Freespire, Linspire a costo zero

Bye bye Micro$oft...
Bye bye bambina...

Re: Bye bye Micro$oft...
- Scritto da: > Bye bye bambina...sento questa frase da anniormai sa di vecchio

Re: Bye bye Micro$oft...
- Scritto da: > > - Scritto da: > > Bye bye bambina...> sento questa frase da anni> ormai sa di vecchioMa è la verità perchè più passa il tempo e più aumenta il supporto a Linux.

Re: Bye bye Micro$oft...
- Scritto da: > > - Scritto da: > > > > - Scritto da: > > > Bye bye bambina...> > sento questa frase da anni> > ormai sa di vecchio> > Ma è la verità perchè più passa il tempo e più> aumenta il supporto a> Linux.e come se si vedesi vede proprio :-o

Re: Bye bye Micro$oft...
- Scritto da: > > - Scritto da: > > Bye bye bambina...> sento questa frase da anni> ormai sa di vecchiopuppa carne fresca: i miei figli8=o ~o ~o ~o ~o ~o ~o

Re: Bye bye Micro$oft...
- Scritto da: > > - Scritto da: > > Bye bye bambina...> sento questa frase da anni> ormai sa di vecchioAnch'io la sento da anni, ma il fatto è che ultimamente Microsoft sta adottando una politica sempre più "scassa maroni" verso il cliente pagante che ho il sospetto che una parte della fossa se la stia scavando da sola.

Re: Bye bye Micro$oft...
- Scritto da: > > - Scritto da: > > > > - Scritto da: > > > Bye bye bambina...> > sento questa frase da anni> > ormai sa di vecchio> > Anch'io la sento da anni, ma il fatto è che> ultimamente Microsoft sta adottando una politica> sempre più "scassa maroni" verso il cliente> pagante che ho il sospetto che una parte della> fossa se la stia scavando da> sola.sono anni che dice che MS si sta scavando la fossa

Ma veramente...
... sbaglio o la 'roba' della macrovision contenuta in quel chipset (per capirci il DRM) non è stata opensorciata?Ti pareva....

neanche la intel vuole più farvi driver
siete proprio abbandonati a voi stessi

Re: neanche la intel vuole più farvi dri
- Scritto da: > siete proprio abbandonati a voi stessi :$

Re: neanche la intel vuole più farvi dri
Sta tranquillo che verranno meglio.E poi sono 10 anni che siamo abbandonati a noi stessi, e abbiamo fatto un sistema operativo e migliaia di software che reggono il 70% dei siti Internet, che tutte le pubbliche amministrazioni vogliono installare e che tutti noi usiamo con profitto.Lasciaci abbandonati a noi stessi, che ce la caviamo benissimo...

Re: neanche la intel vuole più farvi dri
- Scritto da: > Sta tranquillo che verranno meglio.> > E poi sono 10 anni che siamo abbandonati a noi> stessi, e abbiamo fatto un sistema operativo e> migliaia di software che reggono il 70% dei siti> Internet, che tutte le pubbliche amministrazioni> vogliono installare e che tutti noi usiamo con> profitto.> > Lasciaci abbandonati a noi stessi, che ce la> caviamo> benissimo...> "abbiamo"? chi sei? un programmatore open source?

Re: neanche la intel vuole più farvi dri
> "abbiamo"? > chi sei? un programmatore open source?> _siete_ proprio abbandonati a voi stessi

E' inevitabile
Che anche un colosso come Intel fino a ieri preda del DRAGA aprisse all' Open Sorcio.Ormai l' Open Sorcio è una realtà alla quale volenti o nolenti anche le Multinazionali devono farci i conti.

Re: E' inevitabile
- Scritto da: > Che anche un colosso come Intel fino a ieri preda> del DRAGA aprisse all' Open> Sorcio.> Ormai l' Open Sorcio è una realtà alla quale> volenti o nolenti anche le Multinazionali devono> farci i> conti.Hey, il DRAGA ha deciso che parte di quello che ha dragato lo da' in beneficenza.

Re: E' inevitabile
- Scritto da: > > - Scritto da: > > Che anche un colosso come Intel fino a ieri> preda> > del DRAGA aprisse all' Open> > Sorcio.> > Ormai l' Open Sorcio è una realtà alla quale> > volenti o nolenti anche le Multinazionali devono> > farci i> > conti.> > Hey, il DRAGA ha deciso che parte di quello che> ha dragato lo da' in> beneficenza.DRAGAN HOOD ruba ai ricchi per dare ai poveri

Re: E' inevitabile
Li fanno. Spingono i muli a lavorare per loro.Si fanno fare parecchi lavoretti che poi customizzano e rivendono a cifre folli (vedi IBM e WebSphere)

Re: E' inevitabile
- Scritto da: > Li fanno. Spingono i muli a lavorare per loro.> > Si fanno fare parecchi lavoretti che poi> customizzano e rivendono a cifre folli (vedi IBM> e> WebSphere)Eh che gran cervelli che avete.... ma state zitti per favore.... Sul driver di Intel ci lavora il gruppo open-source pagato dalla Intel stessa... ma che te lo dico a fare... neanche sai quello che dici...

