Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => Not Quite Mainstream OSes => Topic started by: lazygamer on 11 December 2002, 21:34
-
Does anyone have any info on OSes that combine these traits:
1)Not discontinued
2)Not wind0ze,
3)Not mac
4)Not part of the *nix design concepts
5)Not shitty
Now im perfectly happy with Linux as a Wind0ze alternative, but I thought it would make for interesting reading. As it seems everything is either Windows, Mac, or *nix.
-
Theres an Amiga OS isnt there? Probably crap though - as I remember my Amiga 600 crashed more than win 95.
-
Lets see :
Amiga - Not sure where to track this down off hand
BE/OS which is currently being resurected as OpenBE - head to the OpenBE website as linked to on front page.
OS/2 - Which is available from IBM.
There was ADA but I cannot find it now so not sure if that is now just the language.
There are loads of little development OSs out there. Just check the links at the front page.
I mean what do you want to know exactly?
-
Just names to look up basically.
-
http://www.atheos.cx/ (http://www.atheos.cx/) is really cool.
-
atheos looks like it will be kinda good although it cant (easily) have any third party GUI, which may be a good thing in some cases. It doesnt have an installer yet, I wont be trying it out anytime soon
-
And something called AS/400 from IBM... someone I know is using it at work to control factory robots :)
-
VMS
-
MVS, TSO
-
Lets see :
Amiga - Not sure where to track this down off hand
BE/OS which is currently being resurected as OpenBE - head to the OpenBE website as linked to on front page.
OS/2 - Which is available from IBM.
There was ADA but I cannot find it now so not sure if that is now just the language.
There are loads of little development OSs out there. Just check the links at the front page.
I mean what do you want to know exactly?
Ok, Im not exactly sure, but isnt OS/2 extremely similar to a Windows operating system? Also on that note isnt BeOS unix based?
-
Well OS/2 is similar in someways to Windows, it was originally going to be a kind of Windows bridge, but no the OS itself operates on slightly different principles. How similar is similar? I don't believe BE is Unix based, but it certainly implements some of it's design philiosophies. I have to admit I am not a software engineer, and I don't work at that level, although I am slowly teaching myself.
However you could argue that all OSs are Unix based. It depends where you draw the line. I inferred from Lazygamers' question that he wanted OSs that behaved significantly differently or did different things. and were not UNIX or Linux in their common forms and were not the major commercial OSs either.
-
if you're saying windows and OS/2 are similar then there is only one operating system in the whole world i am afraid.
many of the systems i am sure people think of as 'unix' are not in any way the same as each other. BSD is not Linux. Linux and BSD are not minix. Minix and linux are not solaris. Solaris, minix, BSD and Linux are not UNIX. None of these is AIX, none of them is any of the other myriad unices out there.
'isn't x similar to y though?' i hear you ask... well you know what? to the user all those unices are almost identical, but internally they are totally different. their similarity to each other is one of their many strengths, but many of them contain NO CODE IN COMMON. they are TOTALLY UNIQUE from the point of having parts of the system the same.
So what makes the system? the name? the GUI? the fact that the CLI is similar? there are hundreds of completely different systems out there, depending on how you look at it, or else, as was said before, there's only one.
-
but Bill gates was working on OS/2 with IBM and then stole the code and went off by himself with Microsoft, didnt he? So in reality isnt/wasnt there some code from OS/2 windows. Windows is a lot like OS/2 isnt it, isnt that basically what Bill was basing it off of when he started windows?
-
i am sure os/2 was started so IBM would be able to have an in house operating system to run on the IBM PC when they realised microsoft were getting far too big for their boots. Remember IBM had invented what was then known as the IBM PC, and Compaq had not yet called them on it (i think), so IBM were still the leader in home computing.
-
the current amiga oses are based on unix/linux the old amiga stuff i believe was discontinued in the mid 90's
-
You are after windotnet!
-
1.) OpenVMS/*its not open though*/ is still supported by compaq, or is it hewlett packard this week
2.) it is defiantly not windows
3.) it can't even run on a ppc machine yet
4.) you never heard about PMS/VMS joke about VMS an d unix.
5.) depending on who you are, it may or may no be shitty
-
1.) OpenVMS/*its not open though*/ is still supported by compaq, or is it hewlett packard this week
The "Open" in OpenVMS means "Open Standards", not open source. That is also what is meant in Open Systems which most/all UNIX system are categorized as (OpenVMS is not UNIX though). It is a word not found in Microsoft's vocabulary which is one of the primary reasons they are a monopoly today.
-
VMS is pretty neat IMO but I don't think it runs on x86.
-
did he say it had to run on exeateshit?
go by a dec alpha and a hobbyist license, or pick up a machine with a full license on ebay that your supposed to delete/*but don't*/
-
Try www.windotnet.tk (http://www.windotnet.tk)
Well heres another thing i made in Qbasic a fair while ago that is "Operating System Like" http://users.bigpond.com/tate0/shkern.tar.bz2 (http://users.bigpond.com/tate0/shkern.tar.bz2)
(dl may be down, noy uploaded)
PS. Not stable
-
Oh yes there is an Open Source Windows NT in the making: www.reactos.com (http://www.reactos.com)
-
what a crock! (conceptually speaking, that is...)
i may have to read more about reactOS, they are seriously trying to do for NT what OpenBe is doing for BeOS... why oh why...
-
If some windozer tells you the virtues of NT tell them to use reactos and tell them to read these. They might help the project...
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html)
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html)
And if you have not already, read them
-
but Bill gates was working on OS/2 with IBM and then stole the code and went off by himself with Microsoft, didnt he? So in reality isnt/wasnt there some code from OS/2 windows. Windows is a lot like OS/2 isnt it, isnt that basically what Bill was basing it off of when he started windows?
Substitute "Mac OS" for "OS/2" and you'd be pretty close.
The story goes that Bill Gates asked Apple to share some of the source code to the Mac OS with MS so that MS could write better apps for it. Apple actually trusted MS at the time. Then MS released a very Mac-looking GUI they called "Windows", where before they'd had just plain ol' DOS. Apple has been reluctant to share source code with MS ever since.
[ December 29, 2002: Message edited by: dot.this ]