Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 8th Feb 2009 14:50 UTC, submitted by QPounder
What did the Linux world look like back in 2000? TuxRadar has republished a distribution round-up from Linux Format issue 1, May 2000. Many distributions such as SUSE, Mandrake and Red Hat are still around in various incarnations, but a few such as Corel and Definite have fallen by the wayside. Still, it does bring back some memories.
Thread beginning with comment 347727
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Slackware 2 and RedHat 4.1...
by gilboa on Mon 9th Feb 2009 05:16
in reply to "RE: Slackware 2 and RedHat 4.1..."
Member since:2005-07-06
P.S. I just rechecked. The first RedHat that I bought was RedHat 3.0.3. (~1996?)
I disagree.
IMHO Windows98 was still a very fragile OS, Windows2000/XP/Vista/7 are based on a totally different kernel, and Vista/7 tries to fix the unsafe security defaults of the previous version: these are big change!
IMHO Windows98 was still a very fragile OS, Windows2000/XP/Vista/7 are based on a totally different kernel, and Vista/7 tries to fix the unsafe security defaults of the previous version: these are big change!
I was actually being nice to Microsoft.
At the time (1998) I was actually writing code under Windows NT4, that in many ways (along with Windows 2K) was the best OS' to ever leave the doors at Redmond. (In NT4's case, post SP3)
Linux has far less evolved than this for the desktop usage, the major difference is that there are more drivers more software and better polished (if still lacking on many accounts) but the base was already solid so there were less change.
The biggest change is still not done yet: good handling of 3D videocards.
The biggest change is still not done yet: good handling of 3D videocards.
Huh?
I can you compare the setup requirement of RedHat 4.x to Fedora? The hardware support? The configuration tools?
How can you compare GNOME 1 and KDE 1 to GNOME 2.24 and KDE 4.2?
Heck, how can you possible compare having to compiling more-or-less everything to having 1,000's of software packages with automatic version and dependency resolve?
- Gilboa
RE[3]: Slackware 2 and RedHat 4.1...
by renox on Mon 9th Feb 2009 14:26
in reply to "RE[2]: Slackware 2 and RedHat 4.1..."
Member since:2005-07-06
I can you compare the setup requirement of RedHat 4.x to Fedora?
Why are you using RedHat4.x as a basis whereas the article use Red Hat 6.1?
The hardware support?
I said more drivers so I agree with you.
The configuration tools?
Configuration tools are more polished true but they're still opaque (don't tell you what they do), and have still some limitations in the 'lacking' parts of Linux (for examples when you want to reconfigure keyboard, it's still quite weird sometimes).
As for the GUIs, I'm not especially impressionned with modern GUIs, their best feature is that now the font display is better (even if there are still some ugly fonts from time to time).
Heck, how can you possible compare having to compiling more-or-less everything to having 1,000's of software packages with automatic version and dependency resolve?
Was-it still the case in 2000? My memory is a bit fuzzy but I thought that the packaging system was already working.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-06
I disagree.
IMHO Windows98 was still a very fragile OS, Windows2000/XP/Vista/7 are based on a totally different kernel, and Vista/7 tries to fix the unsafe security defaults of the previous version: these are big change!
Linux has far less evolved than this for the desktop usage, the major difference is that there are more drivers more software and better polished (if still lacking on many accounts) but the base was already solid so there were less change.
The biggest change is still not done yet: good handling of 3D videocards.