phubuh

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

(what OS comes without a disk defragmenter, for god's sake? Especially one with an HDD as small as in the iMac; if hard drive space is at a premium it's a vital app, surely?).

One that doesn't use a fundamentally broken file system?

Why support an OS with less compatability and less stability?

I've never experienced any stability problems, but let's assume I have, for the sake of discussion. Is rock-hard stability really such a high priority? If my system goes down once a month, I don't really mind. On the other hand, OS X provides a much better UI, which is what you're dealing with constantly, and that's very important; I'd argue it's the most important property of a desktop operating system.

What else do you want in an OS?

A nice GUI, good developer support, a good shell, compatibility with Unix applications, etc.

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

content cut because of intelligence overload

Oh.

I won't vote, since O'Caml isn't an option.

Originally posted by SyntaXVB5

Hm, I'd just recreate the loop after the break.

What?

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

Ok, I'll say 'omg imacs suck' because they are slower, less stable and more expensive than your average PC.

On the other hand, they run a better operating system.

Originally posted by the GardenGnome

I'll copy and paste that into a word document and then print it. That will kill a lot of trees. I could just imagine the heat of those servers... Would'nt like to be serving that on Windows.

IIS 6 generally beats Apache on static file output. khttpd beats IIS 6 though, I would imagine, but IIS 7 runs partly in kernel space too, so I'm not sure about that. Please consider the facts before spewing such ignorant garbage.

How could he make money off an open standard? I could write an smtpd right now and sell it for sixteen trillion dollars a pop, and whoever invented e-mail wouldn't get a dime.

What high-end applications are your referring to, fafalone?

Here are some reasons why I use and voted for Linux:

• It's free.
  
• Basically every application for it is equally free.
  
• It has an empirical record of being more secure, a saner security model, and a community and philosophy more encouraging to quick fixes (and fixes at all).
  
• If there's a feature I'd like in an application, I can (and often do) add it myself.
  
• It has a decent cross-protocol IM application (gaim).
  
• It has lots more and better development tools.
  
• I dig bash.
  
• The package systems of the distributions I use (Gentoo and Debian) are just amazing. Windows applications are always compiled for generic x86 processors, whereas Gentoo's package system compiles everything automatically with a bunch of optimization settings which make the binaries processor-specific in trade for speed. In Debian, I can open aptitude and update applications with the press of a button and install new ones equally easily.
  
• The font rendering in GTK 2 is just amazing.
  
• GTK2 and the UNIX API is much cleaner and generally better than the horrible Win32 API, which makes programming more fun.
  
• Irssi is sex.
  
• Mplayer is even sexier.
  
• GNOME dockapps are really convenient.
  
• Mutt is the best e-mail client I've ever used.
  
• I love the freedom of choice. I'm currently a fan of GNOME2, but I used to love pwm. My requirements change, and with Linux, my applications follow accordingly.
  
• I can run it without a monitor, keyboard, or mouse.
  
• Its video interface, V4L, doesn't such quite as much as DirectShow (specifically, it has mmap capabilities); ever wonder why Dscaler has to run in ring-0, and why your video card has to be specifically supported by it? It's because DS is unusable.
  
• WINE runs Half-Life more efficiently than Windows.
  

There's a lot more, including like 50,000 small subtle differences that together make me like Linux more, but I'm too lazy to type them all out.

Originally posted by Syntax

Well C++ is known to be bad for kernel programming, plain C is what I've mostly seen. I think Linus Torvalds posted something about the cons of programming the kernel with C++.

Linus Torvalds is somewhat of a dweeb. I've written a small x86 kernel in C++, and I think it's a very suitable language. The only disadvantage of using C++ in a kernel as opposed to in user-level is the lack of runtime type information in the lowest parts, which makes using virtual functions and the like impossible. There's no reason why you can't add RTTI in those layers, though, and use virtual functions all you like in the layers above.

Note that I'm not a very big fan of C++; in fact, I dislike it very enthusiastically. I'd choose C over it any day, but then again, kernel programming is the only realm where C/C++ is viable, so it doesn't matter much.

Just what you'd expect: break breaks out of a loop, and continue breaks out of the current iteration, performs eventual post-iteration tasks, and goes into the next one.