operating system

[liquibyte]

If he wanted to be complete, he'd have put in the top ten distros off of distrowatch plus the three main BSD's not including mac.

[calexanian]

i don't see any real operating systems in that list..

things like VMS, iRMX, CoS (Cray operating system)

it's not a real operating system unless it can run an endless loop process in just under 4 hours.

Does it accidentally execute a HCF and have a memory cell burst into flames in 4 hours? 

[calexanian]

I prefer MS-DOS 3.3 my self.

3.3 was good. 5.0 after they fixed the initial bugs was rock solid. I used that one the longest in some old coal fired systems.

[Fsck]

such a vague question, does it include non-PC equipment like router/utm/whateverelseyoucallfirstlinedefence, switches, test equipment, servers etc?

you're also missing a category: unix-like. linux is a subset of unix-like so not an equivalent, but BSDs do fall under the unix-like category.

[linux-works]

my trs-80 and atari ST are crying in the corner....

8 and 16bit cpus need love, too, you know.

[TVman]

my trs-80 and atari ST are crying in the corner....

8 and 16bit cpus need love, too, you know.

It's ok dear, I will put Ubuntu on you if you want. don't cry.....

[linux-works]

ubuntu on a z80 would be most entertaining.

(not!)

[GreyWoolfe]

I prefer MS-DOS 3.3 my self.

3.3 was good. 5.0 after they fixed the initial bugs was rock solid. I used that one the longest in some old coal fired systems.

Are you using a hamster wheel powered fan to vent the carbon monoxide out of the cave?   I think I still have a copy of PC-DOS 6.0 around here somewhere.

[blackice504]

I mainly work in I.T in many Fields, its really hard to say what O.S is the best as it all comes down to what you are doing, for example if your running a Server then really you should have Linux OS of some soft in pure CLI, vmware is the best choice if your running multiple servers sure there are others out there that offer the similar things for Virtualization, KVM,Xen, Windows Server "last choice really", ect.

For everyday Windows 7 64bit realistically most people want to do everything and Windows 7 64bit can do that for the most part stable and fairly quick depending on your hardware.

Why do i believe in these choices?

Simple.

Single SERVER

Linux is fast even on a P.O.S its efficient if you know how to use it, when it comes to running a server because you can use it Headless "no GUI" aka Command Line Interface, makes it less intensive on the hardware you got, and believe it or not running cost is cheaper for 24/7 on your power bill, its also better at handling more connections to it then Windows Server can true Microsoft do limit this for there reasons, but even with out that limit Linux just wins.

Fact most servers around the globe are Linux....of some distribution.

Multiple-servers aka Virtualization
Vmware for virtualization, again vmware is mostly run in Headless through web-gui or client, but not only that it does not take a computer expert to set it up plus it deploys really quick and is very stable, oldest vmware install i had running with only major updates, 10 years on my personal server 24/7 try that on anything else, sure Xen is just as stable and quick but takes some time to setup, KVM is really but a little buggy from time to time, all of these are based on Linux.

Data-Center
FreeNAS if you have more then 10TB+ worth of storage and need it online FreeNAS is the only way to go, simply because it uses a very good file system ZFS, you can wiki that, its fast reliable, fast to deploy and has some built in data protection and duplication with the OS, and yeah its FREEEEEEEE. keep in mind you can never have too many backups.

"cheap option for backups is offline drives, meaning hard drives that you store data on and remove them, please note USB drives not as good as the Internal drives that's a little fun fact, Also cheaper ones you got your self a nice little hot-swap system."

Many people think Windows 7 64 is the best OS in terms of features and stability since XP that statement is true for the most part but has some underlying bugs and some crap that it got from vista that is my reason for saying for the most part, the other fact is compatibility you can game, learn, video edit, or what ever on Windows 7 64bit where other O.S can match this.

The other every day OS could be Ubuntu the reasons i am not raving on about it even tho its Linux is because sure its easy to do things with even for the non-elite but its not very stable even doing some simple things like there software center, true most linux people use CLI to install stuff but i think Ubuntu really need to pull up there shorts for that one, this is why i personally use Debian for my Everyday other pc... yes i know i have too many pc's.....

