pathetic, it is basically just DOS (OS/2
by contrast has FAR better support in this respect).

So take a look at Linux -- there is a full featured Ada 95 compiler
available for this environment, which is also free software (GNAT)

Re: Operating Systems

[Dale Pontius]

In article <33D6770B.6AFD@pseserv3.fw.hac.com>,
        "W. Wesley Groleau x4923" <wwgrol@pseserv3.fw.hac.com> writes:
>> other than that, you can get a powerfull Mac, and get the latest "virtual PC"
>> software for $159 that allows you to run NT and WIN95 and OS/2 on top of
>> the MAC.
>
> If you're going to get a "powerful Mac," you can add (for $99)
> a Unix which co-exists with MacOS and has compilers for
> C C++ Ada95 Fortran and Java. (and includes full source code for
> the Unix kernal AND all the compilers).
>
Or can't you just add MkLinux for free? I fear it isn't as far
along as the other Linuces, but I'll bet it comes up the curve
fast.

Dale Pontius
(NOT speaking for IBM)

Re: Was Operating Systems (Now Windows GUI Debugger)

[Jeff Creem]

In article <5r43gi$61t@drn.zippo.com>, Nasser wrote:

>In article <33D541EF.17B6@digiscape.com>, "Robert says...
>>
>>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.  I have heard very good things about Windows NT, but dont know much
>>about it.  Are there any good books that could help me with this?  Can
>>somebody help me with what would be best for these purposes?  Thanks for
>>the help.
>
>not sure what this has to do with Ada? if you mean you want to use Ada,
>and trying to find which is the most Ada-friendly OS, then I would guess
>Unix would be more, I am just saying that becuase I can use a GUI based
>debugger on Linux (xxgdb) to step and debug in GNAT ada code, while on
>windows I am not sure if even there is a GUI debugger for Ada, I know you
>can use gdb, but that is not GUI based.
>

Actually i would expect the next version of GNAT for NT to have
a GUI debugger since there is now one with the latest version of
gnu-win32 from cygnus. In fact, with a lot of fiddling I have gotten
the new version of the debugger to work with this older version of gnat
(based on the older cgynus release).. (Without the Ada specific gdb stuff but
that is not really needed)

Jeff Creem

Re: Operating Systems

[Pascal Obry]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1628 bytes --]


 Robert Dewar a �crit dans l'article
>
>If you want to fiddle around with user interfaces, e.g. the sort of
>thing that is probably best done in Visual Basic in any case, then
>NT is certainly attractive.

Or you can use Tk/Tcl available under NT and UNIX.

>
>if you are planning on developing large scale complex programs, then
>Linux seems a much better bet. For example, the command line support
>that comes with NT is truly pathetic, it is basically just DOS (OS/2
>by contrast has FAR better support in this respect).

There is also the GNU-Win32 environment with bash that is a better shell
that command.com for NT or the shell under OS/2. The GNU-Win32
environment is a UNIX like environment for NT. In fact I developpe on
UNIX and NT and I have the same (in all point EMACS, GNAT, gcc, bash,
 gawk, sed, cut, wc, ps....) environment on both plateform.

>
>So take a look at Linux -- there is a full featured Ada 95 compiler
>available for this environment, which is also free software (GNAT)
>

Also keep in mind that NT is really easier to install/configure.

Pascal.
--

--|------------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry Team-Ada Member |
--| |
--| EDF-DER-IPN-SID- Ing�nierie des Syst�mes d'Informations |
--| |
--| Bureau G1-010 e-mail: pascal.obry@der.edfgdf.fr |
--| 1 Av G�n�ral de Gaulle voice : +33-1-47.65.50.91 |
--| 92141 Clamart CEDEX fax : +33-1-47.65.50.07 |
--| FRANCE |
--|------------------------------------------------------------
--|
--| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pascal_obry
--|
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"

Re: Operating Systems

[Robert Dewar]

Dale said

<<Or can't you just add MkLinux for free? I fear it isn't as far
along as the other Linuces, but I'll bet it comes up the curve
fast.

Dale Pontius
(NOT speaking for IBM)
>>

last time we looked, MkLinux was just that, a Linux system that turns
your Mac into a Linux box, at the expense of loosing all the nice Mac
stuff. What's the point, if you want a Linux system, it is definitely
more cost effective to get a PC.

