Michael Jones Posted July 9, 2002 Posted July 9, 2002 Anybody know what LindowsOS is supposed to be? I know it is an alternative to Windows, but does it run applications that are written for Windows. Some software is real picky regarding the OS. I am a GS160 user and have had no probs with it under Windows. I am considering new system and seen boxes advertised at lower than normal pricing(?) touting the LindowsOS as a less expensive alternative to Windows... Now I am REALLY confused Michael "I may be a craven little coward, but I'm a greedy craven little coward." Daffy Duck
Michael Jones Posted July 9, 2002 Author Posted July 9, 2002 More info......... www.lindows.com Evidently it is a Linux alternative to Windows..... MORE CONFUSION!!! Michael "I may be a craven little coward, but I'm a greedy craven little coward." Daffy Duck
progfusion74 Posted July 9, 2002 Posted July 9, 2002 Originally posted by Michael Jones: Anybody know what LindowsOS is supposed to be? I know it is an alternative to Windows, but does it run applications that are written for Windows. Some software is real picky regarding the OS. I am a GS160 user and have had no probs with it under Windows. I am considering new system and seen boxes advertised at lower than normal pricing(?) touting the LindowsOS as a less expensive alternative to Windows... Now I am REALLY confused Michael http://help.lindows.com/cgi-bin/visitors.cfg/php/enduser/std_alp.php Lindows AFAIK uses wine, which I somtimes use to read windows documents in Linux (usually use StarOffice). Anyway, to the best of my knowledge, Lindows is a hybrid windows/Linux OS. I am still a little skeptical. I doubt that you could run a sequencer on Lindows, otherwise I'd be running Cubase with VMWare. prog http://www.indiegrooves.com/dnm/images/dnm_small.gif My Blog
Michael Jones Posted July 9, 2002 Author Posted July 9, 2002 Thanks prog I am also skeptical... Just hoping to find an OS with less overhead requirements than Windows...its such a resource hog. It would be nice to have more resources for sequencing, recording. etc rather than all the BS Windows incorporates... Oh Well!!! Back to the drawing board... Michael "I may be a craven little coward, but I'm a greedy craven little coward." Daffy Duck
progfusion74 Posted July 9, 2002 Posted July 9, 2002 I empathize. As a Linux user, having to use windows for music was a step I took with a rather heavy heart!!!! prog http://www.indiegrooves.com/dnm/images/dnm_small.gif My Blog
skynare Posted July 9, 2002 Posted July 9, 2002 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I empathize. As a Linux user, having to use windows for music was a step I took with a rather heavy heart!!!! I'm not a Linux user, but long solo reign of Windows in software market is not so pretty to me. Why on earth software companies make apps only for Windows? I saw M-Audio provides some linux drivers for their audio cards, but that's not enough. I think cakewalk or other major software companies should make linux port of their appz. Being heard that linux is more stable than windows, it's a big mystery to me why people don't make software in more stable os especially for audio appz, which stable operation is crucial. Is Microsoft bribing software companies? S K Y N A R E
Lee Flier Posted July 9, 2002 Posted July 9, 2002 Originally posted by skynare: Is Microsoft bribing software companies?Yes... they've cut a lot of "exclusive" deals with both hardware and software companies. Oh well, I don't do much audio on my computer anyway. I'm learning Linux and my next puter is going to run Linux. I use my Yamaha AW4416 for audio and if I wanted to upgrade from that, I'd get a RADAR and a real console. For basic tracking and editing here's a pretty cool little cross-platform free audio editor: http://audacity.sourceforge.net/ Works for Windows, Mac, and Linux. It's open source, so if you're a programmer you can contribute to its developement and/or roll your own custom version. --Lee
daBowsa Posted July 9, 2002 Posted July 9, 2002 As a software developer, I use Linux/Unix environments all day long. They are highly customizable, extremely stable, and very user-customizable. However, they are still a long way from being "user-friendly" - especially when dealing with hardware and configuration. I run Windows at home simply because I find it too much effort to get Linux to communicate with my printer, modem, midi, USB and soundcard. A shame, but until corporations stop giving in to Microsoft pressure, Windows will be the only OS with any decent hardware support. The fact is that if you make a sound card and support Linux and Microsoft doesn't like that, you'll be out of business by the next Windows release. All Microsoft has to do is not provide M-Audio with the Windows side of their driver code and M-Audio will no longer be compatible with the newest version of Windows, essentially cutting their sales to zero and putting them under. Thanks for making the world a better place Mr. Gates.
