Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:51:29 08/02/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 01, 1998 at 07:46:41, Don Dailey wrote: >>Hi Don, >> >>Thank you for your informative post - it's made me think more seriously about >>making the switch, at some point even if not now. My requirements of an OS are >>certainly not most peoples' idea of what they want, but then you made some very >>good points about usage. Personally, I hate flashy gizmo gimmicks. My PC was an >>extravagance, but having bought the best I could afford it's all mine - that is >>to say, no-one else uses it like family and so on. Unlike most computer users, I >>use the computer more for writing programs than for running them. Most of what >>you say about Unix and Linux sounds perfect for me. Do you know a good site to >>take a closer look, maybe dowload some info about it? The idea of an OS >>comprised of a large number of utility programs sounds similar to the way DOS >>functioned, and I had no trouble with that. Is the syntax very different? >> >>I am at a disadvantage to some extent, because everything seems to be coded in >>C, and I program in Basic. I am, however, quite pleased with the compiler that I >>use - it's a new product, a 32-bit compiler, but it depends on a Windows based >>OS. Interestingly though, the vendor (PowerBasic Inc) has announced their >>intention to develop versions for Unix and Linux. I would probably wait for that >>to happen before making the switch, but in the mean time I would be interested >>to find out more. It sounds like one or the other of these is probably the best >>choice for my particular needs. >> >>Thanks again, >>Roberto > >Hi Roberto, > >I don't know how standard different versions of Basic are, but there is >a "Quickbasic to C" conversion program available. There is also a basic >interpreter but I think it's a fairly minimal implementation. You may >want to wait for PowerBasic. I have programmed in many different >dialects of Basic in the past, a couple of microsoft versions, >"north star basic", a powerful DEC version of Basic and 2 or 3 other >microcomputer Basics. The DEC Basic was really powerful and the OS >it ran on was very unix like, sort of like a Unix with Basic as the >fundamental language instead of C. It was pretty cool. > >If you get a chance, try to install a version of linux on a spare >computer or small disk partition. You can install very little of >it or quite a bit of it depending on how much disk space you have >free for it. A minimal installation (without xwindows) can be >quite small and you still get several consoles to work on, alt-fkeyN >will switch from one virtual console to the other. There is no >other OS, in my opinion, that is as cool to work on with no graphical >support because the command line interface blows away anything else >and virtual consoles gives you much of the functionality of multiple >windows. But very few people run unix without Xwindows, Xwindows is >is very nice and gives you all the bells and whistles of a GUI and >a lot more programs and utilities (graphical) come with it than Windows. >There are also several ways to program xwindows applications that will >just already be there when you do a full install. This is usually >the way it is with Linux, the stuff you need is just there already, >no need to surf for weeks gathering your tools and compilers together >and spending lot's of money. However in your case, with Basic there >is not a compiler but only an interpreter. There are still many >things you CAN add to your system but they are not usually the >hard core items you can't live without. An example of this is >compression utilities, you have to dig them up for Windows unless >this has changed recently. > >Even as a chess programmer, if you do a full linux install you will >boot up your machine and Xboard and gnuchessx will already be ready >to run, fully ready to go! This is not unusual, it's typical of >linux. If you like graphics editors, there are 2 or 3 already there, >one of them (gimp) is supposed to be extremely powerful like photoshop >but I cannot vouch for this since I'm not interested in this kind of >thing. > >I'm not crazy about the editor choices however. Emacs is the most >powerful editor and is incredibly powerful, more than any editor >I have ever seen. But I just don't like it for aesthetic reasons. >It's the only one I use and I'm quite comfortable with it but >never have learned to love it. I used to use brief and think it's >wonderful. I understand there are commercial look-alike versions >for sale for unix and am considering getting this. Linux has a >choice of 4 or 5 editors but I don't like any of them! But it >turns out a lot of people absolutely love emacs, so I may just be >the exception. I recently downloaded a free editor for linux that >I might be very happy with, time will tell. > >Linux is more at home on the internet and Web than other OS's >are, since the internet was built around unix. If you do a >full install you will have a full blown web server built into your >OS! People can dial in, or get to your machine via the internet and >ftp files, log in to your machine (if you give them an account) >or even run graphical programs FROM your machine. If they are >on an Xwindows machine or device of any kind they might forget >they are on your machine, everything looks and acts the same. >Before I was at MIT, most of my ISP's used LINUX. The only >one who didn't used NT and it was the least reliable one. If >your ISP in UNIX based, you probably also have an account and >password and can log onto their machine and run programs assuming >they don't restrict this. I actually logged in and WROTE programs >on my ISP's computer! You won't be doing this with a Windows ISP >since you do not even have the option of remote logging onto any >windows machine. Of course that's probably not why you would use >an ISP anyway, but it's just another example of how Unix is designed >to give you as much power as possible, not to control your use of it. > >Anyway, you can find out for yourself, just do a search for linux on >the web. There is a ton of stuff on it. There a several distributions >of linux available, I recommend RedHat version 5.1 or greater. You >might start with www.redhat.com or something similar. You can go to >ANY bookstore and find a ton of books on Linux too. The number of >linux users is growing incredibly fast and wishful thinkers are hoping >it will overtake windows, but this is completely unlikely unless >it "dumbs down" to attract the new computer user. I would never >recommend a new computer user start with Linux and changing linux >for this kind of user would probably be counterproductive and hurt >it. > >I probably won't post any more on this subject since it is a bit off >topic and I have subjected everyone to it but if you decide to give >it a try someday, send me some email and let me know how you like >it. It's an OS you can really get excited about and it's absolutely >free! > >- Don not to mention that it supports multiprocessing, plus the normal networking tools like NFS, ftp, www, and so forth. All included on the CD.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.