Why Linux is the new Amiga

[superBuster]

@shamino
WOW, slow down.... what are you attempting to do. What kind of software do you need. If you can do what ever it is you do on the amiga, super.
You may just need to relax and learn a few new things. Linux does not need to be bloated, your install can be very small. Most people are frustrated because of user error. You can't just go on some irc and expect people to set you up, can you?
amigaOS was very cool, but it is showing it's age.....

[ant512]

Originally Posted by superBuster

ant512, you need to try a modern linux flavor, like the latest SUSE 10. You won't have to edit anything. If you like osx, cool it's just bsd/linux anyway.

The last version of Linux I installed was Ubuntu 6.10. I'm waiting on the next version and I'll give that another go. Apparently the resolution problem is fixed in that release (via the addition of a GUI).

I'd dearly like to get on with Linux - I think the development process and the ideas behind it are marvellous. However, it won't be a desktop OS until there is:

- One standard distro;
- One standard desktop;
- A response other than "get the source and fix it yourself" whenever a problem arises.

The way I see it, Windows is a great office OS (it's easy to administer for underpaid monkeys and runs the best office suite, interoperability issues aside), OSX is a great home OS (it doesn't need administration and is incredibly easy to use) and Linux is a great server OS (stable, and everything can be done by the command line).

Anyway, I'm drifting off topic.

Oh, and regarding Linux being based on a 70s OS - AmigaOS was based on TripOS, which was (ta da!) a UNIX derivative. OSX is based on BSD, which is (drum roll) UNIX. In fact, the only modern mainstream operating system to have achieved any success that wasn't ultimately based on UNIX is Windows, and you all know what a swine that is. Windows is essentially based on the work of one American student hammering out some half-baked code in his dorm room.

My rationale for finding more in common between AmigaOS and OSX is as follows...

1. Hardware tied to software

OSX will probably run on bog-standard PC hardware if you hack about with it enough. However, it's designed to run on a very limited subset of hardware - specific graphics cards, specific Firewire interfaces, etc. You buy a Mac and you get the OS free. Sound familiar?

2. Three levels of hardware

Mac Mini, iMac, Mac Pro. Entry-level, standard, high-end. A600, A1200, A4000.

3. Powerful command line and GUI

Pretty much anything you can do with the Mac GUI you can do with the terminal. Same goes for the Amiga. Conversely, pretty much anything you can do with the command line you can do with the GUI. Doesn't hold true for Linux - a significant amount of Linux software is command line only. There are probably two reasons for this; first of all, there's no dominant GUI - make your program for GNOME and it looks crap in KDE, and doesn't work with FluxBox. Secondly, GUI programming is so much harder to do than knocking something text-based together.

4. Designed for the average user

The Amiga was designed for people. OSX is designed for people. Linux is designed by uber-nerds for uber-nerds who will demand that you learn at least one low-level programming language and an API in order to fix your own problems as you encounter them.

5. Obsessive userbase

OK, so Linux users fall into this category too, but there's something about crazed Mac zealots that seems familiar.

[mabus]

Originally Posted by Shamino

Linux sux, we spent days trying to get it to work with the help of some Linux gurus in #linuxhelp, it still doesn't properly. Despite being based on a 1970s OS, it's not reliably backwards compatible, it's rather slow, hideously bloated and ridiculously unfriendly. Oh, and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of decent software. It's considerably worse even than Windows which I hate. It really shows how much better AmigaOS is.

Ehrm... Linux bloated? The standard Linux kernel can be adapted to pretty much any environment, including to run in embedded systems with very limited resources. Microsoft have specialised kernels to run on such systems, they are not available for free and the sourcecode certainly isn't available..

In terms of Linux distributions, most modern distributions include pretty much everything you need to have a fully functioning workstation, and you don't have to pay extra for any of it. If this is "bloated" then just get rid off the stuff you'll never use anyway?

Linux is not slow, and if all hardware manufacturers instantly provided opensource drivers for their products so that it could be used on any hardware we'd be in a position where even graphics performance wouldn't be different between platforms... Have you tried running Windows Vista on an unsupported graphicscard? Not much different from running X on an unsupported graphicscard..

AmigaOS is a nice OS, but it's not widely supported and unless you're willing to spend a small fortune getting hold of kit then you're stuck with good-ol-classic Amiga where it's time for the guru to start meditating every few hours.

