|[Web] "Amiga still better than PC" article||ANN.lu|
|Posted on 22-May-2002 17:33 GMT by Colin Wilson||24 comments|
The Inquirer tech news site has an article here that you may find entertaining.
|"Amiga still better than PC" article : Comment 1 of 24||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Christophe Decanini on 22-May-2002 16:19 GMT|
|Yes, thanks to the united Amiga communauty ;)|
|"Amiga still better than PC" article : Comment 2 of 24||ANN.lu|
|Posted by darklite on 22-May-2002 18:52 GMT|
|*exactly* my view on operating systems!|
A very interesting read
|"Amiga still better than PC" article : Comment 3 of 24||ANN.lu|
|Posted by cOrpse on 22-May-2002 19:19 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 2 (darklite):|
And that would be : it has to run on mainstream aka cheapy hardware and still be geeky enough to impress your mates ;)
/Me is listening to guana apes , Sweeet :D
|"Amiga still better than PC" article : Comment 4 of 24||ANN.lu|
|Posted by PaulT on 22-May-2002 20:39 GMT|
|A nice quick overview with an eye towards the origins of the various systems. It sounded like his love of the Z88 was more towards its instant-on character rather than any innate modern capabilities. Part of what I loved in Amiga from the start was that it wasn't based on a monochrome screen (M*c) nor just a text basis (MSD*S), but it had that capability when you needed it.|
Let's hope that AmigaDE (notably absent from his mention of current offerings) offers what he wants and succeeds, because it will be what others want then too.
|"Amiga still better than PC" article : Comment 5 of 24||ANN.lu|
|Posted by 4pLaY on 22-May-2002 20:46 GMT|
|The writer of the article used to write for CU Amiga so that might explain his love for AmigaOS ;).|
|"Amiga still better than PC" article : Comment 6 of 24||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Anonymous on 22-May-2002 21:10 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 4 (PaulT):|
AmigaDE doesn't and can't offer what he asks for because it is hosted. So it has no way to make latency guarantees (needed for a proper media system) and no way to provide instant-on because it must wait for the host to boot before it can even be started.
|"Amiga still better than PC" article : Comment 7 of 24||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Robert Goodlett on 22-May-2002 23:53 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 6 (Anonymous):|
> AmigaDE doesn't and can't offer what he asks for because it is hosted. So it has
>no way to make latency guarantees (needed for a proper media system) and no way to
>provide instant-on because it must wait for the host to boot before it can even be
To be technically correct DE can run self-hosted. It was decided for now that DE be hosted on Desktop Computers but this is not etched in stone. My understanding behind DE needing hosting on desktops is due to memmory protection not being part of DE at this time.
You forget or do not know that DE and AmigaOS are supposed to merge later. When this happens computers should be fast enough for DE to have memmory protection and still be usefull. I personally think this is what OS5 is going to be.
I do not speak for or against Amiga Inc but I did add some to their new trademark phrase. :-)
Amiga Anywhere, Anytime, Anyplace. <-- So many people still fail to get this part.
Hardware will not matter. There is still work to do to get there but DE is supposed to scale. Don't be so narrow minded to think that just because DE is where it is at now that it is supposed to stagnate at this point in time.
|"Amiga still better than PC" article : Comment 8 of 24||ANN.lu|
|Posted by sc on 23-May-2002 01:31 GMT|
|Not only can AmigaDE (Internet) run self hosted, when it is run self hosted|
it run has a realtime OS. Check tao's web site
|"Amiga still better than PC" article : Comment 9 of 24||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Joe "Floid" Kanowitz on 23-May-2002 04:16 GMT|
|I understand that the Zaurus ROM image (what was the URL for that announced-and-forgotten site?) runs self-hosted. Of course, you could slip something lightweight like OS-9 under it and probably not feel the difference.|
We all seem to have missed this native use of Elate: http://tao-group.com/2/tao/press/20013010-jvc.html
Somehow I doubt it runs Boxicon. ;)
(Funnily enough, Google digs up a page on the making of an ad for the camera: http://www.avant.co.jp/making/victor.html ...looks like they used Windows.)
|"Amiga still better than PC" article : Comment 10 of 24||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Akaru on 23-May-2002 05:13 GMT|
|Man that is so Two days ago ;P|
|"Amiga still better than PC" article : Comment 11 of 24||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Chip on 23-May-2002 05:55 GMT|
|Better in what???? It always depends on...|
This article suxx.
|"Amiga still better than PC" article : Comment 12 of 24||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Anonymous on 23-May-2002 07:20 GMT|
|He slates Linux for being a great server machine but a poor|
desktop machine. Why is it a poor desktop machine exactly? I have
a Linux box sitting next to me running Windowmaker as it's window
manager. Now, as far as I can tell, it works. I can run programs,
I can close them. What else do you need to do? Why is the Amiga a
better machine for the desktop?
Don't get me wrong, I prefer AmigaOS for everyday use, but it's
"ease of use" and all that stuff, isn't the reason.
|"Amiga still better than PC" article : Comment 13 of 24||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Ole-Egil Hvitmyren on 23-May-2002 08:31 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 12 (Anonymous):|
Linux is great for servers, with remote administration like there was no tomorrow :)
But for Desktop use? Ever try mounting samba shares from your linux box? It's time to call in an administrator, and then you end up writing your windows password in /etc/fstab, not excactly funny...