If anyone needs any help or would like some Advice about anything in I.T you may contact me on this forum.

before anyone asks i doubt it will happen judging from the Polls, no i do not use MAC OS, there is simply no reason to, and Apple products is nothing to write home about especially in what hardware they use, for me there just another HP, or DELL re badged low end parts.

Windows 8+ i do not support at all, simple reasons if it takes longer to do something then its a mistake.....sure it might have better under the hood goodies, and might be faster "none of my testing has shown improvements based on testing with many different configurations" like newer DirectX, Horrible GUI, sorry fans of that but as stated, its faster the older way, yes i know its better on mobiles ect but i seen GUI that have better GUI that suits both, so yep no support from me, but it is your choice.

I know that was maybe too much info and sure grammar issues but i am Tech not an English professor, but i hope this might help some people choosing an OS for what your doing.

PS, if there are any Programmers or I.T people that are interested in Joining Me and my humble team to build a Linux OS for everyone, that's easy to use, Stable, runs under Windows networks out of the box, can run windows programs out of the box, you may also contact me. "based on Debian"

[linux-works]

I used to run zfs on freebsd but I got burned by one upgrade that scared me and I never went back.

one upgrade forced the reformat (to some level) of the filesystem and that was a one-way trip.  when I had to reboot to a previous version of freebsd, the filesystem was 'too new' and could not be mounted.  not sure I EVER ran into that on linux.  ever.  its rude, its crude and totally uncalled for.  zfs is a complex friggin beast that eats cpu and memory.  sure, it has tons of features, but really only shines when you run on very high end hardware AND you have the patience to learn its mgmt interface and are willing to do rebuilds and backups/restores if an upgrade fails or hoses you.  its just too brittle for what I want.

good old linux md-raid (software raid), while much more primitive, is more stable, performs better (less zfs overhead) and has been pretty much the same for the last 10+ yrs.  stability matters to me!  and I just don't trust sun^H^H^Horacle these days (I used to work for sun, btw).

[scientist]

I mainly work in I.T in many Fields,

TL;DR nobody really cares. VMware is a joke and so is the state of modern IT.

[tom66]

Ubuntu on my laptop for engineering work.
Windows on my dual monitor desktop for programming (uVision, MPLAB, Visual Studio etc.) and gaming. Plus some CAD on Eagle.

[SirNick]

good old linux md-raid (software raid), while much more primitive, is more stable, performs better (less zfs overhead) and has been pretty much the same for the last 10+ yrs.  stability matters to me!  and I just don't trust sun^H^H^Horacle these days (I used to work for sun, btw).

Agreed on all counts.  My brief tenure with Solaris taught me that, while it has a couple of key features that are nice in certain applications, it's usually not worth the trouble.  Now that it's an Oracle product, any appeal it had before has completely gone out the window.  (At last check, it appears you have to have a support contract to download patches.  Great... so the OS is free, provided you don't mind bugs and security vulnerabilities.  What a bargain.)

Linux mdraid has been pretty good to me over the years.  I would choose it over hardware RAID except when raw performance is more important than stability.  (Stability in this case refers to bugs, fault resilience, and long-term availability.)  Best of all, it's not Oracle.

TL;DR nobody really cares. VMware is a joke and so is the state of modern IT.

Hmm... I don't get the punch-line then.  What's wrong w/ VMware?  It ain't cheap (if you want to do much with it), but then, in the datacenter, the typical pricing model for everything is:  1) free; 2) a small fortune; and 3) a large fortune.  Not much in between.

[Andrea :)]

After many problems with my desktop i switched from Win7 to Ubuntu and now I'm still wondering why i didn't do it sooner .(I still have a laptop with Win7 just for university stuff)

[SirNick]

PS, if there are any Programmers or I.T people that are interested in Joining Me and my humble team to build a Linux OS for everyone, that's easy to use, Stable, runs under Windows networks out of the box, can run windows programs out of the box, you may also contact me. "based on Debian"

You can't build a Linux for everyone. The strength of Linux is its flexibility to customise to suit. The very openness and freedom to choose is both a strength and a weakness. It is why there exist many variants, and only a single Windows.