[rbelk]

I agree with Ant512. OSX is as close as we will get to an Amiga. I also agree with Mabus, Linux is not slow or bloated.
The distribution you install is bloated and that is what bothers me.

Sorry for the long post, but let me describe what UNIX, Linux, and BSD is.

1. The UNIX Operating System was written in the late 60's by the super techies at Bell Labs. They modeled some of UNIX after the MULTICS Operating System. But, after about the 3'rd version they rewrote the OS in the C programming language, which they created, to make it more portable. Only the base kernel was written in assembler. They also wrote the POSIX UNIX layer that anyone can put into their Operating System. See Wikipedia's POSIX article for an explanation.

2. Linux is not a version of UNIX but BSD is. the Linux middle layer is POSIX compliant but the kernel internals are far from the internals of UNIX System V3-to-V5. It is written a whole lot better!

3. BSD shared the code base with UNIX System 3 for a long time, but some of the kernel internals were rewritten to take out all of AT&T's code due to the Berkley/AT&T lawsuit. The POSIX part stayed in there. So since it shared the code base with UNIX, it could still be classified as UNIX theoretically speaking but it's still coded better than UNIX System V3-to-V5.

4. Linux is the kernel not the whole Operating System. The Linux kernel is combined with the GNU userland utilities, the POSIX compatibility libraries, and the X window system, and either the Gnome or KDE window environment to make a distribution, or in our terms an Operating System.

5. BSD is a combination of the BSD kernel and BSD userland utilities, and the POSIX libraries. Then they add X with either KDE, Gnome, or what ever to make a GUI environment. Then it's called a distribution, or in our terms an Operating System.

6. Having a POSIX layer in an OS does not make it UNIX or an old OS from the 70's. It's an industry standard that has been around since the mid-80's.

6a. OS's with POSIX compliant shared libraries and utilities include All versions of UNIX/BSD/Linux OS's, the Amiga OS(?! via 3'rd party), Windows NT 3.05-to-Vista with the Microsoft POSIX utilities and libraries, and even VMS. And just in case you didn't know it Windows NT-to-Vista is based on the VMS internal code base which is poorly written.

Sorry about getting on a soap box but sometimes OS threads kinda get to me. So please don't ban me, I'm just a little

[rbelk]

We Amiga nerds have always been a little obsessive with our machines, me included! Why, because it was/is the easiest to learn, the easiest to use, and the best OS/hardware combination in the history of the computer industry bar none. I just wish the management of Commodore understood what they had. Sorry, was I a little obsessive?

[superBuster]

@rbelk
cool. I dunno I like the amiga just the way she is. It's all water under the bridge.
All I know is BSD and LINUX, absolutly smoke anything windows.

[Shamino]

Originally Posted by killergorilla

I think you mean:

It really shows how much better AmigaOS was.

No mistake, how much better it *is*. The combination of blistering speed, small size, low system requirements, friendliness, power, configurability, ease of development and intuitiveness really can't be bettered by anything else on the market. I don't see anything not to like about it, it's as close to perfection as I've yet seen in software. (I think you are talking about OS3.0 KG, you may as well use the past tense for that, I'm talking about OS3.9.)

If you can do what ever it is you do on the amiga, super.

Indeed I can, I just need to run 1 piece of software which is currently only available for Linux, so I have no choice but to install it and waste many hundreds of megabytes of hard disk space (sigh).

Oh, and regarding Linux being based on a 70s OS - AmigaOS was based on TripOS, which was (ta da!) a UNIX derivative.

Where did you get told that TripOS was a UNIX derivative? that is the first time I have heard that one. Even if that were the case, the only part of AmigaOS that was ever based on TripOS was dos.library 1.x (which was generally agreed at the time to be the worst part of AmigaOS, and very poorly integrated into the rest of AmigaOS), and it was rewritten from scratch for 2.0 anyway. So to say AmigaOS is UNIX is like saying Windows Vista is CP/M.

Windows is essentially based on the work of one American student hammering out some half-baked code in his dorm room.

Hmm, where did you hear this one!? Ridiculous.

You buy a Mac and you get the OS free. Sound familiar?