A tutti i programmatori wc closed
chi non si adeguerà a linux e all'open source verrà sbattutto fuori dalla comunità senza nemmeno fiatareattenti anche a voi... venditori di software e detentori di brevetti e copyright, stiamo arrivando(linux)(linux)

Re: A tutti i programmatori wc closed
- Scritto da: > chi non si adeguerà a linux e all'open source> verrà sbattutto fuori dalla comunità senza> nemmeno> fiatare> > attenti anche a voi... venditori di software e> detentori di brevetti e copyright, stiamo> arrivando> > (linux)(linux)Intanto sta scrivendo su un forum gestito da un server Microsoft

Re: A tutti i programmatori wc closed
che paura...

Re: A tutti i programmatori wc closed
- Scritto da: > attenti anche a voi... venditori di software e> detentori di brevetti e copyright, stiamo> arrivandoIgnorante! Linux è software libero proprio perchè è (fortemente) protetto dal diritto d'autore! Senza diritto d'autore non ci sarebbe possibilità di mantenere le libertà (d'uso, copia e modifica) che Linux e il sw libero coperto dalla GPL ti assicura. Vatti a leggere la General Public License!

E` un'ingiustizia ! Perché per Linux ?
www.reactos.orgwww.haiku-os.orgwww.syllable.org...Marco Ravich

Re: E` un'ingiustizia ! Perché per Linux
Il codice c'è, che se lo portino loro se vogliono.(la differenza sta nelle prima 4 parole)

Re: E` un'ingiustizia ! Perché per Linux
- Scritto da: > www.reactos.org> www.haiku-os.org> www.syllable.org> .> .> .> > Marco RavichSemplicemente perché Linux è più diffuso.Cmq, essendo sotto licenza open source, penso che si possa adattare anche per altri sistemi operativi.P.S.: Ma ReactOS non dovrebbe usare gli stessi driver di XP?

Re: E` un'ingiustizia ! Perché per Linux
ReactOS dovrebbe implementare le API del NT ed usare gli stessi driver...

Re: E` un'ingiustizia ! Perché per Linux
- Scritto da: > www.reactos.org> www.haiku-os.org> www.syllable.orgPerchè la base installata di questi qui è 2-3 ordini di gradeza inferiore a quella di Linux. La cosa bella è che sono anche loro sw libero. Nulla gli vieta di prendere quel codice a riadattarlo....

Re: E` un'ingiustizia ! Perché per Linux
- Scritto da: > www.reactos.org> www.haiku-os.org> www.syllable.org> .> .> .> > Marco RavichIl primo non mi attrae (scopiazzatura di windows), il secondo appena lo rendono disponibile lo provo solo per la parentela con il leggendario BeOs . Dell'ultimo ignoravo l'esistenza ma pare che pure lui in parte si rifaccia al leggendario (sto scrivendo genuflesso in segno di riverenza) BeOs (povero, povero grandioso sistema incompreso!). The goal of Syllable is to create a reliable and easy-to-use open source operating system for the home and small office user. We also want to encourage developers to create an operating system that is intuitive, easy to use, and powerful. http://www.syllable.org/about.phpCazzo, se gli intenti sono questi e si diffondono iniziative del genere, credo ci sarà da divertirsi in futuro. :|Boia d'un mondo, ma lo rendono già disponibile per il download?http://www.syllable.org/get.phpOh ma perchè cazzo nessuno ne parla?Ma qualcuno lo ha provato? è un sistema originale e ben pensato che merita di crescere e conquistare nuovi utenti. http://www.nicoladagostino.net/articoli/syllableos.htmlVai ... altro LiveCD da provare! :@ Ma cazzo, ma perchè non cominciamo a provarle in massa queste alternative user friendly? Finchè li usano due gatti nessuno si prenderà la briga di scrivere dei programmi per questi Os!

Re: E` un'ingiustizia ! Perché per Linux
> > wow, sarà vero? farò atto di fede> > BeOS è basato su un'architettura a microkernel> e quindi?