If you choose one kernel level somone will want the latest (eventually). Same for GUI, I started with Gnome and now use KDE, some will want command line. Same for filesystem, repository manager and so on.

Linux gives people the freedom to choose. Don't expect them to give it up.

I've thought about this before (as I'm sure any Linux fan has...) and yeah, it's kind of anti-Linux to turn it into a turn-key system.  There could certainly be a market for a Linux kernel-based distro that standardizes the environment, but it'll be scorned by many Linux users for not being Linux-y enough anymore, and/or it'll still be too foreign for potential converts who just want a Windows that isn't Windows.

IMO, beating Windows at its own game is a lost cause.  (Just look at OS/2.)  It's an elusive goal that, at best, will make it a mediocre clone of Windows.  Instead, an interesting project would be a full-fledged open-source Active Directory replacement, with central account management, a permissions framework, client policy framework, and tight integration with Samba, LDAP, an email system of your choice, etc.  With a full platform like that, you could enter the small business market where a shop is big enough to have IT needs, but small enough that Windows Server, Exchange, and per-seat licenses for all of the above is still a cost of consequence.  With an office suite and a web browser, you're good to go for a fair share of applications needs.  It wouldn't change large corporations over night, but your neighborhood mechanic and real-estate office would probably be fine.

[linux-works]

I used to run zfs on freebsd but I got burned by one upgrade that scared me and I never went back.

one upgrade forced the reformat (to some level) of the filesystem and that was a one-way trip.  when I had to reboot to a previous version of freebsd, the filesystem was 'too new' and could not be mounted.  not sure I EVER ran into that on linux.  ever.  its rude, its crude and totally uncalled for. 

I can't agree with this. It is always a part of any upgrade to have a planned backout procedure prepared. At any time if you are installing a new "something" you need to read the doco to understand what levels of associated software are needed to support it.

Rebooting to a previous version of an OS that is incompatible with your recent changed filesystem is entirely your responsibility (IFF the doco outlined the incompatibility).

my point is that it has NEVER happened to me in the nearly 20 yrs of using linux, in my experience, at least.  I used linux software raid (md-raid), various hardware raids (mylex, mostly), ext*fs, you name it.  even on bsd, the FFS filesystems never caused me this kind of grief.  so, what I'm saying is that in a well thought out fs, you should NOT have to put up with this kind of nonsense.

Not having run into the same problem on Linux only says that you never made the same upgrade on Linux. If the new filesystem has new internal control blocks/structures and the old OS kernel doesn't understand them then of course it will not work. That is true of every OS.

sorry, but that's not true in my experience.  I started admin'ing linux boxes since the 1.1 kernel (yes, seriously).  this is NOT normal for linux or even bsd, but the sun guys keep changing formats and I got tired of that BS.

zfs has a lot of nice ideas.  on paper.  but it does not make sense to run it at home, imho.

[calexanian]

I prefer MS-DOS 3.3 my self.

3.3 was good. 5.0 after they fixed the initial bugs was rock solid. I used that one the longest in some old coal fired systems.

Are you using a hamster wheel powered fan to vent the carbon monoxide out of the cave?   I think I still have a copy of PC-DOS 6.0 around here somewhere.

The hamster died many years ago. I rely on differential air temperature in a up shaft in the cave for ventilation nowadays.

[TerraHertz]

Seymour Cray's Only Surviving Talk: "Cray-1 Introduction" (1976, LANL)

The audio is terrible at the start, but improves after a while.

Relevance to this thread: somewhere near the end someone asks him what he thinks about state of Operating Systems.
Mr Cray says something like "I don't understand why operating systems are so complicated."
Heh. In 1976.