The strict difference between user and root in Linux and NT makes for good servers and nice office machines, but for an end user desktop@home OS, I would say windows 9x, 2000 (possibly) and AOS are more my kind of system. Actually, drop 9x :)
Don't get me wrong, though. I am running Linux on every machine I have, except the A500. Because it is the next best thing all things considered. But I would rather have AOS on all of them ;)
|"Amiga still better than PC" article : Comment 14 of 24||ANN.lu|
|Posted by kjetil on 23-May-2002 08:59 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 13 (Ole-Egil Hvitmyren):|
Well there are tow options that springs to my mind, about mounting the samba,
You may use Lisa for KDE2.0, itís LAN browser, samba, ftp,
all in one KDE file system, with out mounting the samba file system.
The 2en option is the LinNeighbourhood, samba mount tool for X11,
I believe /etc/fstab is open for read access as default, the user, group and guest,
So putting the passwords in fstab is not so good ide, if you allow users to logon with Telnet
To stay in the category samba in general not just Linux, I most say
Smbfs on Amiga is allot better to deal with the Linux version, the only problem with unmounting it is that you need to do shell break command on the smbfs program.
Even so, the smbfs on amiga steel need to be mounted in equivalent way as the Linux version of smbmount, no browsing the network option.
|"Amiga still better than PC" article : Comment 15 of 24||ANN.lu|
|"Amiga still better than PC" article : Comment 16 of 24||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Joe "Floid" Kanowitz on 23-May-2002 09:16 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 13 (Ole-Egil Hvitmyren):|
Ole: The problem is that Samba, by design, is overkill for 'desktop' use; it was designed with the intent of taking over for NT 'domain' servers. If you were to use a standard like NFS locally (which itself can be a bit overkill), you'd have less fiddly trouble overall.
Technically, anyone can take the Samba code and make a more managable solution, but few have. (There's a pretty simple Samba-based browser out there that's been merged into Lycoris and Lindows as their "Network Neighborhood" replacement, but it's still a bit bulky.) FreeBSD really bit the bullet, and some Kazakhi(!!) hackers did it right- you can now "mount_smbfs" like any other filesystem, though there's no associated server daemon as of yet. (Linux has some unrelated smbfs modules, but rumor has that it isn't well-maintained. I haven't looked into it, as I'm still hopeless with Linux kernel manipulation.)
This isn't to say *NIX-like systems don't have their flaws (they've got tons, especially in the usability department), but I'm just nitpicking that Samba is a bad example. It's like complaining that IE-for-Windows plugins don't work in Voyager/iBrowse/Mozilla/Onmiweb.
Does OS3.9 have an easy-to-use CIFS requester included that I don't know about?
I have to wonder what may become of some of these alternative CIFS projects after Microsoft weaseled anti-GPL provisions into the license for their (court-ordered) opening of the protocol specs. If a Samba developer can be 'tainted' by looking at BSD code (or comments therein) derived from MS's references, that's a pretty severe dilution of the free-to-all-comers BSD license. Still, this has been hashed over elsewhere, and the Samba team feels they're in the clear/are willing to take it to court if it ever comes down to it.
|"Amiga still better than PC" article : Comment 17 of 24||ANN.lu|
|Posted by kjetil on 23-May-2002 09:41 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 15 (Ole-Egil Hvitmyren):|
Remember downloading it, no I have not tested it : (
|"Amiga still better than PC" article : Comment 18 of 24||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Ole-Egil Hvitmyren on 23-May-2002 09:42 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 16 (Joe "Floid" Kanowitz):|
Well, Samba might be overkill, but If you only want to share files, at least Debian makes it DEAD simple to set up. apt-get install samba, then adjust some settings in samba.conf and you are running. But that's just the server. The client part is not so good.
And NFS (no file system ;) ) really doesn't cut the mustard. It suffers more or less the same problems, in that it is a SUN product reimplemented in Linux, and it has a lot of quirks. Oddly however, it usually works :)
|"Amiga still better than PC" article : Comment 19 of 24||ANN.lu|
|Posted by darklite on 23-May-2002 12:21 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 3 (cOrpse):|
you are so cool
|"Amiga still better than PC" article : Comment 20 of 24||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Anonymous on 23-May-2002 12:34 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 3 (cOrpse):|
|"Amiga still better than PC" article : Comment 21 of 24||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Anonymous on 23-May-2002 12:50 GMT|
|"Amiga still better than PC" article : Comment 22 of 24||ANN.lu|
|Posted by MIKE on 23-May-2002 14:32 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 18 (Ole-Egil Hvitmyren):|
Or use KDE/Nautilus or one of the several Samba GUI interfaces to configure it to your needs, I personally don't have a problem with how it works, since it seems to work consistently, which I can't say for the windows machines on the network.
|"Amiga still better than PC" article : Comment 23 of 24||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Anonymous on 24-May-2002 06:40 GMT|
|One the main reason I`m still with the Amiga is one simple fact, reliablity! Over the last year of owning a PC, the Pc has crashed around 60 times, for no real reason, where as the Amiga has only crashed 10 times. that a ratio 1 to 6 and thats bad!|
One other thing i dont like, is the fact that while at college they only teach you how to use Microsoft products, only tell you about Windows, NOT once have there been a lession (after being on an IT course for 3 years!) was there any thing about Linux, MacOS, AmigaOs etc. now I dont really expect being thought how to use Pagestream 3 on an Amiga in a lession, but they should a least point out that there are other OS out there that can do as good, if not better job that windows, rather than making it seam that Windows and MS products are the only answer to a computer problem!
|"Amiga still better than PC" article : Comment 24 of 24||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Anonymous on 24-May-2002 08:41 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 23 (Anonymous):|
What OS are you running on the PC? Windows? Linux? QNX?
If you don't like your college course, ask for your money back.
It doesn't sound to me as though it fulfills the role you
|Anonymous, there are 24 items in your selection ||