Lee Flier Posted July 9, 2002 Posted July 9, 2002 You are right on point, dabowsa. Are you familiar with this?: http://www.alsa-project.org/ --Lee
... Posted July 10, 2002 Posted July 10, 2002 Originally posted by dabowsa: As a software developer, I use Linux/Unix environments all day long. They are highly customizable, extremely stable, and very user-customizable. However, they are still a long way from being "user-friendly" - especially when dealing with hardware and configuration. OK, noted that you are a Linux/Unix developer. Originally posted by dabowsa: I run Windows at home simply because I find it too much effort to get Linux to communicate with my printer, modem, midi, USB and soundcard. A shame, but until corporations stop giving in to Microsoft pressure, Windows will be the only OS with any decent hardware support. OK, you are a major hardware company and you are writing drivers for your super cool new hardware bit. What OS are you going to write drivers for? One that millions of people use at home and in the office every day, or one that is still used widely but is not nearly as "user-friendly"? Don't assume that it's Microsoft pressuring hardware companies into only writing drivers for their OS's. Originally posted by dabowsa: The fact is that if you make a sound card and support Linux and Microsoft doesn't like that, you'll be out of business by the next Windows release. All Microsoft has to do is not provide M-Audio with the Windows side of their driver code and M-Audio will no longer be compatible with the newest version of Windows, essentially cutting their sales to zero and putting them under. Thanks for making the world a better place Mr. Gates.Have you ever written drivers for the Windows OS? No one, and I mean no one, uses anything that is not WIDELY available to ANYONE who wants to download it when writing drivers for the various MS operating systems. Go get the platform SDK or the WDK and see for yourself. Microsoft has no way of blocking out someone's driver from installing on the OS... unless you want to talk about driver signing, and even that is very easily disabled (well documented on how to do it too). I love the attitude the anti-Microsoft crowd has. OK, so what would happen if MS released all their code to public domain? Lot's of companies would start creating their own little variations on the MS code and releasing operating systems. People would have a ton of options to run to from an OS standpoint. Developers would have a vast new variety of OS's to choose from when they write drivers for their hardware. Which ones would they choose to write drivers for and which ones would they choose to not write them? They can't write drivers for everything, that's very unrealistic as it costs a lot of money and resources to write and test drivers. What about the hardware? It's much easier for the hardware companies to make stuff work with 1 or 2 OS's than 40 of them. A wide open free-for-all would set the industry back 15 years at best. It would be chaos until another Microsoft emerged out of the wasteland. So are you just wanting a shift in power, or what? If Red Hat became the new Microsoft, and everyone and their mother had Red Hat Linux installed on their systems, and everyone only wrote programs to run on Red Hat Linux, would the world be this great new and fantastic place? I think not. It would be the same as it is now, just with a different person in the driver's seat.
Umbra Posted July 11, 2002 Posted July 11, 2002 "Just hoping to find an OS with less overhead requirements than Windows...its such a resource hog." Why are you trying to run windows on linux? That's a good way to create a slow, non-userfiendly, unstable system. If linux is so great why are you trying to run windows at all? Essentially open source and linux is an excuse for writing bad software with the reasoning that if it doesn't work the user can fix it themselves, like that ever happens. Get rid of the open source concept and put a little money, talent, a good helping of greed, the words SINGLE USABLE USER INTERFACE in their mission statement and a SINGLE company behind linux and it might gain more than single digit market share. The more stable arguement is complete BS, yah, it's more stable because there is so little running on the average linux box compared to the average mac or win pc. Also your average computer literate user is not using linux, put them on a linux box and it wont be stable either (well actually it will because getting linux to do anything for an average PC user will be impossible), so yes more stable because it will be off and stacked in the closet.
