Linux...

Quote:

Original post by Frequist I've been searching the internet for answers to these questions, and not found them. If anyone can help answer these, it would be appreciated. Whats so special about Linux; besides being free? Is Linux faster? Why are most video game console games developed on Linux? Whats it like programming for Linux? Can I still use C? Is there still ActiveX, Dlls, and all that mess in Linux? Is the 'System' folder in Linux just as easy to fill up with crud as the Windows 'System' folder? Is there compatibility problems between different versions of Linux OS's, even though they use the same Kernal? (I'm guessing they use the same Kernal).

1) Linux is a great stable community-driven operating system which can be greatly customized.
2) No, as far as I know Linux isn't FASTER than windows with similar configuration. However Linux can be faster since GUI are optional and a minimist system will perform better than Windows.
3) I wasn't aware and I doubt that most console games are developped on linux platforms, provide sources if possible.
4) My main reason for using linux is that it has tons of tools for programmers. Linux is written in C, and you can program in any non-obscure language you fancy.
5) There's no ActiveX in Linux (maybe there's the possibility of makin them work tough?)
6) Don't understand the question.
7) Yes there are. But there also are workaround.

I read it in some article that most VideoGame console games are written in Linux; I dunno how truthful it is though.

The question concerning the 'System' folder merely ment, is the Linux OS files just as messy as my "C:\Windows" folder; I have all sorts of old program files in my Windows folder that shouldn't be there.

Fascinating to see another OS made in C; what was Windows made in? Also, off hand, do you know any websites that could give me a good look at coding in C for linux? I'd like to see how programs are setup in Linux.

Windows is written in C.

C programs in Linux are the same as programs in windows. Unless you use the Win32 api or oter windows only API that is.

You have full control over what there is in the linux directories, but it's not like you'll understand most of it.

Linux is generally considered to be more secure than most versions of Windows, and until recently also to be more stable. It also boasts a large range of free software that tends to come pre-installed. So if these things are important to you, you may prefer Linux. I don't think you'll find any significant speed difference although in my experience Linux does a much better job of handling your virtual memory (ie. less disk thrashing). You can most certainly use C, or C++, or almost any other language that you'd use on Windows. ActiveX and DLLs are not part of the Linux vocabulary but Linux does have SO files (shared objects) that are much the same as DLLs. Linux's 'system folder', if I remember correctly, is generally a folder hierarchy under /usr/lib and is somewhat better organised than Windows/System. But what goes in it isn't that big a deal. As for compatibility problems, it's pretty much the same as for any OS - if you use the new features it won't run on the old version. This tends to be more about the libraries than the kernel though.

well here's my contribution :
The bulk of Microsoft's issues continue to be in size and performance. Below are some major areas of concern.


Kernel Size—The smallest footprint configuration of XP Embedded is 5MB. And for that, to quote Microsoft, you get "extremely limited functionality." A medium-sized configuration is 15 MB. Just as a comparison, LynuxWorks' BlueCat Linux is 259KB and LynxOS real-time operating system product is 254KB. An "extremely limited functionality" version of LynxOS is at about 150 KB! In the traditional embedded world, XP is huge and at the high-end of what is acceptable.


Performance—Windows XP is not real-time. It is pre-emptable but not re-entrant! This can result in long, unbounded worst-case task response times. This performance will keep XP out of high-performance, mission-critical applications.


The immaturity of Windows XP for embedded use is evident when its feature set is examined in depth:




The notion of "headless operation" is alien to Windows XP, and is a commonly utilized configuration for Linux, especially in server applications




Linux does not constrain access to low-level hardware through a Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) like Windows XP does




The embedded market requires support for a diverse set of CPU architectures. Any OS considered for use must have a high degree of portability and minimal dependence on the specific features of any one platform. Linux is very easy to port and has been ported to a greater number of different target platforms than Windows XP, which is constrained to operate on the platform of its creation - the x86 compatible




The reliability requirements of embedded environments are far greater than those of desktop systems. It is common for embedded developers to design systems whose downtime is measured in seconds per year. Linux has achieved the degree of reliability required for embedded systems through a number of factors:



Free access to source code—A critical aspect of embedded systems is the requirement to minimize the software debug cycle. When debugging applications software this is straightforward because source is available. When problems are found in the OS, however, access to its source becomes the critical path in the debugging cycle. Operating systems whose source code is openly available will always have an advantage over closed source OSs like Windows XP because they increase the likelihood of bug location and repair by virtue of making it possible for a far greater number of individuals to view the code



Parametric testing—Linux has undergone a far greater degree of testing than Windows XP has due to active efforts by its users to isolate and repair bugs found in the many diverse environments and applications within which it has been deployed. This "many eyes" approach makes use of a technique common in distributed processing - Parametric Execution - in which the same code is executed with slightly different inputs. In the case of Linux, this form of testing is augmented by the testers also being able to peruse through the source code, identifying and, in many cases, repairing the bugs. The feedback mechanism implicit in the Linux community ensures that the significant bug fixes make it back to the central kernel group



A mature architecture—Linux was designed around the highly refined UNIX architecture. UNIX has had 40 years to mature as both an API and kernel architecture. Windows NT, the OS base upon which Windows XP is based is scarcely 10 years old. UNIX has been tested and proven portable and robust on countless CPU architectures where Windows has spent most of its life on the x86 architecture






Because nobody except Microsoft has access to Windows XP source, there are virtually no tools that aid people "outside" in debugging kernel issues. Under Linux, however, the need for such tools has spurred the development of tools like SpyKer, Linux Trace Tool, and others.

