Salakhetdinov Shamil
mcp2004 at mail.ru
Mon May 13 15:43:57 CDT 2013
Hi Hans •- Thank you for your reference on Linux history. <<So what are we really arguing about here?>> I personally not arguing but expressing opinion on Jim's (rhetoric) question how it happened that Linux is a more stable OS than MS Windows. And the fact that Linux kernel was based on Minix sources and not on (GNU) Unix ones doesn't matter that much. Thank you. --Shamil Воскресенье, 12 мая 2013, 15:13 -07:00 от Hans-Christian Andersen <hans.andersen at phulse.com>: > Hi Shamil, > > > please correct me if I'm wrong but Linux core was based on Unix sources > > No. Linux is the kernel of the operating system. It was built from scratch, > with only Minix, a bare-bones operating system meant for educational purposes > by a university professor, as inspiration. Linux was not built upon freely > available code or anything of that sort. Here is a breakdown of the history of > Linux: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux > > Perhaps you are thinking of the GNU Project, which attempted to create a > standardised Unix platform. This is not Linux, but is still like the bash > command line environment and all the basic command line tools, like 'echo', > 'cat', 'touch', etc etc. You find this on pretty much every Unix operating > system out there, Apple OS X included. > > > A lot of academic and industrial research was done before Linux inherited it > "for granted" in 1991 > > Microsoft Windows also benefitted heavily from many many years of research and > development at academic universities - foundational things that were developed > before Windows or DOS existed and Microsoft also hiring researchers and > academics right out of university. I don't see the difference. > > Plus, Microsoft "benefitted" from their relationship with IBM while developing > OS/2, before parting ways and "inheriting" Windows. Microsoft has done a lot > of "inheriting" in their history... going as far back as the origins of > MS-DOS. > > So what are we really arguing about here? > > - Hans > > > > On 2013-05-12, at 1:39 PM, Salakhetdinov Shamil <mcp2004 at mail.ru> wrote: > > > Hi Jim -- > > > > Thank you for your posting and the questions you proposed to discuss. > > > > I have just a WinPhone here so I'll post a very short note for today: > > > > - please correct me if I'm wrong but Linux core was based on Unix sources, > and the first version of Unix appeared in 1974(?). A lot of academic and > industrial research was done before Linux inherited it "for granted" in > 1991(?) when Linus Torwalds assembled and released the first Linux version > "just for fun". All the subsequent 20+ years were spent on polishing and > extending of what was rather stable system from the very beginning. Of course > this "just polishing" is a great work. > > > > MS Windows NT (the foundation of Win7/8) was written from scratch just 20+ > years ago. As usual for MS they did experiment a lot with their OS during all > that years - and they got a good result in just 20 years comparing to 40 years > of Linux/Unix history. > > > > As for frustration from MS software - it's inevitable "natural" part of > their business model :) But I personally was much more frustrated with MS > software in the past than nowadays. MS always(?) stated that VB6/VBA are of > limited use/history, and only C/C++ are for "true developers". I can't call > myself a "true developer" as I currently mainly use C# but I have had a chance > to participate in a rather large payroll system development originally written > on C on MS DOS, then migrated to C++ and MS Windows 95 - and it's still > working on Win7 and Win8, part of it as Web service. Technical work of > keeping this application inline with new MS Windows versions was minimal... > > > > Comparing Oracle with MS Windows is not quite correct as DBMS development is > thousands times easier IMO than development of OSes as MS Windows is. > > > > Linux is more stable than MS Windows because its core and the principles of > communication of its components are simpler than the ones of MS Windows. > > > > Thank you. > > -- Shamil > > > > Воскресенье, 12 мая 2013, 12:25 -07:00 от "Jim Lawrence" <accessd at shaw.ca>: > >> Hi Shamil and Gustav: > >> > >> Taking this discussion from the other side, one big question remains. > >> > >> Given that Linux was created with virtually no money and its various > >> components are designed on very limited budgets, lots of volunteers, in > some > >> cases, working out of their basements, in their spare time, funded from > >> donations or from tax incentives given out by other large companies which > >> makes any money source, very tentative at best. It has not been until very > >> recently that there is some stable money sources for Linux development. > >> > >> OTOH, given that Microsoft has a budget that is steady and in the billions. > >> They can buy the very best developers, systems managers and sales staff > >> (which in the case of Linux is non-existant). > >> > >> Therefore, comparing the two development environments it would be logical > >> that Microsoft would be able to build a product superior in every way to > >> Linux...but the opposite is true. > >> > >> On comparison, does this suggest that a corporate entity can not produce a > >> good product? Not at all, think of Oracle. It's prices are expensive but > >> they have designed some of the best databases in the market. They a fast > >> reliable, secure, innovative and the products run on all the major > >> platforms. > >> > >> Companies do not mind paying a good price for a product but they expect > >> quality. Linux (and its related products) has set the bar and in twenty > >> years Microsoft is now scrambling to keep up and the performance gap keeps > >> getting wider. > >> > >> My question is, why is this so? That rant/posting, though questionable may > >> have given some insight in to the core reasons. Does anyone have a better > >> suggestion as to the causes and subsequent results? > >> > >> I am willing to listen to any suggestion as no one is more frustrated than > I > >> have been, in the last few years, with Microsoft. > >> > >> Jim > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: dba-tech-bounces at databaseadvisors.com > >> [mailto:dba-tech-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Salakhetdinov > >> Shamil > >> Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 5:20 AM > >> To: Discussion of Hardware and Software issues > >> Subject: Re: [dba-Tech] The latest Debian > >> > >> Hi Gustav -- > >> > >> Yes, that article looks like a fake one or authored by a "psycho" with > their > >> superEGO bloated in the first part of the article and lost all their vapor > >> in the second part. Taking such article into account doesn't look > worthwhile > >> from here... > >> > >> And all that conspirology, Kremlinoligy as they say, looks rather stupid. > >> > >> Linux is a good OS, no doubt, and it doesn't need such articles to be used > >> to prove its "superiority" over MS Windows, IMO. > >> > >> Thank you. > >> -- Shamil > >> > >> P.S. Typed on WinPhone from the garden house located in NW Russia - doing > >> some groundwork here :) > >> Воскресенье, 12 мая 2013, 10:30 +02:00 от "Gustav Brock" > <gustav at cactus.dk>: > >>> Hi Shamil > >>> > >>> I don't think so. Neither did Jim, so it seems, as that appended note is > >> the > >>> interesting part - written when the fellow had given the original blurb a > >>> second thought. > >>> > >>> I don't get why some are so clever on behalf of Microsoft and its > >> management > >>> and are convinced, that MS is nothing but a bunch of idiots. In no > >>> organisation anything is perfect, neither at MS, but when I think about > >> it, > >>> all the speakers and instructors I've met at MS developer events have been > >>> people I would have a good time working with. More or less, of course, but > >> I > >>> don't believe they left all the bad guys back home at MS. > >>> > >>> /gustav > >>> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> dba-Tech mailing list > >> dba-Tech at databaseadvisors.com > >> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-tech > >> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dba-Tech mailing list > > dba-Tech at databaseadvisors.com > > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-tech > > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com > > > _______________________________________________ > dba-Tech mailing list > dba-Tech at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-tech > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com