progfusion74 Posted July 11, 2002 Posted July 11, 2002 Originally posted by Umbra: "Just hoping to find an OS with less overhead requirements than Windows...its such a resource hog." Why are you trying to run windows on linux? That's a good way to create a slow, non-userfiendly, unstable system. If linux is so great why are you trying to run windows at all? Essentially open source and linux is an excuse for writing bad software with the reasoning that if it doesn't work the user can fix it themselves, like that ever happens. Get rid of the open source concept and put a little money, talent, a good helping of greed, the words SINGLE USABLE USER INTERFACE in their mission statement and a SINGLE company behind linux and it might gain more than single digit market share. The more stable arguement is complete BS, yah, it's more stable because there is so little running on the average linux box compared to the average mac or win pc. Also your average computer literate user is not using linux, put them on a linux box and it wont be stable either (well actually it will because getting linux to do anything for an average PC user will be impossible), so yes more stable because it will be off and stacked in the closet.Umbra as of now I am running a total of 20,000 jobs which will take about a 100 man days each, on a compute farm running linux. I have in the past run jobs which ran for weeks (protein simulations) without stopping. Try doing that on a windows box. By the way, I don't run windows (except for music). If you did not have Linux/unix, you would not have the human genome, drug discovery would be dead, and there would be no google (which runs on linux). Why would anyone want to run windows on Linux anyway? The National Institute of Health runs a Beowulf cluster. In the world of science, Linux is king. If I didn't know how to work on Linux, my future as a computational scientist would be ery limited (not dead, but limited). Even Disney and Pixar work on Linux now, and IBM supports Linux like anybody's business. The Life Sciences depend on Linux, cause it is low cost, stable, and I don't HAVE to buy a darn compiler to write good code. You can never argue that windows is as stable as Linux cause it isn't, although win2k is a stable OS, just not enough for the jobs I need to do. Sorry for the rant. I will not argue that Linux should be available for the average consumer, but the DAW crowd is not your average consumer anyway. prog http://www.indiegrooves.com/dnm/images/dnm_small.gif My Blog
... Posted July 11, 2002 Posted July 11, 2002 Originally posted by progfusion74: Originally posted by Umbra: "Just hoping to find an OS with less overhead requirements than Windows...its such a resource hog." Why are you trying to run windows on linux? That's a good way to create a slow, non-userfiendly, unstable system. If linux is so great why are you trying to run windows at all? Essentially open source and linux is an excuse for writing bad software with the reasoning that if it doesn't work the user can fix it themselves, like that ever happens. Get rid of the open source concept and put a little money, talent, a good helping of greed, the words SINGLE USABLE USER INTERFACE in their mission statement and a SINGLE company behind linux and it might gain more than single digit market share. The more stable arguement is complete BS, yah, it's more stable because there is so little running on the average linux box compared to the average mac or win pc. Also your average computer literate user is not using linux, put them on a linux box and it wont be stable either (well actually it will because getting linux to do anything for an average PC user will be impossible), so yes more stable because it will be off and stacked in the closet.Umbra as of now I am running a total of 20,000 jobs which will take about a 100 man days each, on a compute farm running linux. I have in the past run jobs which ran for weeks (protein simulations) without stopping. Try doing that on a windows box. By the way, I don't run windows (except for music). If you did not have Linux/unix, you would not have the human genome, drug discovery would be dead, and there would be no google (which runs on linux). Why would anyone want to run windows on Linux anyway? The National Institute of Health runs a Beowulf cluster. In the world of science, Linux is king. If I didn't know how to work on Linux, my future as a computational scientist would be ery limited (not dead, but limited). Even Disney and Pixar work on Linux now, and IBM supports Linux like anybody's business. The Life Sciences depend on Linux, cause it is low cost, stable, and I don't HAVE to buy a darn compiler to write good code. You can never argue that windows is as stable as Linux cause it isn't, although win2k is a stable OS, just not enough for the jobs I need to do. Sorry for the rant progA Windows2000/NT server can be very stable and very reliable... I have an NT 4 file server that hasn't been rebooted in almost 2 years. The biggest problem in the Windows world is that a vast majority of the IT people in charge of the systems load WAY too much junk on them. When someone expects their Windows server to run Exchange, SQL, Oracle, SMS, IIS, AND act as a print server; then have the gall to get pissy when it blows up all the time on them is just asinine. Of course, they also will have 3 or 4 differnet management utilities on the system, and PC Anywhere, and Antivirus software, and a backup client (woohoo, open file managers!!). The system isn't stable because a lot of the applications are never tested for any sort of compatibility.. it's just a matter of time before one app/services stomps on another one and potentially hoses the whole system. I'm not trying to argue here... just wanted to point this out.
