Unix or non-Unix (was:What does your OS look like?)

Question about which tools to use, bugs, the best way to implement a function, etc should go here. Don't forget to see if your question is answered in the wiki first! When in doubt post here.
User avatar
Owen
Member
Member
Posts: 1700
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:21 pm
Location: Cambridge, United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Unix or non-Unix (was:What does your OS look like?)

Post by Owen »

JackScott wrote:You may have meant that the UNIX OS because it's had more bugfixes than others. This is also false, since the code gets completely rewritten by some bored programmer every decade or so.
They fixed a 30 year old in all the BSDs a couple of years back ;-)
User avatar
JamesM
Member
Member
Posts: 2935
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:27 am
Location: York, United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Unix or non-Unix (was:What does your OS look like?)

Post by JamesM »

Coddy wrote:And? as long as that egine still revs up past 6000 RPM and my radio still plays "Don't stop me now" I could care less :wink:
What could you care less about? do you mean that you couldn't care less?

"I could care less" : “an ignorant debasement of language” [1]
aeritharcanum
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: Unix or non-Unix (was:What does your OS look like?)

Post by aeritharcanum »

Ah. JamesM, +1. That particular corruption is really irksome, since everyone not only uses it, but thinks it's correct. It's in the news, on the radio, in the papers, in songs...
Craze Frog
Member
Member
Posts: 368
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:52 am

Re: Unix or non-Unix (was:What does your OS look like?)

Post by Craze Frog »

Besides, if it was not how would it have lasted 40 years?
Unix is evolutionary superior, not technically superior.

It's like the free market. Cheap products of low quality takes out competitors of higher quality, because they are more expensive. Unix is overly simplistic (aka low quality), as a consequence it's portable (aka cheap). The result is, it's evolutionary superior.

Compare scheduling algorithms: In Ubuntu 10.04 beta, if I play music in the background, it stops for several seconds at a time when I installing updates or if for any other reason the computer is under load.
And I've had similar problems with OpenBSD on another computer.

I've got a 2+ Ghz computer and it can't play music as my 133 Mhz Windows 95 machine. It's ridiculous. Grow up unix fanboys.
User avatar
AndreaOrru
Member
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:50 pm
Location: New York

Re: Unix or non-Unix (was:What does your OS look like?)

Post by AndreaOrru »

Craze Frog wrote:I've got a 2+ Ghz computer and it can't play music
Now that's odd, I can.
Last edited by AndreaOrru on Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:17 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Close the world, txEn eht nepO
Synon
Member
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 3:54 am
Location: Brighton, United Kingdom

Re: Unix or non-Unix (was:What does your OS look like?)

Post by Synon »

One bad experience doesn't mean all UNIXes are bad. Besides, Ubuntu isn't exactly the most... optimized variant of Linux.
Grow up unix fanboys.
I hate the term "fanboy". It just makes you seem childish.

<flamesuit>

Would some mod please lock/delete this thread before it becomes a flamewar?
Craze Frog
Member
Member
Posts: 368
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:52 am

Re: Unix or non-Unix (was:What does your OS look like?)

Post by Craze Frog »

andreaorru wrote:
Craze Frog wrote:I've got a 2+ Ghz computer and it can't play music
I can.
Let me guess: You've got a dual core, or your computer is not under load?

As I said, the problem is not only with Ubuntu. It's very simple: Unix does not have audio-class scheduling, so sometimes other tasks get priority before audio. It's not a "defect". It's by design.
User avatar
01000101
Member
Member
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 12:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Unix or non-Unix (was:What does your OS look like?)

Post by 01000101 »

Time for a fire-break.
Synon wrote:Would some mod please lock/delete this thread before it becomes a flamewar?
Request granted. :wink:
Locked