Boston Linux & UNIX was originally founded in 1994 as part of The Boston Computer Society. We meet on the third Wednesday of each month at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in Building E51.

BLU Discuss list archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Discuss] Why use Linux? (back to original question)

> markw at wrote:
>> I don't think I said Mac didn't come with these, it may have sounded
>> implied. That was a "why linux" not a why not mac.
> The implication is that Linux is better than $ALTERNATIVE because it has
> all these things that $ALTERNATIVE lacks.

OK, so, I can ssh to a linux box from another linux box, and run an X
program and use it, transparently, as if it were any other application on
my desktop.

SSH does not do this on Mac easily. Yes, if you configure the bastardized
X server that you can get for Mac, you might be able to get it to work,
but not with all programs.

>>> QEMU: OS X doesn't ship with it but it's installable via MacPorts.
>> Not really supported by the qemu guys. How's the version updates?
> Dunnow, I don't use it. Never saw the need.

Virtual Machines have changed the way we look at service environments.
>> This must be new because we've never see it work. Give me a link to a
>> howto because I don't believe it.
> Ask Google about sparse images and sparse bundles.

I have, many times and I see a whole lot of HFS+ does not support sparse
files, use UFS and a lot of UFS is no longer supported.

I don't believe you.

> Oh, and I can see the cries of "cheat" or the like. As if Linux never
> did anything differently from MINIX.

That's not the point. Does Mac have a file system that supports sparse
files? The answer is no.

>> Yes, if MinGW is considered "supported" then I think we do not have
>> enough
>> common ground to discuss.
> Depends on what you mean by "supported". Supported by Microsoft? Then
> again, there is a vast array of things you can install on Ubuntu that
> Canonical does not directly support. Fair is fair.

I mean that Cygwin and MinGW are not fully Windows programs. They are far
more kludgy that they need to be. They are hacks that kind of work, but
are not suited for any real production use. Cygwin emulates "fork" (badly)
and MinGW won't run programs correctly that depend on fork.

> --
> Rich P.
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at

BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS!

Boston Linux & Unix /