You buy an ST and you get the OS free. You buy a TRS-80 and you get the OS free. You buy an Apple IIGS and you get the OS free. Etc. That doesn't mean all those operating systems are the same or even remotely similar.

Three levels of hardware

Mac Mini, iMac, Mac Pro. A600, A1200, A4000.

There are more kinds of Mac than just that. And more kinds of Amigas than that. You could say similar things about different Spectrum models, TRS-80 models, Atari ST models, Apple 2 models, Archimedes models, etc. Plus that has nothing really to do with operating systems.

Powerful command line and GUI

I will take your word for it that they have finally got around to putting a CLI into MacOS. About time!

Designed for the average user

Last time I looked MacOS was designed just for lamers, it was designed to be an arse to actually do much low-level stuff. Eg. the lack of a CLI. Maybe they have rectified this finally.

Ehrm... Linux bloated? The standard Linux kernel can be adapted to pretty much any environment, including to run in embedded systems with very limited resources.

Yeah, if you're happy with just a command line. A usable Linux environment requires base+xwindows+kde+kdm+metacity etc., it's hundreds of megs. After it was supposedly successfully installed, I just got a CLI, I then had to install all that other crap.

Linux is not slow

If you're used to Windows and you throw a superfast CPU at it, it probably doesn't seem slow. But compared to eg. AmigaOS, it crawls.

Have you tried running Windows Vista on an unsupported graphicscard

Vista sux big time.

unless you're willing to spend a small fortune getting hold of kit then you're stuck with good-ol-classic Amiga where it's time for the guru to start meditating every few hours.

AmigaOS is fast enough that you can emulate it on eg. a Windoze box and it is more responsive, even with the emulation overhead, than Windoze. I suggest you stop running buggy software, I haven't seen any guru alerts for months.

Linux is not a version of UNIX

Are you just trolling now or what? Amiga is UNIX but Linux is not UNIX? Even the name Linux is a play on the word UNIX, did you never notice this? And the other bloke says Amiga is MacOS? Hell, I may as well say GEOS is QNX: both are fast and reliable, so they are the same thing! Funny that no Amiga stuff runs on MacOS, or on Linux, then isn't it? There is only one OS, they are all just rip-offs of UNIX. Yeah right.

Oh, and regarding the article: Microsoft didn't write Amiga apps because they wouldn't make money? Garbage. Hundreds of companies found it quite profitable to make Amiga applications (and games too of course), or they wouldn't have been doing it. Eg. just looking at the apps side of things: Aegis, Gold Disk, Digita, SoftWood, Newtek, Dr. T's, Scala, H&P, etc. I think the real reason is a combination of (a) Microsoft couldn't develop software as cost-efficiently as these companies (ie. they were and are not very good at keeping their development costs down) and (b) the available Amiga software was light years ahead of what Microsoft and similar IBM-PC vendors could offer. Eg. WordPerfect was released on Amiga but very few people bothered with it because it was far behind the other Amiga word processors of the time and didn't make proper use of the Amiga's features.

[killergorilla]

Originally Posted by Shamino

No mistake, how much better it *is*. The combination of blistering speed, small size, low system requirements, friendliness, power, configurability, ease of development and intuitiveness really can't be bettered by anything else on the market. I don't see anything not to like about it, it's as close to perfection as I've yet seen in software. (I think you are talking about OS3.0 KG, you may as well use the past tense for that, I'm talking about OS3.9.)

You certainly like your Amigas.

I wasn't talking about WB3.0. I owned OS3.5 and OS3.9 until 6 months ago but sold them because I had no use for them anymore. There was nothing for me to use them on that could offer me this perfection you speak of.

[tootoid]

I reckon one of the main problems with Linux is that people expect it to run flawlessly on their "scrapheap challenge" style PC's made out of cheap x86 hardware. One of it's main strengths (the freedom to choose your hardware) is also it's downfall.

I'd guess that OS's like MacOSX, Solaris and even AmigaOS wouldn't be half as fast and reliable if they weren't designed to run on such a limited selection of hardware and couldn't be integrated into the machine so tightly.

[Anubis]

I like unix.

I'm scared of mouse...

Favorite:

FreeBSD
NetBSD
OpenBSD
AIX

[ant512]

Originally Posted by ant512

5. Obsessive userbase

OK, so Linux users fall into this category too, but there's something about crazed Mac zealots that seems familiar.

