Linux still waaaaay behind windows
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tbuitenh May 26, 2011 8:30 AM EDT |
By four major versions, to be precise. ;) |
| hkwint May 26, 2011 9:13 AM EDT |
Yeah, Linus should simply remove the dot in "3.0"! |
| jacog May 26, 2011 9:19 AM EDT |
@tbuitenh - you seem to forget that people used to run Windows 98 ... They downgraded a whole 91 versions. ( just remembered Windows 2000 also ) |
| DrGeoffrey May 26, 2011 12:06 PM EDT |
You three just succeeded in bringing back all sorts of 'memories'. And, I'm just a lowly user. If only I could buy some sort of punching-head desk thingy with Bill Gates' picture or winblows logo on it. I would really enjoy the stress release. |
| TxtEdMacs May 26, 2011 1:56 PM EDT |
One of my fondest memories ... about Windows 95 [serious] Bill Gates admitted there was a flaw in 95 that caused a crash every forty [two, five] days. I would have gladly made a deal to trade the days for minutes, because my unit crashed routinely sooner than the foreshortened term. However, I never found the devil to close the deal with. [/serious] YBT |
| tbuitenh May 26, 2011 3:25 PM EDT |
@jacog Well, as long as it's not connected to the net, I'd rather use 98 than 7, so that makes sense. Also, I never used it, but I'm told 2000 was better than any versions that came before or after. So oddly enough these numbers make sense. But seriously, I don't get what all that version number racing is about (just look at the browsers these days!). Why not only change the number before the dot when a significant part of the code is rewritten (except for the change from 0.x to 1.x of course)? If "major" versions can happen at any time, what's the point of having a dot in the version number? I think for my own programs the version number shall be the Unix time (seconds since 1970) I last compiled it. |
| dinotrac May 26, 2011 3:43 PM EDT |
@tbuitenh - The issue of whether 2000 was better depends, I suppose, on what you want to do. Prior to 4.0, NT was a very solid server platform, designed by some of the best bitheads to come out of Digital Equipment Corp. Those earlier versions of NT maintained the same separation between presentation layer and kernel that we see in Unix OS's. On the hardware of the day, that made for sluggish feeling desktops -- albeit very stable machines. That flaw was fixed for 4.0, and the Windows we all know and love was born. |
| gus3 May 26, 2011 4:13 PM EDT |
On the day I got a new Windows 98 system at work, the first thing I did was reboot. It promptly blue-screened. Their IT dept. hated me after that. |
| BernardSwiss May 26, 2011 5:49 PM EDT |
Does anyone know what the really important, big changes in the 2.6 series were? I personally would have preferred clearer indications for at least major changes. I'm guessing that the whole locking issue (Big Kernel Lock) is such a major marker. What about going "tickless"? There were probably others, but as I'm not even a coder, let alone a kernel-dev, I wouldn't know where to start. So, anybody feel up to suggesting versions/ "big" new features? - (And heck, if it is going to be arbitrary, we really should have a "42"...) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!