was: A problem while unistall nasm

[Keith Kanios]

I've never tried BSD. I've been told by others that BSD is "more secure", and that "Linux feels like it was thrown together, BSD feels like it was engineered".

The BSD family has a system-as-a-whole approach, each piece is thoughtfully integrated, including thorough documentation, where-as Linux based distributions are just the kernel/drivers with a bunch of 3rd party utilities/apps loosely thrown on top of it, perhaps with some sort of package management system and maybe some consistency in where files are located.

The upside to the BSD approach is that it is more stable of a design. The downside is that you lose the bleeding-edge effect that Linux offers with newer drivers/apps. However, you can compile kernels/drivers/apps as you see fit on either family... I've done this before to include a newer network card driver within OpenBSD, among other things across both families.

So, for BSD, I would say to focus on the concept of stability and not "security". A system is only as secure as the sysadmin(s) in charge of it. Some distributions, such as OpenBSD, come with a minimal install philosophy that is inherently secure, but you still have to exercise care in expanding it into a production server.

If you were going to plunge into BSD, especially coming from Linux, I'd say start with FreeBSD... or perhaps even derivitives such as DragonFly BSD, DesktopBSD or PC-BSD.

[Bryant Keller]

SafeRTOS is probably good, too. Never heard of that one - I'll check it out (later...).

It was actually a joke, I think I've used SafeRTOS twice since I've gotten into microcontroller programming and in both cases it was to ensure that the devices had something stable to fall back on in the event my code threw an exception (I was using SafeRTOS as a critical exception handler to safely shutdown everything). That said, it actually is really good, it's one of the few microcontroller OS's that is allowed to be used in the design of medical equipment and what they call "safety critical applications" (ie if the device fails, someone could die).

[MJaoune]

I hated Linux since the day I tried to install Ubuntu and Fedora, and they both keep freezing at booting 

[Keith Kanios]

I hated Linux since the day I tried to install Ubuntu and Fedora, and they both keep freezing at booting 

Try turning off ACPI for starters. There are entire guides you can find on Google to help you through the boot process. This is an annoying but necessary process as not all computer systems are designed equally.

[Frank Kotler]

Yeah. My experience with Linux was totally different! When I first got it to boot, my ethernet card didn't work. I found a place - at nasa.gov as I recall - where I could find the latest drivers (my card used "tulip.so"). I downloaded the latest "tulip.c". Fortunately, there were instructions for how to compile it - it was a very long command line to gcc! ("command lines", really) I'd never have guessed it, or found it by trial-and-error! I compiled it, put it in place, and rebooted, and... holy crap, my ethernet card worked! "Look Ma, I'm a Unix Guru!" Well, it turned out to be "beginner's luck", but it gave me a good attitude to start with. If the installer had frozen, I probably wouldn't like Linux either! Well, I'd never know if I liked it or not...

Keith says "turn off ACPI". Okay but that's still a "bug" in the installer (IMO). It should, ideally, detect this situation, and advise us, or offer to turn it off for us. In sharp contrast to Windows, Linux cordially invites us to fix these problems, if we have the skill. If we don't have the skill (usual), we are invited to get a friend to do it, or even hire somebody to do it (or just report it and hope that it'll get fixed). If Windows doesn't work like we want/need/expect, we're pretty much stuck!

I observe that some people say, "Linux works great! Even my grandmother uses it!", but other people have endless trouble with it. I would expect "Windows Wienies" (present company not included) to have trouble with it, but I'm talking about guys who have written (and sold, in some cases) their own OS, and know quite well what they're doing! I conclude that "it's not for everybody". This may be due to hardware differences, but I think Linux just doesn't like some people! Most days, Linux likes me!

Best,
Frank

[MJaoune]

LOOOL Finally after replying my previous reply I went to try Fedora on a USB instead on a CD, AND IT WORKED!!! HAHAHAHAHA REALLY?!?!? Without any problem in the drives!!
CONGRATULATE ME

[Frank Kotler]

Congratulations, Mahmoud! Now you're in a position to evaluate whether you like Linux or Windows better. You may still prefer Windows, but you've got a choice. It is this "choice" that I really think is "better", not any particular OS. Now you can decide not only "Where would you like to go today?" but also "How would you like to get there?"!

Best,
Frank

[Rob Neff]

I develop software for both Windows and Linux.  You will find that development goes much faster if you use a VM ( I personally use Oracle VirtualBox - http://www.virtualbox.org ).
That way you do not have to reboot the entire machine each time you want to switch OSes and you get the benefit of running two ( or more! ) operating systems simultaneously.
Plus, it's a great way to experiment with your own personal kernels, boot loaders, etc...

[Bryant Keller]

I observe that some people say, "Linux works great! Even my grandmother uses it!", but other people have endless trouble with it. I would expect "Windows Wienies" (present company not included) to have trouble with it, but I'm talking about guys who have written (and sold, in some cases) their own OS, and know quite well what they're doing! I conclude that "it's not for everybody". This may be due to hardware differences, but I think Linux just doesn't like some people! Most days, Linux likes me!

I still can't run any of the candy distros (Ubuntu, Fedora, etc) on my desktop. The problem is simply that they no longer support my older setup. The candy distros are designed to contain the bleeding edge software which support the newest hardware, that said they become so massive that the installers won't even run on the older systems. This is one of the reasons that, when I'm on linux, I use Slackware or Gentoo. They are streamlined and "just work" on whatever system I've put them on.

[Frank Kotler]

Oh, dear. I was planning to upgrade soon, too (been "planning" this for several years - my hardware and software are seriously obsolete!). I was thinking of trying Ubuntu - an African word meaning "one ring to rule them all" (joke - it really means "human", I'm told).

I've been running Slackware distros. I read someplace, "if you've got a friend running some distro, that's the best distro for you". I don't have a "real world" friend running Linux, but the son of a friend was running Slackware (actually, he told me that BSD was better), so I tried Slackware and it "just worked", so I've stuck with it...

In a perfect world, an installer would detect what it's up against and do something appropriate. In the world we actually live in, not so much... We just have to cope, as best we can.

Fortunately, it doesn't cost any money to try different things (Windows excepted), but the investment of time can be considerable! Rob's suggestion of a VM is a good one. I have doubts that my "valuable antique" hardware will run a VM (at reasonable speed), but I haven't actually tried it...

Best,
Frank

[brethren]

my hardware and software are seriously obsolete

fedora 15 was released the other day and it uses the very latest the free software world has to offer. have a look at the system requirements it'd run on quite old hardware
http://fedoraproject.org/

if your computer can't run that then what about lubuntu (light ubuntu) it only needs 256mb of memory to install and when its up and running it can run on as little as 128mb
http://lubuntu.net/

i personally use debian, its a bit harder to set up than ubuntu but i prefer the longer gaps between new releases

btw any assembly language programmer can install and admin a linux distro

[Keith Kanios]

if your computer can't run that then what about lubuntu (light ubuntu) it only needs 256mb of memory to install and when its up and running it can run on as little as 128mb
http://lubuntu.net/

I can trump that: Tiny Core Linux

[MJaoune]

Congratulations, Mahmoud! Now you're in a position to evaluate whether you like Linux or Windows better

Well Linux is very good for a programmer

if your computer can't run that then what about lubuntu (light ubuntu) it only needs 256mb of memory to install and when its up and running it can run on as little as 128mb

I have 2 GB of RAM, and 2.6 GHz Intel Processor, Fedora works well, but Ubuntu has some issues with my Ati Card

[AshleycCay]

spam removed.

[Rob Neff]

Ashley, do not spam.  Your reply has been moderated.