Originally Posted by Shamino

No mistake, how much better it *is*. The combination of blistering speed, small size, low system requirements, friendliness, power, configurability, ease of development and intuitiveness really can't be bettered by anything else on the market. I don't see anything not to like about it, it's as close to perfection as I've yet seen in software. (I think you are talking about OS3.0 KG, you may as well use the past tense for that, I'm talking about OS3.9.)

I think you just proved my point.

[Ultron]

There's pretty much zero Workbench and Linux have in common, but ok.

Seems that users who were in the past obsessed about Workbench are now trying to transfer the obsession to Linux, and need the psychologic aid of imagining one as sucessor of the other.

I'd conversely recommend not being obsessed about OS's at all, it's silly.

[boing_1000]

You will find that Linux users will increase more because of Vista I think. Linux requires almost nothing to run and it's nice to look at.

[Anubis]

I can't agree with this.

Linux just like other GUI OSes require both memory and processing to run properly and nicely.


I don’t think that Vista will influence much number of Linux users.

Real place to influence that number would be Linux itself as to standardize and make it easy for average Joe to install and use Linux.

That’s why everyone should use FreeBSD. (Standard UNIX system )

[boing_1000]

Originally Posted by Anubis

I can't agree with this.

Linux just like other GUI OSes require both memory and processing to run properly and nicely.


I don’t think that Vista will influence much number of Linux users.

Real place to influence that number would be Linux itself as to standardize and make it easy for average Joe to install and use Linux.

That’s why everyone should use FreeBSD. (Standard UNIX system )

I meant to say that older PC's can run Linux better than they would be able to run Vista.

[ant512]

Originally Posted by boing_1000

I meant to say that older PC's can run Linux better than they would be able to run Vista.

This is a point of view that's often put forward. I can't see it myself, though. If you're the average Windows user, and you're not going to upgrade your hardware, why on earth would you suddenly switch to Linux instead of sticking with Windows XP? And if you *are* going to upgrade your hardware, Vista will come pre-installed on new machines anyway.

I really can't see anyone jumping ship from XP to Ubuntu or SUSE simply because Vista won't run on their computers.

[rbelk]

Originally Posted by Shamino

Are you just trolling now or what? Amiga is UNIX but Linux is not UNIX? Even the name Linux is a play on the word UNIX, did you never notice this? And the other bloke says Amiga is MacOS? Hell, I may as well say GEOS is QNX: both are fast and reliable, so they are the same thing! Funny that no Amiga stuff runs on MacOS, or on Linux, then isn't it? There is only one OS, they are all just rip-offs of UNIX. Yeah right.

@Shamino, sorry if you took my post wrong. But I never said that the "AmigaOS is UNIX" or "Linux is not UNIX". What I said was "Linux is not a version of UNIX but BSD is" and that is correct. Linux is only the Kernel not the whole OS. The Linux kernel did not share the code base with UNIX but the BSD kernel did. I am talking from a systems level point of view. It might appear from the outside that Linux is UNIX but it's not, sorry. The UNIX OS internals are far different than the Linux internals. Linux is not a version but more of a work-a-like. Everyone gets confused about this. What people think is UNIX is actually the POSIX or "Portable Operating System Interface" standard that can be applied on top of any OS.

[Shamino]

If I understand you, you are saying Linux is a effectively a clean-room reimplementation of UNIX. Agreed, there is no UNIX source code in Linux, but I don't think this is really an important point. There is no AmigaOS source code in AROS, but nevertheless AROS is still clearly very similar to AmigaOS.

[pbareges]

i think it's interesting to try to relate different fanatic groups but the kind of fanatism brought by the amiga back in the days won't happen anymore...it was based upon the fact that the amiga was a killing game machine, had uncredible creating abilities (music, sounds, gfx, video) with supereasy interfaces, an advanced OS and was affordable. it's the whole combination that was incredible....with the segmentation of the markets nowadays such a combination is very not likely : killer games and affordability is in the console market whereas creating abilities/easy interface&OS is more related to MacOS world i guess.
the fanatism related to linux is quite different : it's more the open source revolution vs the commercial world....

[kriz]

Im not going to have Vista on my pc here, I will go for Linux, about time.

Proably Vista on all machines at work soonish anyways, so will see it for sure heh..