Quote:

Original post by daviangel Stuff

Don't be misleading here.

Primo: He isbviously talking about a Desktop PC. windows is a valid OS for those.
Secundo: Microsoft DOES share source, just not with anyone.
Tertio: Windows has become at least as stable as Linux, My current uptime is 8 months, and this is my gaming/programming machine, not a server.

For the record, technically "Linux" is just the kernel itself.

Quote:

Original post by Frequist Whats so special about Linux; besides being free?

The thing that sets Linux apart from Windows and some other OSs, beside the price, is that fact that it is open. If, for whatever reason, you want access to the source, you have it. If, for whatever reason, you want to modify the source, you can do that too. If you want to distribute those modifications, you can do that too (under the restriction that anyone else can do the same things). While most people don't need or won't use this sort of freedom, I think this is the single biggest reason why Linux has the great potential it has.

There is also the wonderful package management systems of the various distributions that takes care of installation and removal of programs and libraries, as well as library dependencies and stuff like that.

Quote:

Is Linux faster?

Sort-of. It can be in the sense that you can have full control of what you use, and even what gets compiled into the kernel (and many other apps, too) since you have access to the source. (The kernel itself is specifically designed to be highly modular, and the tools to configure and compile it are pretty simple to use.)

Quote:

Why are most video game console games developed on Linux?

News to me.

Quote:

Whats it like programming for Linux? Can I still use C?

Yes. All (well, most of) your favourite languages are available in Linux, and then some.

Quote:

Is there still ActiveX, Dlls, and all that mess in Linux?

No ActiveX, but Linux does has an equivalent to ".dll", ".so" (shared object). Yes, there is a bit of mess involved with that, but distributions' package managers generally take care of that garbage for you.

Quote:

Is the 'System' folder in Linux just as easy to fill up with crud as the Windows 'System' folder?

From my experience with Windows and Linux, the files are usually in a much more hierarchical structure in Linux. Linux tends to use more folders to arrange things, as it were.

Quote:

Is there compatibility problems between different versions of Linux OS's, even though they use the same Kernal? (I'm guessing they use the same Kernal).

Yes, there are. It's not usually a problem, but sometimes it can be. Linux and its apps are moving pretty fast, so some things change radically and can break things. However, the apps are changing at the same time, and active development on all sides helps to make sure nothing stays broken for long.

There are, of-course, stable versions of pretty much everything. If you're willing to use not-so-bleeding-edge software you'll probably never have to deal with anything breaking.

Linux is extremely stable. I have never crashed a linux box with the exception of times i was doodling with the kernel. It is also much more secure. You won't have nearly as much trouble with spyware and viruses as you do in windows.

What i most like about linux (and don't like about windows) is that you can just deal directly with the computer. You can get rid of all those gui's and wizards and just make the changes you need to make. The command line and shell tools are very simple and very powerful. Windows tries to add a level of abstraction between the computer and the user. This can make it more complicated to perform advanced tasks.

The way i see it, computers and people think differently. The approach of windows is to teach a computer to think like a person so people can easily interface with the computer. Linux assumes the person can think like a computer and creates an environment that is very efficient if you understand the computer. To me, if i want to give my OS the address of a DNS server, it's much easier to just put the line 'nameserver [ip address]" in the resolv.conf file than to fight through wizards and the sort that are poorly written just to do the same thing.

As such, the learning curve in linux is much more steep than the learning curve in windows. However, as in many things in life, i find you can acheive much more once you conquer the learning curve than using easier tools.

Anyways, that's why i use linux. I can certainly respect people who use windows.

Advice for starting linux (from experience)... Good Luck!

I tried to move across to linux once, i think i got as far as working out how to get the notepad (1 of the 100000), console, gnome explorer thingy and mounting sorted out.

But that was it, I tried getting QT set up (thats an ide for C/Cpp I believe) and i screwed up BIG TIME, i couldnt make it compile or anything...

So dont start linux unless you have a lot of time to waste learning how to partition, install, setup, use, and understand it before you can even dream of compiling a program.

You've got to install linux before you can use it, which entails a crap load of questions in itself (especially when you can't get it to probe the hardware necessary to load a desktop and b/c of that you start out at a command prompt discouraged not knowing what to do). Right now I can't get XConfigurator run without an error.

So how much time have you got to waste? Im quite happy to sit here on my XP machine until i get the time to write my own OS (lol ;-) )

Don't switch to linux unless you really WANT to try it.

