Page 2 of 2
Re: Unix or non-Unix (was:What does your OS look like?)
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 3:20 pm
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
Re: Unix or non-Unix (was:What does your OS look like?)
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 3:44 pm
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
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]
Re: Unix or non-Unix (was:What does your OS look like?)
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 4:29 pm
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...
Re: Unix or non-Unix (was:What does your OS look like?)
Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 12:58 pm
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.
Re: Unix or non-Unix (was:What does your OS look like?)
Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:15 pm
by AndreaOrru
Craze Frog wrote:I've got a 2+ Ghz computer and it can't play music
Now that's odd, I can.
Re: Unix or non-Unix (was:What does your OS look like?)
Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:16 pm
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?
Re: Unix or non-Unix (was:What does your OS look like?)
Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:18 pm
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.
Re: Unix or non-Unix (was:What does your OS look like?)
Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:24 pm
by 01000101
Time for a fire-break.
Synon wrote:Would some mod please lock/delete this thread before it becomes a flamewar?
Request granted.