Thread: What's Your Current OS

Ynot, if you are going to include GNU/Linux in the poll, you might as well include other popular FLOSS operating systems to get more meaningful results. I would add Solaris (especially now that Java is GPL'ed) and FreeBSD to the list of options. Currently I use a mix of Mac OS X, Arch Linux, and FreeBSD. At school I use Windows XP Professional.

Originally Posted by dsr

Ynot, if you are going to include GNU/Linux in the poll, you might as well include other popular FLOSS operating systems to get more meaningful results. I would add Solaris (especially now that Java is GPL'ed) and FreeBSD to the list of options. Currently I use a mix of Mac OS X, Arch Linux, and FreeBSD. At school I use Windows XP Professional.

I very much doubt anyone's running sun solaris on their desktops

this isn't slash
as far as most people are concerned, there's 3 OS's
MS, Mac & Linux

let's not over burden them

Let me just begin by saying that I'll try to refrain from calling the OS "Linux" not only to please the FSF folks but also because it's really just a kernel. Since I don't refer to Mac OS X as "XNU" I think it only makes sense to refer to the OS as GNU/Linux.

Now that that's out of the way...

Originally Posted by Ynot

I very much doubt anyone's running sun solaris on their desktops

OK, we're in agreement; I just didn't want to sound biased toward FreeBSD. Don't include Solaris then.

Originally Posted by Ynot

this isn't slash

We're in agreement here, too. Nor do I frequent Slashdot.

Originally Posted by Ynot

as far as most people are concerned, there's 3 OS's
MS, Mac & Linux

Who do you mean by "most people"? Most people that I know don't even know what an OS is, haven't heard of Mac OS X, and certainly haven't heard of FLOSS OS's like GNU/Linux. Those who are familiar with both Windows and Mac OS X but do not use GNU/Linux probably have not heard of it.

Originally Posted by Ynot

let's not over burden them

Isn't the point of this poll to determine what OS(s) the techies on Dreamviews use? Your "Linux" option only concerns them if they use a GNU/Linux distro, which implies that they are more skilled with computers than the "most people" whom I have described above. DistroWatch indicates that FreeBSD is an extremely popular UNIX variant, even among GNU/Linux users. If someone browsing this thread doesn't know what FreeBSD is (or even GNU/Linux for that matter), he/she simply won't click on that button. Adding a FreeBSD option has no disadvantage, and it has two advantages. First, it provides more specific polling results than "Other" (which benefits those of us who are interested in what the results of your poll will be). Second, I'll be happy, so I'll shut up.

P.S. You should also add an option for Mac OS X. The classic Mac OS is even more different from Mac OS X than XP is from Vista. If you are going to make the distinction between XP and Vista, I think Mac OS X should certainly get a mention, considering that it's been the main OS on the Mac platform for the last 6 or so years. At the very least please change Mac OS (which generally means up through Mac OS 9) to Mac OS X, since almost no one uses the classic Mac OS anymore.

because it's really just a kernel

No, linux can be used to refer to the linux kernel or a unix-like OS called linux.

Pyro: "Linux" is used to refer to the entire unix-like OS, but that doesn't make it any more accurate or justifiable. It originally referred to the kernel and much of the rest of the OS orthogonal and not specific to Linux. GNU is a large part of it. KDE (desktop environment) and the X11 windowing system are examples of Operating System software which are specific to neither GNU nor Linux despite being commonly used with both.

The linux kernel is very important, because the GNU project failed to produce a viable kernel. But the GNU project predates Linux and was responsible for the idea, initial implementation and spread of Free Software. Referring to the entire operating system as Linux "can" be done, because it's convenient and seldom ambiguous. Linux really does refer only to the kernel. The name GNU/Linux is more accurate, and more useful e.g. in an article introducing the operating system.

...the thing is that "Linux" on its own is so convenient, and so more commonly used, that in order to promote the name "GNU/Linux" you need a really strong argument. Which there is... but both the argument and its very existence and strength are counterproductive in terms of getting people to take both the OS and the Free Software movement seriously.