The transition can be a pain, and if you feel like you're being coerced into doing the switch, you'll come off hating it.

Once you get through the switch (actually get it installed, and figure out how things work), it's quite painless.

Maybe it's because i've used unix so extensively through school and jobs over the years, but i had minimal trouble setting up linux. When i do stumble on a problem, the answer always leaves me wiser and knowing more about the inner workings of my computer. A struggle in windows leaves me confused as to what exactly i changed to get it running.

With that said, there certainly have been times that i've been extremely frustrated trying to get something to work, but i hold those time arise just as frequently on either linux or windows. For me, at least.

Quote:

Original post by ZedFx Advice for starting linux (from experience)... Good Luck! I tried to move across to linux once, i think i got as far as working out how to get the notepad (1 of the 100000), console, gnome explorer thingy and mounting sorted out. But that was it, I tried getting QT set up (thats an ide for C/Cpp I believe) and i screwed up BIG TIME, i couldnt make it compile or anything... So dont start linux unless you have a lot of time to waste learning how to partition, install, setup, use, and understand it before you can even dream of compiling a program.

you sound like I did when I first tried linux when I think redhat 5 was new and yeah back then if you didn't know a linux guru or were a big computer nerd it was a pain in the ass.
If you try suse 9.1 or one of the newer distro's I'm sure you'd have a different opinion. I mean for pete's sake if I didn't know it was linux I'd think it was MS new OS longhorn or something since like xp it autologons the first user you create and updates all your software via an ms like windows update. It also hides the terminal from the user so you actually have to search it out if you wanna cause yourself any grief! macosx also hides the terminal from the user so they have no clue as to the powerful nix OS that lies underneath.
As far as I'm concerned suse is easier/faster to install than winxp at least on my hardware that includes laptops.
p.s.
If you want an OS that you never have to "deal" or waste time on use macosx. Now there is an OS I've never had a problem with in the 2 years I'v had my powerbook and never had to do a reinstall once. Windows xp on the otherhand could print to my bluetooth printer had problems with wireless cards not to mention for some mysterious reason gets registry corruption after a while especially if you install as many programs as I try to on it.

[Edited by - daviangel on July 11, 2004 10:14:10 PM]

Quote:

Original post by ZedFx So dont start linux unless you have a lot of time to waste learning how to partition, install, setup, use, and understand it before you can even dream of compiling a program.

Here's a tip: Don't try to compile anything when you're starting Linux. Particularly anything your distribution has a package for. Especially anything large and/or important. It WILL cause you headaches.

Your own programs, fine, but nothing fundamental to the system. Not until you know your way around a fair bit.

Whats so special about Linux; besides being free?
Open Source.

Is Linux faster?
No.

Why are most video game console games developed on Linux?
They aren't.

Whats it like programming for Linux? Can I still use C?
Yes.

Is there still ActiveX, Dlls, and all that mess in Linux?
Sort of. The Linux/UNIX equivalent of DLLs are shared objects, and "DLL Hell" can occur in Linux, too. In fact, the .NET GAC makes versioning easier than Linux' use of symbolic links.

ActiveX is a component architecture; KDE has KParts and GNOME has Bonobo.

Is the 'System' folder in Linux just as easy to fill up with crud as the Windows 'System' folder?
Yes. It's /usr/bin and a few others (sometimes distro-specific), and poor administration will load you with crud even more quickly than in Windows, because there's less automation and process streamlining.

Is there compatibility problems between different versions of Linux OS's, even though they use the same Kernal? (I'm guessing they use the same Kernal).
Yes. Compatibility issues in Linux center around libraries; one of the complexity of delivering binaries for Linux lies in libc/glibc incompatibility.

here's a quick suggestion try out linux for yourself
Knoppix - live CD distro you don't have to install to use, just boot from CD and you're done.


The biggest strengths I see in linux are the power of the core utilities(you can automate so many things), the level of configuration you can do, and the fact that you're not tied down to one thing. I prefer using the enlightenment desktop over KDE or GNOME, in Windows you just can't do that, you're stuck with one desktop, Windows..

I was going to suggest KNOPPIX but eedok beat me to it. KNOPPIX will autoconfigure most/all of your hardware and runs off a CD. You don't even need a hard drive installed. It's good if you just want to see what linux is like (or can be like), download it for free and fire it up. It doubles as a rescue disk if you crash everything or your hard drive goes down.

Quote:

Original post by eedok The biggest strengths I see in linux are the power of the core utilities(you can automate so many things)...

Ditto Windows. It's just not as central to the user experience, because the average user doesn't need those power features. See Windows Scripting Host and Windows Scheduler.

Quote:

...the level of configuration you can do...

See Windows Registry Hacks.

Quote:

...and the fact that you're not tied down to one thing.

See below.

Quote:

I prefer using the enlightenment desktop over KDE or GNOME, in Windows you just can't do that, you're stuck with one desktop, Windows..

Not true.

The difference between Windows and Linux is more one of philosophy and less one of technology.