Everytime windows bluescreens, Bill Gates gets his loafers shined

[X'tyfe]

thats very true

if all worked together on linux, it would have beat windows 100 times over already

[quadz]

As I see it, Linux and related projects lack a lot of consistency and dedication from developers.

[reaper]

As I see it, Linux and related projects lack a lot of consistency and dedication from developers.  One browse through freshmeat, and you'll see tons of mediocre unfinished, unupdated projects for an OS that tries to keep compatibility with a dead OS.  It's like one big hackjob by a bunch of people who don't agree on key things.  That's why you have a million distributions, a million editors, a million shells, etc.  The same work just gets repeated over and over, it's sickening.

I see a better OS that isn't compatibile with windows software. As far as the applications available, what are you comparing?  Most applications for Linux are free, and the free equivalants on windows are horrible.  What sickens me is the OS I pay for sucks, and many applications I need are soley windows products.

However, as a programmer I'm focused more on the kernel.  It's obvious to me the unix designers cared about simplicity and elegance.  Sure it's not perfect, but I think somehow the founding values show through in the often lego-block and orthogonal designs of their subsystems.  Sockets, file handles, pipes, fifos, block and character devices, for example, all share a common core API for setting non-blocking status and signalling readiness.  That, in turn, makes fork() easier to implement, which makes daemon processes connected by pipes easier to implement, ...... Windows tends to have ways of accomplishing all the same things, but for some reason it seems to work out like their boot process: more byzantine than it could be.

I'm sure the creators of Windows had different goals in mind, it's just strange how it feels that one of their goals, wasn't to make a kick ass OS.

the guys who made Unix from Bell labs took on there next big project, and made Plan 9. Look how cool the network functions are, when different resources / devices can be viewed as files you can do some very cool things.  It makes it easier to do complex tasks, and keeps things consistent.
For instance,
"
You can implement a NAT by mounting a /net, which is the Plan 9 TCP/IP API, from a perimeter machine with a public IP, while connecting to it from an internal network of private IP addresses, using the Plan 9 protocol 9P in the internal network.
"
Plan 9 has many dirivatives, and they can be seen as OSes in commercial firewalls.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Bell_Labs

[Robot]

quadz, I think the BSD community does a better job of keeping their community focused on the OS as a whole.  All these distributions trying to accomplish the same thing is in vain if the goal is the same.  I just think it's ridiculous that you see huge projects like GNOME and KDE both doing *trying* to do the same thing.  I've always found most software geared towards unix to be subpar in some way, whether it's a shell, editor, or window manager.. it's always missing something important or designed in such a way that makes other things difficult.  And why hasn't the community stopped developing X?  It's slow and cumbersome old technology.  Also, the configuration of unix systems has always been something I've disliked.  In /etc, you have tons of different ugly formats which you then have to go and research about.. anyone who's ever played with lpr configuration files will know what I'm talking about.  I think the concept of the registry is much better for configuration for the user and the developer.

[quadz]

Hmm, we may have to 'agree to disagree' on some of this stuff...

[reaper]

Errrrr wait a minute... Subpar compared to what?

Are we comparing /bin/bash to cmd.exe and calling bash subpar????

Are we comparing vim or emacs to notepad.exe ?

 
or nmap vs. a windows port scanner.  yes they have nmap for windows, but it doesn't work as well.  you could go on and on.

[Robot]

I'm not attempting to make the case that Windows is some perfect OS here.  I'm pointing many of the limitations of Linux's typical userland.  There's tons of people who go around claiming that Linux (or GNU/Linux if you like) is some revolutionary OS, which I find amusing.  I don't mind a file based configuration system, but I dislike how there are so many cryptic crappy formats that you end up having to research so much just to get basic things working.  I'd even prefer a simple INI format compared to some of the crap I've seen.  I never said the implementation of the Windows registry is great, I just said the concept of it is appealing to the user and the developer.  The developer does not need to go and make the 9,000th configuration format for his application, and make an entire interface for it.  And, if unix developers were so content with their file based configuration, why have the GNOME developers made a registry for their preferred way of configuration?  It seems to me a lot of people in the unix community have to make things extra cryptic just to look like they're in some other "class".  That in itself is sickening.

[quadz]

Hey, sorry if I went overboard in my projectile vomiting analogies and such.

[Robot]

Unix was revolutionary compared to DOS, I'll give you that.

I don't think the concept of open source is to blame for the poor organization and separation.

Your comparison of sendmail to exim to postfix could be like comparing FreeBSD to NetBSD to OpenBSD.  You could say FreeBSD specializes in higher performance, NetBSD in portability, and OpenBSD in security.  Unfortunately, none of those conflict with each other.  What it comes down to is the internal clashing in projects which leads to the separation.

You still seem to be confusing registry with Windows registry here.  I am not making the claim that the implementation of the Windows registry is great, I find a lot of it to be unelegant to say the least.   All I said is the concept of a registry is a good one.  If I were to write an OS, I would want something *like* a registry as part of it.  I'm not sure what type of binary data you're referring to with regards to the registry.  You need to be more clear.  I wouldn't advocate every piece of data a program uses to be in the registry.

[reaper]

everything has problems

*nix>windows

bye

[jägermonsta]

me>reaper

[reaper]

me>reaper

1v1?

[jägermonsta]

ra2? 

[haunted]

I've never gotten any kind of blue screen w/ XP. Only in 98.

[Admin]

1. Boot to recovery console and get to windows\repair folder. There you will find all the original registry files.
2. Copy all 5 of them to windows\system32\config one by one till all five are copied. DEFAULT, SYSTEM, SAM, SOFTWARE, and SECURITY.
[...]

Thanks DS.  I will definitely keep those instructions around for future reference.  I tried to follow them last night, but my system was having a hardware problem and I couldn't even get into the recovery console (nor could I even use Ghost to restore a partition backup.)  I even tried pulling my system drive out into our other PC and copying the registry files that way, but it still wouldn't boot. 

I'm pretty sure it wasn't a RAM problem, nor a hard drive problem.  It acted like a RAM problem, but I'm fairly sure it was something fried on the motherboard.

Oh well.

Regards,