IOW: GNU/Linux is a more accurate name for the operating system as a whole. Linux is really just the kernel (and a cloud of linux-specific tools). People can also use it to refer to the operating system as a whole, and I wouldn't say "there's nothing wrong with that", just that it wouldn't be useful to correct it.

a'course, one of the reasons for the lack of a single useful name for the OS is not just the diversity of the individual components. It's the diversity of the OS itself. If Ubuntu was the only Linux based OS, we could just talk about Ubuntu. But Ubuntu is based on another OS, Debian, which is completely different to and separate from Red Hat, etc. The lack of a single agreed name is a very natural consequence of the nature of the thing: Freedom is a synonym of Anarchy.

Originally Posted by dsr

At the very least please change Mac OS (which generally means up through Mac OS 9) to Mac OS X, since almost no one uses the classic Mac OS anymore.

We could have a poll :-). I think the splash made by Mac OS X is such that, in general usage "Mac OS" refers to OS X. E.g. awareness that several recent features of Windows were seen in Mac OS X first and arguably with better implementations, e.g. desktop 3D effects, desktop search. I think the assumption that "Mac OS" refers to the Classic versions is likely to be confined to longtime members of the Mac community - because, as you say, no-one uses it any more.

Pyrofan, sourcejedi is right. Linux is the name of a very good FLOSS kernel. OS distributions that combine the GNU system with the Linux kernel are more accurately referred to as GNU/Linux (but Debian is the only mainstream distro that does so); however, as sourcejedi pointed out, "Linux" is used more commonly. Let's not make this thread a debate about which is the correct name. I just wanted to explain why I kept saying "GNU/Linux". I don't mind if you want to call it differently.

sourcejedi, my first Mac ran Mac OS X, so I wouldn't consider myself a longtime member of the Mac community. Wikipedia's article on Mac OS refers to both Classic and Mac OS X, so I guess you're right (although Wikipedia also goes by "Linux" as the OS in most of its articles). If virtually no ones uses classic Mac OS, however, wouldn't it make sense for the OP to rename Mac OS to Mac OS X so that there will be no confusion?

BTW, I just want to throw this out there: I refer to both free software and open source software as FLOSS (free/libre/open source software) to avoid offending anyone (primarily RMS or ESR). GNU/Linux on the other hand makes more sense to me because it's basically the GNU OS with the Linux kernel (since Hurd took a bit too long to make :p). Sure you can install KDE or TeX and its higher-level document markup languages like LaTeX, but the core components of the system and what really defines the OS tend to come from the GNU project.

Ynot, getting back to the focus of this thread (or at least my original post), please add FreeBSD to the list.

Originally Posted by dsr

Ynot, getting back to the focus of this thread (or at least my original post), please add FreeBSD to the list.

You can't edit polls
I suggest you fork the thread :p

The fact that this is a Tech forum, I assume that most of us have to have fairly new computers for our jobs or (for those of us still in college) major. OS 9 is too old for any of that, it isn't even UNIX and no one I know even remembers how to program it.

No one uses a OS thats more than 2 or 3 versions out of date, there have been 5 versions of OSX. It'd be like using Windows 3.1 (which I still do occasionally :p)

Ynot, I didn't realize that ... *sheepish grin*

ninja9578, that would have been all the more reason to change Mac OS to Mac OS X. It would get rid of any ambiguity, and as you said, having a separate choice for OS 9 would not be necessary because it's so outdated. Nevertheless, it is an entirely different OS, so it might be worth a mention...

Originally Posted by Pyrofan1

Except viruses

1. Vista has MUCH better secuity, and free antivirus will do.
2. Don't be stupid! Going to freestuff.com or torrenting stuff is not a good idea.

Originally Posted by webmaster

Vista has MUCH better secuity

Is this security through obscurity?

Triple boot Vista, XP and Linux... my Linux is broken though, and I can't bother fixing it.

Originally Posted by Ynot

Is this security through obscurity?

The "best" feature of Vista's secuity is the god-awful UAC. It makes sure you can't do anything important, so malware can't either. I turned it off...

Originally Posted by Beef Jerky

Triple boot Vista, XP and Linux... my Linux is broken though, and I can't bother fixing it.

I have 3 partitions, one C: for Windows XP MCE, one V: for Vista Home Premium, and Q: for my files.