[blackice504]

I used to run zfs on freebsd but I got burned by one upgrade that scared me and I never went back.

one upgrade forced the reformat (to some level) of the filesystem and that was a one-way trip.  when I had to reboot to a previous version of freebsd, the filesystem was 'too new' and could not be mounted.  not sure I EVER ran into that on linux.  ever.  its rude, its crude and totally uncalled for.  zfs is a complex friggin beast that eats cpu and memory.  sure, it has tons of features, but really only shines when you run on very high end hardware AND you have the patience to learn its mgmt interface and are willing to do rebuilds and backups/restores if an upgrade fails or hoses you.  its just too brittle for what I want.

good old linux md-raid (software raid), while much more primitive, is more stable, performs better (less zfs overhead) and has been pretty much the same for the last 10+ yrs.  stability matters to me!  and I just don't trust sun^H^H^Horacle these days (I used to work for sun, btw).

i know many people might have said it and i think i stated it, you can never have toooooooo many backups on any OS, especially Windows, but with that been said any upgrade should be planed or tested in vmbox if possible.

I personally have not had many Issues with ZFS, true ZFS has a high overhead but if you want your data safe "relatively" i found it does not degrade the data as much especially with massive storage of movies ect and its fast on a good system but then again most people would not want to put there precious data on cheap and nasty rig.

I just don't trust sun^H^H^Horacle these days (I used to work for sun, btw).  << yeah some of the stuff they are doing now is crazy then some stuff is good like VMbox i use that on my workstation never had any issues with it.
Thats cool another IT / EE i shall add ya to my friends list.

[linux-works]

I simply could not backup terabytes; it was not easy to afford the first instance of the full filesystem; its not practical for home users to fully duplicate their media collection.

it might be acceptable for businesses to dupe their entire filesystems (in fact, its the normal way of doing things for those that care about their critical data) but its just not realistic to expect that from home users.

zfs burned me and I'm not going back again.  zfs on linux is a huge hack and I won't even bother with it; and I stopped caring about freebsd several years ago.

on the very large scale, zfs is justifyable.  at home, MY view is that its extreme overkill and a pain in the ass when things go south.

[madires]

i don't see any real operating systems in that list..

things like VMS, iRMX, CoS (Cray operating system)

it's not a real operating system unless it can run an endless loop process in just under 4 hours.

Still got a nice SparcStation 20 (two ROSS CPU modules installed) with Solaris 2.6.

[blackice504]

I simply could not backup terabytes; it was not easy to afford the first instance of the full filesystem; its not practical for home users to fully duplicate their media collection.

it might be acceptable for businesses to dupe their entire filesystems (in fact, its the normal way of doing things for those that care about their critical data) but its just not realistic to expect that from home users.

zfs burned me and I'm not going back again.  zfs on linux is a huge hack and I won't even bother with it; and I stopped caring about freebsd several years ago.

on the very large scale, zfs is justifyable.  at home, MY view is that its extreme overkill and a pain in the ass when things go south.

Yes i have often had this problem at home i use many many many tapes, and off line hard drives, compressed to the point of implosion lol.

btw mate how big is your storage at home? << wait that sounds wrong and greasy......

I am up to 30+TB, i tell people i making a backup of the Internet lol.. starting from the most useful stuff, then the rest.

[baljemmett]

Still got a nice SparcStation 20 (two ROSS CPU modules installed) with Solaris 2.6.

Just remember to keep an eye on the health of the HostID NVRAM - I turned one of my pair on the other day to find it had lost its clock, HostID and MAC address.  Whoops!

[madires]

Just remember to keep an eye on the health of the HostID NVRAM - I turned one of my pair on the other day to find it had lost its clock, HostID and MAC address.  Whoops!

Yep, had to replace one a few years ago. I dumped the data from the NVRAM to a text file in case I have to program a new NVRAM. Next time I'll try to hack the NVRAM to run with an external lithium battery since the ICs are quite expensive.

[Marco]

i don't see any real operating systems in that list..

things like VMS, iRMX, CoS (Cray operating system)

it's not a real operating system unless it can run an endless loop process in just under 4 hours.

Strange argument to make, 95% of the TOP500 run Linux.