Re: Was Operating Systems (Now Windows GUI Debugger)

[Robert Dewar]

Jeff says

<<Actually i would expect the next version of GNAT for NT to have
a GUI debugger since there is now one with the latest version of
gnu-win32 from cygnus. In fact, with a lot of fiddling I have gotten
the new version of the debugger to work with this older version of gnat
(based on the older cgynus release).. (Without the Ada specific gdb stuff but
that is not really needed)
>>


Well for that matter a debugger is not really *needed*, but is nice to have!
And I think most people will find the Ada specific stuff in gdb prety nice
especially as it is further developed.

Also, yes, indeed we are producting a GUI debugger based on GDBTK, but
extended with a lot of Ada specific stuff, like exception views, task
views etc.

Re: Operating Systems

[Corey Minyard]

"Pascal Obry" <pascal.obry@der.edfgdf.fr> writes:
> 
> >
> >So take a look at Linux -- there is a full featured Ada 95 compiler
> >available for this environment, which is also free software (GNAT)
> >
> 
> Also keep in mind that NT is really easier to install/configure.

I would heartily disagree with this.  With a modern distribution (Red
Hat, Debian, etc.), Linux is very easy to install.  I've seen and had
some problems with NT.

-- 
Corey Minyard               Internet:  minyard@acm.org
  Work: minyard@nortel.ca       UUCP:  minyard@wf-rch.cirr.com

Re: Operating Systems

[Steve Doiel]

In article <33D541EF.17B6@digiscape.com>, yexley@digiscape.com says...
>
>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.  I have heard very good things about Windows NT, but dont know much
>about it.  Are there any good books that could help me with this?  Can
>somebody help me with what would be best for these purposes?  Thanks for
>the help.

I would recommend not tying yourself to one operating system.  I have been
trying to do embedded systems development on Windows NT and have found that 
(apparently) most of this type of development is hosted on UNIX (that's
where the best tools are).

Have you considered getting something like "System Commander" so that you
can boot into any one of a number of OS's?  This would make it easy to learn
about Windows NT and Linux on the same machine (for example).

Steve Doiel

Re: Operating Systems

[Robert Dewar]

Richard says

<<This is way off-topic, but I strongly disagree and it has not matched
my experience.  NT and (more notably) Windows 95 can figure out what
your configuration is and support everything you have.>>

Richard, this is quite wrong, what you say is true of Win95, but very much
not true of NT. One of the huge problems with NT is that it does not have
plug and play, and cannot definitely figure out what your configuration
is and support everything you have.

Last time (as you know if you remember back) I tried to install NT on
my notebook (A Tecra 720), NT could not find anything (no PCMCIA support,
no sound support, incomplete video support, no support of the internal modem
etc.) By contrast installing Linux on the 720 was fairly straigntforward.

Your milage will differ a lot on different hardware. Even Win 95 can have
trouble (I still have no proper sound on my Tecra, ever since some kind
game deleted the specialized Toshiba driver that came with the system,
standard Win/95 just can't find the sound interface). 

But to say that NT is much easier to install than Linux just does not
match everyone's experience by any means. No doubt when the new version
of NT comes out with P&P, things will be better, but by then Linux will
also be much easier to install. In fact, as far as I know you (Richard)
have never installed Linux from a Redhat CD ROM onto a PC -- it is much
smoother than you imagine.

Experiences on Alpha are pretty irrelevant, since the Linux there is not
nearly so well developed as the PC version.

Re: Operating Systems

[Robert Dewar]

Steve says

<<Have you considered getting something like "System Commander" so that you
can boot into any one of a number of OS's?  This would make it easy to learn
about Windows NT and Linux on the same machine (for example).
>>

Don't waste money on this unnecessary (for this purpose) proprietary
product. Linux has a facility for booting multiple operating systems that
comes with Linux, and it is easy to install a setup with both Win NT and
Linux on the same system using this facility.

Re: Operating Systems

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <dewar.869924023@merv>, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

> But to say that NT is much easier to install than Linux just does not
> match everyone's experience by any means. No doubt when the new version
> of NT comes out with P&P, things will be better, but by then Linux will
> also be much easier to install. In fact, as far as I know you (Richard)
> have never installed Linux from a Redhat CD ROM onto a PC -- it is much
> smoother than you imagine.
> 
> Experiences on Alpha are pretty irrelevant, since the Linux there is not
> nearly so well developed as the PC version.

Experience on Alpha seem relevant to me since there is a larger
selection of operating systems available.  I have not seen these
issues with DEC Unix or VMS, and to me that indicates that the
information is available on Alpha via probing the hardware. I
have not used Linux on Alpha, but I know the port has had strong
assistance from folks at DEC so there should be no issue of some
inside secrets which are unavailable to the developers.