Why do you want Linux? If you have XP/Vista?

Originally Posted by webmaster

Why do you want Linux? If you have XP/Vista?

maybe he likes it

I have a microwave, gas oven and BBQ

Originally Posted by Ynot

maybe he likes it

I have a microwave, gas oven and BBQ

I like to think of linux as more of a swiss army flamethrower with built in toasting fork.

Originally Posted by webmaster

Why do you want Linux? If you have XP/Vista?

Maybe because it's better? It's faster, more secure, more stable, more flexible, more powerful (especially when using the command-line), and all the software is free (usually both libre and gratis). Oh yeah, one more thing: Windows can get viruses (not to mention spyware and all those other nasty goodies). Imagine a piece of technology getting sick. UNIX-like OS's are much better for regular computer usage IMO (and in that of almost anyone who has used a good distro and bothered to learn how it really works). The only real positive thing I can say about Windows is that it runs far more FPS games and MMORPGs than FLOSS OS's like GNU/Linux. Of course, you can always use Wine and WineX (the free source code version of Cedega) to play those few games that "only run on Windows."

Virus infection is a problem for both Apples and Windows-Based PC's. The problem is that since windows contribute to approximately 90% of the computer using market they are the easier targets since they create the most publicity.

Surely targeting *nix would create the greatest publicity, since the backbone of the internet runs on it

Have you heard of viruses taking down google / the stock exchange / military installations....

no, instead it cripples all the windows workstations in an insurance firm

Originally Posted by AdamA

Virus infection is a problem for both Apples and Windows-Based PC's. The problem is that since windows contribute to approximately 90% of the computer using market they are the easier targets since they create the most publicity.

First, whether or not viruses target Mac OS X is completely irrelevant to webmaster's question about why people would use GNU/Linux. Second, practically speaking, they don't. There have been two (to my knowledge) attempts at trojan horse attacks, but they required the user to decompress a metadata-preserving archive and manually execute the extracted file. Third, your argument that Windows is more popular and therefore a more strategic target has no justification. There are plenty of Windows users (often gamers who call themselves "hax0rs") who seem to have a sort of hatred against Apple products and who would love to write malicious code to attack Macintosh computers. And if you don't mind me broadening your claim to include GNU/Linux and other UNIX-like OS's, as Ynot said, the vast majority of web servers run UNIX derivatives--not Windows. Viruses that target UNIX-like OS's would be much more crippling to the economy and, therefore, more "strategic" (if rational thought can be ascribed to people deranged enough to write viruses).

Originally Posted by dsr

There have been two (to my knowledge) attempts at trojan horse attacks, but they required the user to decompress a metadata-preserving archive and manually execute the extracted file.

Was that the proof of concept trojan, published about 6 months ago?
I think it could only infect other files in the same directory as the virus itself, but I may be thinking of something else

I was thinking more about database servers in data-centres rather than web servers, but point still holds
Write a virus for IBM's AIX Unix to wipe out all data from an international bank
Millions of people suddenly have a zero bank balance - that'd make the papers

Originally Posted by Ynot

Was that the proof of concept trojan, published about 6 months ago?

I seem to remember there being more than one, but yes to the main one I'm thinking of.

Originally Posted by Ynot

I think it could only infect other files in the same directory as the virus itself, but I may be thinking of something else

Well, it could do whatever its creators wanted it to do, only restricted by the user's file permissions. I believe the trojan would spread to other computers via Rendezvous/Bonjour.

Originally Posted by Ynot

I was thinking more about database servers in data-centres rather than web servers, but point still holds

Yeah, the point holds either way.

Originally Posted by Ynot

Write a virus for IBM's AIX Unix to wipe out all data from an international bank
Millions of people suddenly have a zero bank balance - that'd make the papers

Gee, why would anyone crazy enough to write a malicious virus target a family of OS's whose exploitation would affect hundreds of millions of people?

Originally Posted by dsr

Gee, why would anyone crazy enough to write a malicious virus target a family of OS's whose exploitation would affect hundreds of millions of people?

was just a crazy thought, don't read anything into it.....

<_<

>_>

OK, I won't.