progfusion74 Posted July 11, 2002 Posted July 11, 2002 I am aware of that. Windows NT servers are stable (and I have worked on them too), but not upto the rigors that intense scientific computing demands. Windows has its place and so does Linux, and so does the mac. In the end it is often a question of comfort. Linux will never be a consumer OS, but as servers for large scale distributed computing, etc, windows, for now, cannot come close. My own windows machine rarely crashes, cause I know how to take care of it, but it can't take the abuse that my linux box can (dual boot) . Ah well, I am already kicking myself for losing it there for a second http://www.indiegrooves.com/dnm/images/dnm_small.gif My Blog
Postman Posted July 11, 2002 Posted July 11, 2002 Holy Mackerel, Umbra, that's quite an opinion you've got there! Where do I start? Why are you trying to run windows on linux? That's a good way to create a slow, non-userfiendly, unstable system. Ok, you got a point, there, but there are plenty of good desktops running on a UNIX environment, Mac OS X not being the least of which. If linux is so great why are you trying to run windows at all? I actually develop on Solaris at work, not Linux, and use Windows at home, but the reason is the same: most of the standard home use software that I use is Windows software. Besides, who said I have to use one or the other exclusively? Essentially open source and linux is an excuse for writing bad software with the reasoning that if it doesn't work the user can fix it themselves, like that ever happens. You're waaaay out on a limb there. Some of the best utilities, security software, developer's tools, developer's languages (like Perl, Python, Java etc.) are all open source. They are extremely reliable. In fact if they weren't, the business world would come to a grinding halt. Get rid of the open source concept and put a little money, talent, a good helping of greed, the words SINGLE USABLE USER INTERFACE in their mission statement and a SINGLE company behind linux and it might gain more than single digit market share. Ever occur to you that these guys don't care about market share? Writing code for the sake of writing code is what these guys do for fun. [i on the other hand prefer being paid for it.] The more stable arguement is complete BS, yah, it's more stable because there is so little running on the average linux box compared to the average mac or win pc. Also your average computer literate user is not using linux, put them on a linux box and it wont be stable either (well actually it will because getting linux to do anything for an average PC user will be impossible), so yes more stable because it will be off and stacked in the closet. Garbage. Just garbage. Microsoft is catching up, sure, but they're still a good bit behind the UNIX world and they know it. Did you see that TV ad they put on recently, you know the one where they show a roomful of servers and say "Nobody's touched these servers for weeks!" That got a lot chuckles from the folks around here. We've got production servers that are under huge loads that haven't been rebooted in over two years. And then only because we had to move them to our (then) new data center. Listen, I owe my career to Microsoft. Gates introduced the world to computing. I wouldn't have my job without him. But let's call a spade a spade. NT stood for "Nice Try". 2000 was better. Their next generation OS will be better still. All this time, though, the UNIX platform has been rock solid.
progfusion74 Posted July 11, 2002 Posted July 11, 2002 Postman said it much better than I did Note to self: Don't get upset. Learn how to write sensible answers from postman http://www.indiegrooves.com/dnm/images/dnm_small.gif My Blog
Dave Pierce Posted July 11, 2002 Posted July 11, 2002 Shouldn't this whole thread be on slashdot? --Dave Make my funk the P-funk. I wants to get funked up. My Funk/Jam originals project: http://www.thefunkery.com/
Wrave Posted July 12, 2002 Posted July 12, 2002 I'm not going to try to convince anyone who has never used anything but MS Win to switch to Linux. But I've used both and I prefer Linux by far. If (and when) a good multi-track recording system is available for Linux, it will take only minutes for me to begin deleting the Win partitions from my hard drives. In fact, when I first heard that OS X was built on top of Linux, I actually considered looking at a Mac. All things come to he who waits... =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ME: "Nobody knows the troubles I've seen!" Unknown Voice: "The Shadow do!"
Postman Posted July 13, 2002 Posted July 13, 2002 It's not. It's built on top of BSD. Still UNIX, but not LINUX.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.