Larry Kilgallen

Re: Operating Systems

[Richard Kenner]

In article <dewar.869924023@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
>Richard, this is quite wrong, what you say is true of Win95, but very much
>not true of NT. One of the huge problems with NT is that it does not have
>plug and play, and cannot definitely figure out what your configuration
>is and support everything you have.

I noted that my comment was more true for Windows 95 than NT.

>But to say that NT is much easier to install than Linux just does not
>match everyone's experience by any means. No doubt when the new version
>of NT comes out with P&P, things will be better, but by then Linux will
>also be much easier to install. In fact, as far as I know you (Richard)
>have never installed Linux from a Redhat CD ROM onto a PC -- it is much
>smoother than you imagine.

I've seen the install.  It is indeed relatively smooth, but still
relies a lot on the user to know the details of his configuration.  NT,
as you say, does not support a lot of things, but is better at
correctly configuring itself when it encounters a configuration it
does fully support.

>Experiences on Alpha are pretty irrelevant, 

... unless the choice is whether to run NT or Linux on a Alpha.

Re: Operating Systems

[Richard Kenner]

In article <1997Jul26.134447.1@eisner> kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) writes:
>I have not used Linux on Alpha, but I know the port has had strong
>assistance from folks at DEC so there should be no issue of some
>inside secrets which are unavailable to the developers.

Indeed the Milo loader, which gave so much trouble on the Alpha I
was attempting to help install Linux on, is written, maintained, and
informally distributed by DEC.  But we still couldn't find out that
worked properly.

Re: Operating Systems

[Richard Kenner]

In article <dewar.869923881@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
>Don't waste money on this unnecessary (for this purpose) proprietary
>product. Linux has a facility for booting multiple operating systems that
>comes with Linux, and it is easy to install a setup with both Win NT and
>Linux on the same system using this facility.

Be careful when you do this to install the systems in the right order: one
way works and one does not!  I believe the order that works is NT first
and then Linux.

Re: Operating Systems

[Robert Dewar]

Larry said

<<Experience on Alpha seem relevant to me since there is a larger
selection of operating systems available.  I have not seen these
issues with DEC Unix or VMS, and to me that indicates that the
information is available on Alpha via probing the hardware. I
have not used Linux on Alpha, but I know the port has had strong
assistance from folks at DEC so there should be no issue of some
inside secrets which are unavailable to the developers.
>>

The point is that the Linux port to Alpha is far less well developed
and far less well supported, so far, than the PC port. Of course it
has less to contend with in the way of weird hardware, but nevertheless,
given that we are talking ease of installation here, I think the
ease of installation of the Alpha version says nothing at all about
the ease of installation of the PC version

Re: Operating Systems

[Robert Dewar]

<<Be careful when you do this to install the systems in the right order: one
way works and one does not!  I believe the order that works is NT first
and then Linux.
>>

That's right, you always want to install NT first, this is also true
of installing NT and OS/2, that's because NT, like other MS systems
is (deliberately?) unfriendly to existing operatingf systems (e.g.
DOS wants to format all partitions). So always install the MS system
first, then the other system.

Re: Operating Systems

[Odo Wolbers]

WGx> C C++ Ada95 Fortran and Java.

you forgot ObjectiveC.

Re: Operating Systems

[Chris Morgan]

Richard Kenner wrote:
 NT,
> as you say, does not support a lot of things, but is better at
> correctly configuring itself when it encounters a configuration it
> does fully support.

And there's the rub, after all SPARC/Solaris is fantastic at
configurations it does support!

> 
> >Experiences on Alpha are pretty irrelevant,
> 
> ... unless the choice is whether to run NT or Linux on a Alpha.

When I get an Alpha that will be a difficult choice if there still isn't
GNAT for Alpha/Linux. Unless of course Digital Unix comes down in price.

Chris
-- 
Chris Morgan <mihalis @ ix.netcom.com>
  "Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,"

Re: Operating Systems

[John Howard]

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.  I have heard very good things about Windows NT, but dont know much
> about it.  Are there any good books that could help me with this?  Can
> somebody help me with what would be best for these purposes?  Thanks for
> the help.

I am letting these chips fly and fall wherever. <grin>

A comical paraphrase from the Unix Haters Handbook site: "Linux is free if 
your time is worthless." Otherwise opt for a commercialized operating 
system that has proven itself reliable and that will not suddenly
disappear to force you to upgrade your computer systems. (Some 
distributions of Linux are commercialized and hence not "free". Though 
Linux may not even be the best value at any price. It lacks technology
which is patented and used by other operating systems.)

