Richard England wrote:
Les, What OS DO you like. I'm just curious.
I'm not sure I 'like' any of them because they all have constraints that keep them from doing everything I want. Unix (back in the Xenix, AT&T SysVr3/4 days) was the first OS design that made sense to me and I like the fact that C code and shell and perl scripts written back then still work unchanged under Linux - and always did work across processor types.
Now I use CentOS for special-purpose servers and VMware hosts, Windows for work desktops and general purpose servers that have to be able to run an assortment of 3rd part apps, a dual boot laptop, and Macs at home.
As an OS, I'd pick OS X as the best mix of unix compatibility, user friendliness, and supplying everything you need, including patented technology and vendor written drivers. But, it is tied to certain hardware and apple likes to make you buy the same thing over again to get minor upgrades so it won't work everywhere (although the $199 price for a 5 machine home license for Leopard isn't horrible and it does run across the G4 and Intel processor lines). If you ever did an upgrade on a mac or used their included migration tool to move installed users and applications to a new machine you'd understand why I rant about the unfriendliness of fedora upgrades and updates. They even migrate powerpc processor binaries to Intel hardware seamlessly when you upgrade. So it's hard to buy the Linux claim that they can't keep an interface stable from one day to the next even on a single processor line.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
