Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 27th Dec 2005 23:25 UTC, submitted by 4pLaY
"AROS has finally got a new, faster and smarter file system: Michal Schulz has ported SFS to the Amiga Research Operating System, so opening and saving lots of files won't take ages anymore, but just few seconds. Neil Cafferkey has written a Intel Pro/100 NIC driver, allowing support for i8255x family of network adapters. Marcel 'Frostwork' Unbehaun has created an AROS/PPC Live-CD for Pegasos computers."
Thread beginning with comment 78944
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]: Expensive but different
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 28th Dec 2005 10:44
in reply to "RE: Expensive but different"
Member since:2005-06-29
It could even be argued that Linux wouldn't exist without the cheap, widely available power of x86. So, love it, hate it, whatever - but don't diss x86!
Right. So, we shouldn't diss Windows either? After all, Windows is the x86 of the software world!
The fact that x86 is the dominant platform doesn't mean you shouldn't criticise it. x86 has not become the dominant platform due to technical superiorty-- it has done so because of its cheapness and ubiquity. And the x86 world leaves A LOT to be desired. For instance, people claim how 'open' x86 is-- but why don't they all run an open BIOS or open firmware? SPARC and PPC are more open, you know!
RE[2]: Expensive but different
by on Wed 28th Dec 2005 11:41
in reply to "RE: Expensive but different"
Member since:
RE[2]: Expensive but different
by on Wed 28th Dec 2005 12:11
in reply to "RE: Expensive but different"
Member since:Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-10-25
You just can't replace the real deal, PC's have no soul.
PCs (note the lack of apostraphe) have plenty of soul - enough to dominate the industry. Is this what you mean by "no soul"?
There are many pedantic reasons why x86 suxors, but the truth is that only x86 has the combination of usability, ubiquity, marketability, and openness that has allowed several marketplaces to develop on it.
AMD bet on it with their AMD64/Opteron, and they won. Intel bet on it repeatedly against technically "superior" competition (EG: MIPS, sparc, et al) and won with X86.
It has its warts, (no solutions doesn't!) but no other platform has had the combination of technical "it works", cross-vendor compatability, marketability, and OS openness of x86.
It could even be argued that Linux wouldn't exist without the cheap, widely available power of x86. So, love it, hate it, whatever - but don't diss x86!