I recommend OS/2 Warp 4 with built-in WIN-OS2 support for Microsoft
Windows v3.1 programs. WIN-OS2 is provably more reliable than MS Windows
v3.1. And OS/2 can coexist with many other PC operating systems such as 
versions of DOS. Most existing PC software is still DOS and Windows 3.1 
programs. But many developers expect the future trend for PC software will 
be to increasingly adopt Java technology. The reasons are cheaper 
distribution and broader interoperability.

Consequently Microsoft is reportedly redesigning Windows 98 to have a 
workplace user interface similar to a browser. But IBM does not need to 
change the OS/2 user interface as radically since the OS/2 WorkPlace Shell 
(WPS) was designed as a true object-oriented desktop and has been around 
for five years. It is no big deal to customize the "look" of WPS while 
retaining mostly the same "feel" by the user. Familiarity is comforting.

My criteria for selecting an operating system is based upon ease-of-use,
open interoperability (to protect my past & future software investments), 
and affordable technical support for software development.

For an annual subscription less than $300 I got the Warp 4 operating 
system and the development tools from IBM via their Developer Connection 
Release 2 CD's. Quarterly, support is provided to program for Open32 
(Win32 API tailored to OS/2), OpenDoc, OpenGL, VoiceType, WIN-OS2, DOS,
OS/2, device drivers, Java, AIX Unix, databases, and various IBM servers 
designed for many kinds of networking. Extensive documentation is provided
on the CD's and the hyperlinks to the Internet. Includes multiplatform
VisualAge compilers for C++, COBOL, Basic, and Java.

http://www.developer.ibm.com/devcon/
United States: 1-800-6DEVCON (1-800-633-8266) annual subscription

You can find a free GNAT Ada 95 compiler for OS/2 at www.adahome.com.
I use OS/2 as a PC host development environment that lets me target 
multiple environments. OS/2 has existed for a long time and there is no 
reason for it to disappear considering there are at least ten million
regular OS/2 users.

Case in point: I heard that Apple recently ended further development of 
OpenDoc. This news does not mean that IBM has to abandon OpenDoc. (I don't 
know what IBM will ultimately do.) But OpenDoc is nicely integrated into 
Warp 4 already and recent IBM plans have been for further integration with 
Java Beans support. This means applets will be able to open up a familiar 
OpenDoc environment for viewing or editing data. With Java Beans an applet 
does not have to be customized to support a specific user environment such 
as Windows 95 ActiveX controls. I like OpenDoc now that I've used it. The 
integration of voice recognition with OpenDoc does need to be improved for 
the next version of OS/2. I just hope more people get a chance to use it.

Warp 4 really is a cool environment. Increasingly, OS/2 users surf the web 
by talking to a Netscape browser (though I still use a Unix text-based 
browser due to my slow modem and old habits). Linux does not have voice 
recognition built-in and neither does NT. Integrated voice recognition is
a very important ease-of-use factor. The main benefit of OpenDoc is
familiarity. You learn how to do things once the easy way and that way can 
be consistently reused for other applications.

Of course, if you've never experienced IBM VoiceType or OpenDoc then all 
my talk about OS/2 ease-of-use issues probably seems like fluff. Too bad. 
I began using OS/2 with Warp 3 when it was released in 1994. DOS and 
Windows were my old habits at the time and they still are for me in OS/2. 
Obviously Microsoft will cause huge changes due to the migration of
Windows 95 users toward Windows 98. At the very least Windows 95 device
drivers will have to be changed or hardware you've purchased will be
abandoned in the migration. OS/2 users were introduced to similar woes 
about five years ago. But our pain from searching for device drivers for 
our existing equipment has mostly subsided. We learned to only buy new 
equipment that came with a Warp driver. It is fair to say the Windows 98 
pain is about to begin. And this time around it will not bother me a bit.

-- John Howard <jhoward@sky.net>               -- Team Ada  Team OS/2 --
P.S.: I am not the same John Howard who works for IBM and helped write
      OS/2. I can see where that might become confusing.

Re: Operating Systems

[Skip Carter]

In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.970727192759.20777A-100000@sky.net>, 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.  I have heard very good things about Windows NT, but dont know much
|> > about it.  Are there any good books that could help me with this?  Can
|> > somebody help me with what would be best for these purposes?  Thanks for
|> > the help.
|> 
|> I am letting these chips fly and fall wherever. <grin>
|> 
|> A comical paraphrase from the Unix Haters Handbook site: "Linux is free if 
|> your time is worthless." Otherwise opt for a commercialized operating 
|> system that has proven itself reliable and that will not suddenly
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	My experience with Linux is that it is EXTREMELY reliable.
	All my current Linux machines have uptimes that are measure in MONTHS.
	In contrast I have seen NT systems sitting idle in a corner, running  nothing
	but their internal system stuff, crash after running on the order of 1 DAY.