Re: E` un'ingiustizia ! Perché per Linux
- Scritto da: > > > > wow, sarà vero? farò atto di fede> > > > BeOS è basato su un'architettura a microkernel> > > > e quindi?http://www.dina.dk/~abraham/Linus_vs_Tanenbaum.htmlThis is an extract of the discussion between Andy Tanenbaum and Linus Benedict Torvalds about kernel design, free software, and more. Only contributions from the main actors are included. The complete archive is also available, but only in BABYL format. You can use Emacs RMAIL to read it conveniently.Per Abrahamsen Linux is obsoleteAndy TanenbaumFrom: ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum)Newsgroups: comp.os.minixSubject: LINUX is obsoleteDate: 29 Jan 92 12:12:50 GMTOrganization: Fac. Wiskunde &h; Informatica, Vrije Universiteit, AmsterdamI was in the U.S. for a couple of weeks, so I haven't commented much on LINUX (not that I would have said much had I been around), but for what it is worth, I have a couple of comments now.As most of you know, for me MINIX is a hobby, something that I do in the evening when I get bored writing books and there are no major wars, revolutions, or senate hearings being televised live on CNN. My real job is a professor and researcher in the area of operating systems.As a result of my occupation, I think I know a bit about where operating are going in the next decade or so. Two aspects stand out:Microkernel vs Monolithic SystemMost older operating systems are monolithic, that is, the whole operating system is a single a.out file that runs in 'kernel mode.' This binary contains the process management, memory management, file system and the rest. Examples of such systems are UNIX, MS-DOS, VMS, MVS, OS/360, MULTICS, and many more.The alternative is a microkernel-based system, in which most of the OS runs as separate processes, mostly outside the kernel. They communicate by message passing. The kernel's job is to handle the message passing, interrupt handling, low-level process management, and possibly the I/O. Examples of this design are the RC4000, Amoeba, Chorus, Mach, and the not-yet-released Windows/NT.While I could go into a long story here about the relative merits of the two designs, suffice it to say that among the people who actually design operating systems, the debate is essentially over. Microkernels have won. The only real argument for monolithic systems was performance, and there is now enough evidence showing that microkernel systems can be just as fast as monolithic systems (e.g., Rick Rashid has published papers comparing Mach 3.0 to monolithic systems) that it is now all over but the shoutin`.MINIX is a microkernel-based system. The file system and memory management are separate processes, running outside the kernel. The I/O drivers are also separate processes (in the kernel, but only because the brain-dead nature of the Intel CPUs makes that difficult to do otherwise). LINUX is a monolithic style system. This is a giant step back into the 1970s. That is like taking an existing, working C program and rewriting it in BASIC. To me, writing a monolithic system in 1991 is a truly poor idea.

Anonimo

Quote

Re: E` un'ingiustizia ! Perché per Linux
- Scritto da: > > > > wow, sarà vero? farò atto di fede> > > > BeOS è basato su un'architettura a microkernel> > > > e quindi?http://linuxhelp.blogspot.com/2006/05/monolithic-kernel-vs-microkernel-which.htmlMay 15, 2006Monolithic kernel vs Microkernel - Which is the better OS architecture?Anybody who reads the tech related news online would by now be aware of the fierce debate that is raging regarding the most suitable design of an operating system. On the one side are those who favor monolithic kernels - that is a kernel which take care of almost all the system tasks like interfacing between the sound card and the audio software, the graphics card drivers and so on. Linux is a perfect example of a monolithic kernel where most of these functions take place in the kernel space. And not surprisingly, Linus Torvalds is a strong proponent of monolithic kernels.On the other side of the fence are those that favor a microkernel architecture. And Andrew.S.Tanenbaum - the creator of Minix operating system is a staunch supporter of this. He believes that microkernel architecture is a better design principle and is ideal in critical situations where reliability is of uttermost importance like military or aerospace industries.The ball started rolling when a week back, Andy along with two of his colleagues published a paper titled "Can we make Operating Systems Reliable and Secure", where they predicted that microkernel architecture has lots of advantages over monolithic kernel. Then Linus Torvalds responded in a news site explaining why he favoured monolithic design over the microkernel design.And now in a new article, Andy Tanenbaum has given a detailed explanation as to why he disagrees with Linus on this topic. He refutes many of the points raised by Linus Torvalds against microkernel architecture and also gives examples of numerous operating systems based on this architecture including his own Minix3. And the gist of his observation is that microkernels allow one to build self-healing reliable systems and according to him reliability scores over performance gains.It is important to note that RMS's baby HURD runs on top of mach microkernel.

