Other OS's.

http://www.osnews.com/

I was checking out http://www.skyos.org ... now, admittedly i really only want it because it looks so darn cool, and it is something other than Windows. I've had no problems with Windows, mind you, it just gets boring to look at after awhile. I have a partition for Linux as well...

The sad thing is that unless you have Linux, Windows, or OSX, you aren't really ever going to find any applications to run on your OS.

Has anyone tried a "fourth" OS (one other than W, OSX, L)?

Nos.

skyos looks a lot like linux to me. or linux trying to look like windows. "eh"

I think the opensource community is too scattered. Why are there like 200 different "flavors" of linux? As if Linux wasn't confusing enough to begin with, you have to decide which of the dozens of kinds of linux you need. Many times the differences are too confusing to understand. Then you have all the different window managers, which makes it all look totally different and behave differently. How could you ever write an instruction manual for an application in linux? You'd have to write one for KDE, one for Gnome, and then you have all the other little ones that not many people use, but that people decide to start anyway. Why don't those people just join in to help the big ones? I don't think linux is ever going to get far from the super-geek crowd. it's just too confusing for people that just want to check their email. i mean it improves all the time i'm sure, but still. how are you going to solve those major problems?

[QUOTE=deker]skyos looks a lot like linux to me. or linux trying to look like windows. "eh"

I think the opensource community is too scattered. Why are there like 200 different "flavors" of linux? As if Linux wasn't confusing enough to begin with, you have to decide which of the dozens of kinds of linux you need. Many times the differences are too confusing to understand. Then you have all the different window managers, which makes it all look totally different and behave differently. How could you ever write an instruction manual for an application in linux? You'd have to write one for KDE, one for Gnome, and then you have all the other little ones that not many people use, but that people decide to start anyway. Why don't those people just join in to help the big ones? I don't think linux is ever going to get far from the super-geek crowd. it's just too confusing for people that just want to check their email. i mean it improves all the time i'm sure, but still. how are you going to solve those major problems?[/QUOTE]

I agree, i really wish there were a nice and polished OS out there for PC for the non-geek crowd. I have a difficult time using any "flavor" of Linux.

The problem is it is open source, although i think you have to have a minimum of something like twelve pimples before you are allowed to make your own.. Regardless, there are a LOT of different "flavors", as you call them, and it does create a problem for the common computer user.

Nos.

Stick to the more known and supported ones. Linux is just a kernel and each distribution is a compiled set of packages for that particular distro. If you want a more "windows like" distro, stick with Mandrake or Fedora or even Lindows. In fact Macromedia is soon to release versions of their software for Linux distros. Probably only the major ones. But still that is a good sign.

The applications that run from distro to distro are the same. So grom a GUI standpoint there is not much difference between them. Not windows OS's are meant to be tweaked, so you will find you can either configure a system well or screw it up. So I don't see that changing. But if you start with Mandrake or Fedora you should be pretty familiar with an install similar to windows, but with more options.

I agree, I think the Linux community is too scattered and it reflects in the installs. Looking under the hood of some linux distros is a mess. The only one that makes sense to me is Slackware because it kept the Unix-type file heirarchy.

I quit using Linux about a year ago and started using the BSD's, which are a lot different in their approach. Each version (OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD, DragonFlyBSD, etc.) is similar, but focused on more of a particular philosophy, and the part I like is it is maintained by a core group of developers so the code is scrutinized before being published, and it is under one roof. They kept the Unix file hierarchy, so everything is where you expect it to be and the ports system works like a application management system is supposed to (well about 98% of the time - but if something is broken it will get fixed soon)

But then you have to spend more time getting the system configured than you might want. Also if you are not familiar with Unix type systems BSD will seem daunting.

Which Linux did you try? (Nos)

Oh and I've chatted with the Sky OS people. It has nothing to do with Linux. I can maybe dig up some of that conversation. I asked him the same thing, because looking at it made me think it was some other type of Linux clone, but it wasn't. It is developed by one person, and for the time being is free for testing.

This is his response:
"Actually, it uses very, very little. We ported GTK solely to gain access to GIMP, Abiword, and Gaim."

also he said to view this thread:
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=140483&highlight=calculator+link

Yeah, it's made from scratch, has nothing to do with Linux, really. The creator seems like a great guy, i saw him asking for a port of Trillian for his OS. They turned him down :\ Guess you can't blame them.

I have Mandrake on my system. I really would like to get started learning how to run Unix-based systems - can you point me in the direction of some literature titles?

Nos.

Knoppix just came out with a new version, it seems to be the best FREE version of linux I have tried. I like to just use the boot-disc and just mess around on it sometimes. :D

If you want a Unix type system, go with Unix - Solaris, etc.. or a BSD. Linux is not Unix. Slackware is a good distro which maintains a Unix type of file system and is one of the older distros.

The bsd's have a really great series of books starting with the Absolute *insert bsd here*

So Absolute Openbsd, or Absolute FreeBSD. But bsdforums.com is the best place to go, as well as the OS manual pages.

[QUOTE=deker]skyos looks a lot like linux to me. or linux trying to look like windows. "eh"

I think the opensource community is too scattered. Why are there like 200 different "flavors" of linux? As if Linux wasn't confusing enough to begin with, you have to decide which of the dozens of kinds of linux you need. Many times the differences are too confusing to understand. Then you have all the different window managers, which makes it all look totally different and behave differently. How could you ever write an instruction manual for an application in linux? You'd have to write one for KDE, one for Gnome, and then you have all the other little ones that not many people use, but that people decide to start anyway. Why don't those people just join in to help the big ones? I don't think linux is ever going to get far from the super-geek crowd. it's just too confusing for people that just want to check their email. i mean it improves all the time i'm sure, but still. how are you going to solve those major problems?[/QUOTE]

Let me make this as clear as possible.

There is no such thing as 'different flavors of linux'. In it's simplest form, linux is nothing but the kernel of an operating system and the dependencies that allow it to run. The additional software is just that, software. They are coded by third party developers to run on a linux based system...that being one that has the linux kernel.

As for writing instruction manuals, Linux developers are quite good about giving you all the detail you need to figure out how to use their software. Generally, when an application is developed, they develop it for one of the major Window Managers (KDE, CDE, Gnome, etc). Some applications are not dependant on the GTK or QT libraries and can run under any window manager, so no need to develope manuals for different desktops.

This is the beauty of the open source community, not the ugliness of it. If you can't understand that being able to look at any part of your operating system, make changes to it, publish them or hell, even sell them (as long as the source code comes with), then I can't make it any clearer for you.

No, linux is not for everyone. No linux is not easy to figure out...but if you want to get away from Microsoft/MacOS Liscensing issues and want to use a stable, secure operating system, then linux/bsd may be for you...but you are going to have to want to learn to get anything out of it.

That's nice axiom, but that is still confusing as hell. I'm a computer nerd, and I don't even want to know or care about all that stuff. And since the goal of most linux people seems to be to get everyone else to use linux, i'm just saying it's not going to happen. they might as well just focus on making it more nerdy, not more easy to use, 'cause it's just never going to go mainstream.

There is no such thing as 'different flavors of linux'. In it's simplest form, linux is nothing but the kernel of an operating system and the dependencies that allow it to run. The additional software is just that, software. They are coded by third party developers to run on a linux based system...that being one that has the linux kernel.

But... between package management and installation / configuration each distro sets itself apart. Each distro is a different flavor of Linux. Slackware is managed differently than Fedora...