	Another cost consideration is the minimum hardware requirements to run
	a practical system.  Linux is considerably less demanding (it won't be the
	fastest machine around, but you can run Linux with  a 386 with as little
               as 4MB of RAM -- the first machine that I installed Linux on was exactly
               that).
	

|> disappear to force you to upgrade your computer systems. (Some 
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
		It seems to me that MS OS's do this all the time
 (OS/2 which you recommended, does not have this same fault of course).
Even if Linux disappeared, I wouldn't be at a loss since I have the source code to
all of it and can maintain it myself if necessary.

|>I recommend OS/2 Warp 4 with built-in WIN-OS2 support for Microsoft
|>Windows v3.1 programs. WIN-OS2 is provably more reliable than MS Windows
|>v3.1. And OS/2 can coexist with many other PC operating systems such as 

	This is the real key.  The amount of commercial software out there
that is available for Linux is a growing, but small amount.  If you have such applications
that you need to run, then that requirement can pretty much dictate your choice
for you.

	
-- 
 Everett (Skip) Carter        Phone:  408-641-0645 FAX: 408-641-0647
 Taygeta Scientific Inc.      INTERNET: skip@taygeta.com
 1340 Munras Ave., Suite 314  WWW: http://www.taygeta.com/
 Monterey, CA. 93940

Re: Operating Systems

[John Howard]

[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.
> |>
> |> A comical paraphrase from the Unix Haters Handbook site: "Linux is
> |> free if your time is worthless." Otherwise opt for a commercialized
> |> operating system that has proven itself reliable and that will not
> |> suddenly
>                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> 	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.

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.)

> |> disappear to force you to upgrade your computer systems. (Some 
>                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 		It seems to me that MS OS's do this all the time

Precisely.

> Even if Linux disappeared, I wouldn't be at a loss since I have the
> source code to all of it and can maintain it myself if necessary.

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.

A particular operating system is the best choice if and only if it is the 
best you can afford. Personally, I afforded to pay to use Warp for both my
business and home use. OS/2 is stable. Now IBM does the maintenance and 
the improvements to the operating system mostly to make it easier to use. 
That translates into time saved to me and to the other users of Warp. I am 
done advocating in comp.lang.ada about a Warp 4 host environment for 
programming with Ada. The issue is relevant but only to a small audience.
Though I may write about this subject whenever a new Warp is released. Use 
the best of whatever you can afford. Less than $300 gets you Warp 4 and 
substantial software development resources from IBM.

-- John Howard <jhoward@sky.net>               -- Team Ada  Team OS/2 --

Re: Operating Systems

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

John Howard wrote:
> 
> A particular operating system is the best choice if and only if it is the
> best you can afford. Personally, I afforded to pay to use Warp for both my
> business and home use. OS/2 is stable. Now IBM does the maintenance and
> the improvements to the operating system mostly to make it easier to use.

While it's been a year since I've booted anything but OS/2 at home, I
think 
that it would be a mistake to write off Linux. The turn around time for
bug
fixes can be much less than for any shrinkwrap operating system, even if
you 
don't have the skills and time to fix the bugs yourself. So my answer
for the best operating system is Boot Manager (or LILO) ;-)
 
> -- John Howard <jhoward@sky.net>               -- Team Ada  Team OS/2 --

-- 

                        Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
                        Senior Software SE

The values in from and reply-to are for the benefit of spammers:
reply to domain eds.com, user msustys1.smetz or to domain gsg.eds.com,
user smetz.

Re: Operating Systems

[Scott Ingram]

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

Re: Operating Systems

[W. Wesley Groleau x4923]

> 1)  Linux was far more reliable than the other Unixes, ... more
> reliable than any Microsoft variant in use. ....

The following has been mentioned before in this newsgroup, but this
is a good place to repeat it:

   "...... found failure rates ranging from a low of 18% (HPUX)
    to a high of 43% (NeXTStep). Free software fares much better,
    with the failure rate for GNU utilities at 7% and Linux
    utilities at 9%. ...."

For details, see
http://www.caldera.com/linux-int/Introduction/Usenet/case6.html

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA
Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS                  Tool-smith Wanna-be

Don't send advertisements to this domain unless asked!  All disk space
on fw.hac.com hosts belongs to either Hughes Defense Communications or 
the United States government.  Using email to store YOUR advertising 
on them is trespassing!
----------------------------------------------------------------------