Re: E` un'ingiustizia ! Perché per Linux
- Scritto da: > > > > wow, sarà vero? farò atto di fede> > > > BeOS è basato su un'architettura a microkernel> > > > e quindi?http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/appa.htmlAppendix AThe Tanenbaum-Torvalds DebateWhat follows in this appendix are what are known in the community as the Tanenbaum/Linus "Linux is obsolete" debates. Andrew Tanenbaum is a well-respected researcher who has made a very good living thinking about operating systems and OS design. In early 1992, noticing the way that the Linux discussion had taken over the discussion in comp.os.minix, he decided it was time to comment on Linux.Although Andrew Tanenbaum has been derided for his heavy hand and misjudgements of the Linux kernel, such a reaction to Tanenbaum is unfair. When Linus himself heard that we were including this, he wanted to make sure that the world understood that he holds no animus towards Tanenbaum and in fact would not have sanctioned its inclusion if we had not been able to convince him that it would show the way the world was thinking about OS design at the time.We felt the inclusion of this appendix would give a good perspective on how things were when Linus was under pressure because he abandoned the idea of microkernels in academia. The first third of Linus' essay discusses this further.Electronic copies of this debate are available on the Web and are easily found through any search service. It's fun to read this and note who joined into the discussion; you see user-hacker Ken Thompson (one of the founders of Unix) and David Miller (who is a major Linux kernel hacker now), as well as many others.To put this discussion into perspective, when it occurred in 1992, the 386 was the dominating chip and the 486 had not come out on the market. Microsoft was still a small company selling DOS and Word for DOS. Lotus 123 ruled the spreadsheet space and WordPerfect the word processing market. DBASE was the dominant database vendor and many companies that are household names today--Netscape, Yahoo, Excite--simply did not exist.From: ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum)Newsgroups: comp.os.minixSubject: LINUX is obsoleteDate: 29 Jan 92 12:12:50 GMT I was in the U.S. for a couple of weeks, so I haven't commented much onLINUX (not that I would have said much had I been around), but for what it is worth, I have a couple of comments now. As most of you know, for me MINIX is a hobby, something that I do in theevening when I get bored writing books and there are no major wars,revolutions, or senate hearings being televised live on CNN. My realjob is a professor and researcher in the area of operating systems. As a result of my occupation, I think I know a bit about where operatingare going in the next decade or so. Two aspects stand out: 1. MICROKERNEL VS MONOLITHIC SYSTEM Most older operating systems are monolithic, that is, the whole operating system is a single a.out file that runs in 'kernel mode.' This binary contains the process management, memory management, file system and the rest. Examples of such systems are UNIX, MS-DOS, VMS, MVS, OS/360, MULTICS, and many more. The alternative is a microkernel-based system, in which most of the OS runs as separate processes, mostly outside the kernel. They communicate by message passing. The kernel's job is to handle the message passing, interrupt handling, low-level process management, and possibly the I/O. Examples of this design are the RC4000, Amoeba, Chorus, Mach, and the not-yet-released Windows/NT. While I could go into a long story here about the relative merits of the two designs, suffice it to say that among the people who actually design operating systems, the debate is essentially over. Microkernels have won. The only real argument for monolithic systems was performance, and there is now enough evidence showing that microkernel systems can be just as fast as monolithic systems (e.g., Rick Rashid has published papers comparing Mach 3.0 to monolithic systems) that it is now all over but the shoutin'. MINIX is a microkernel-based system. The file system and memory management are separate processes, running outside the kernel. The I/O drivers are also separate processes (in the kernel, but only because the brain-dead nature of the Intel CPUs makes that difficult to do otherwise). LINUX is a monolithic style system. This is a giant step back into the 1970s. That is like taking an existing, working C program and rewriting it in BASIC. To me, writing a monolithic system in 1991 is a truly poor idea. 2. PORTABILITY Once upon a time there was the 4004 CPU. When it grew up it became an 8008. Then it underwent plastic surgery and became the 8080. It begat the 8086, which begat the 8088, which begat the 80286, which begat the 80386, which begat the 80486, and so on unto the N-th generation. In the meantime, RISC chips happened, and some of them are running at over 100 MIPS. Speeds of 200 MIPS and more are likely in the coming years. These things are not going to suddenly vanish. What is going to happen is that they will gradually take over from the 80x86 line. They will run old MS-DOS programs by interpreting the 80386 in software. (I even wrote my own IBM PC simulator in C, which you can get by FTP from ftp.cs.vu.nl = 192.31.231.42 in dir minix/simulator.) I think it is a gross error to design an OS for any specific architecture, since that is not going to be around all that long. MINIX was designed to be reasonably portable, and has been ported from the Intel line to the 680x0 (Atari, Amiga, Macintosh), SPARC, and NS32016. LINUX is tied fairly closely to the 80x86. Not the way to go. Don't get me wrong, I am not unhappy with LINUX. It will get all the peoplewho want to turn MINIX in BSD UNIX off my back. But in all honesty, I wouldsuggest that people who want a **MODERN** "free" OS look around for a microkernel-based, portable OS, like maybe GNU or something like that. Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl) P.S. Just as a random aside, Amoeba has a UNIX emulator (running in userspace), but it is far from complete. If there are any people who wouldlike to work on that, please let me know. To run Amoeba you need a few 386s,one of which needs 16M, and all of which need the WD Ethernet card.