www.tcpclan.net

Pitbull wrote:Well I actually like ps. (just not online) To many cheaters. Sorry to say Xavious but final fantasy has been hacked to death.

naaaaaa. ffX-2 was a let down, but final fantasy advent children is almost here!

}TCP{Cee wrote:...since I keep reading about kernel faults and security holes day by day

Yes, but fixes are published in very short time, even in some hours!!! since hole is announced.
Windows users have to wait months...

omg

I havent updated since a year and havent had any problems

updating causes too many problems...first sonicstage doesnt work, then my ps2 con gets blocked...

Updating is a necessary evil, but updating all the time sucks. Why do you think I only release a new UTF every couple of months if at all? And my motto is also "never touch a running system". Why update when something runs?

}TCP{Wolf wrote:Why update when something runs?

There's no cause to update if everything is OK. You thought rather about upgrades, and yes, I can agree about it. Updates are to fix not working, working bad, exploited parts of software, which causes freezes, hangs, security holes, etc. Updates are very desired while upgrades are not necessary, because they are directed to add some new features, new technologies etc.

Xavious wrote: but theres alot i dont know about it, for example, until reading this topic i thought it didnt have a GUI at all, like it was command driven or some crap...

Right now I am at my work office and nothing is functioning right now, so I have plenty of time to waste and took another look at the spam thread. And w00t I felt like replying to that one again

If you think about it, GUI stands for Graphical User Interface. In other words. That does not mean the underlying system is not command driven. Any Operating System is, or show me one that isn't. It is just a difference if how you access it.

What Xavious probably meant was "I though you have to type commands on a prompt all the time" instead of "it was command driven". Because what a GUI does is nothing more than translate your mouse-clicking guestures into commands - which normally could just as well have been executed on a command prompt. If not, the term GUI is not really appropriate. But the principle is not whether a system is command driven or not, but only how the commands are being issued.

A GUI certainly makes a few things easier, for example, on a command prompt you can just enter any arbitrary text. Most combinations of letters are no commands but just nonsense to the command interpreter. A GUI can give you the benefit of pre-sorting out all the commands a system has available, lining them up nicely on a viewscreen - click to execute manner or something like that. No riddling around what commands exist at all.

But... not every GUI is really good either... even if you see all the commands available (or only a subset), it is still little use if you don't know what the commands do, or which arguments can be passed. An intelligently made GUI will assist you here too.

Windows, I consider mostly as a GUI, much less as an Operating System. Win9X need HIMEM.SYS as explained earlier so they are no Operating Systems to start with, since HIMEM.SYS is a DOS-Driver - so the Operating System running on a Win9X machine is MS-DOS - although "version 7" that comes with Win9X is already enhanced a bit (long filename support in 32bit mode etc...) - but still, it -IS- DOS. Win9X is just a large GUI that adds a lot of features on top of the OS, as any program usually does (adding features that is), but it's no Operating System.

NT might be considered a slightly different story, since the Kernel is basically what makes NT tick, and it doesn't rely on any DOS-driver or other base. NT is (at least to my knowledge) really self-sustained and thus an Operating System on its own. Likely that is the reason all current Windows versions are NT based, since MS-DOS cannot be adjusted further to make use of all that new technology that comes out, or it would simply be a waste of effort. Also, the NT base appears to be more stable.

Win 3.11 is a pure GUI and nothing more, a bad one too! The advertising of multitasking is a lie.

Linux and the original Commodore Amiga-OS are probably the best examples for a REAL Operating Systems. The kernels are so tiny they can fit on a single-density disk and can already run (basic) programs off that base!

The Amiga-GUI known as "Workbench" and the Linux "KDE" make no lie about the fact they are not an Operating System, but only a GUI - which means they run on top of the OS and do NOT offer Operating System functions. They do add features to it of course, but are not really part of the Operating System.

Well, the Linux geeks may correct me here possibly... but I do know pretty well how the A-OS and Workbench are designed.

So long....

Sp@m

blah blah blah to much to read

}TCP{Wolf wrote:Because what a GUI does is nothing more than translate your mouse-clicking guestures into commands - which normally could just as well have been executed on a command prompt.

I can't agree. Imagine system you interact with using voice/sound only.
GUI, console are only interfaces - kind of shell. All commands you give to the system, no matter how - clicking mouse, typing commands, using your voice - are translated into system calls, which do what you want.

}TCP{Wolf wrote:Windows, I consider mostly as a GUI, much less as an Operating System. Win9X need HIMEM.SYS as explained earlier so they are no Operating Systems to start with, since HIMEM.SYS is a DOS-Driver - so the Operating System running on a Win9X machine is MS-DOS - althoughd, bla, bla, bla

I don't agree!
1) Windows 9X is operating system and has his own kernel containing drivers. You build such kernel during every installation of Windows 9X !!!
2) Windows 9X has own, separated shell - explorer.exe. You can change your shell and use another, for example LiteShell or GeoShell (look here http://www.shellfront.org/), or look&feel of GUI only - using WindowBlinds.
3) Windows 9X is working well without HIMEM.SYS which is used only for DOS programs - I had empty AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS files
4) Windows 1.0 to 3.11 are GUIs without multitasking, because are using MS-DOS kernel (YES - kernel !). MS-DOS kernel is msdos.sys file and console (command line interface) is command.com file.
5) Windows 9X was designed to maintain compatibility with MS-DOS programs. This is why it has so many disadventages.
6) Windows 9X operating system first loads MS-DOS system, which next loads Windows 9X kernel (switches to protected mode, bla, bla, bla, and forgetting about MS-DOS previously loaded). You can do the same loading Linux using LOADLIN command - first DOS is run and LOADLIN.EXE dos program loads Linux kernel.

}TCP{Wolf wrote: The kernels are so tiny they can fit on a single-density disk and can already run (basic) programs off that base!

It isn't truth.
1) My current Linux kernel has size of 1.5 MB (1555154 bytes exacly) and is strongly compressed using bzip2 algorithm.
2) Linux kernel doesn't run basic programs, it is not purpose for kernel. It loads INIT. Init is the parent of all processes. Its primary role is to create processes from a script stored in the file /etc/inittab and respawn when are killed

}TCP{Wolf wrote:...the Linux "KDE" make no lie about the fact they are not an Operating System, but only a GUI - which means they run on top of the OS and do NOT offer Operating System functions

Wrong again.
KDE doesn't just run on top of the Linux kernel. It is a process which communicates with X Window server to present GUI for user. MS Windows kernels have window server built into kernel; Linux doesn't. This is the way MS GUI is faster, and this is the why (having Linux) you can work easily on remote machine using GUI locally (just connect to remote X Window server instead of local).

i agree.

}TCP{aLICe wrote:

}TCP{Wolf wrote:Because what a GUI does is nothing more than translate your mouse-clicking guestures into commands - which normally could just as well have been executed on a command prompt.

I can't agree. Imagine system you interact with using voice/sound only.
GUI, console are only interfaces - kind of shell. All commands you give to the system, no matter how - clicking mouse, typing commands, using your voice - are translated into system calls, which do what you want.

And what is a system call? A command.

}TCP{aLICe wrote: 1) Windows 9X is operating system and has his own kernel containing drivers. You build such kernel during every installation of Windows 9X !!!

I don't see any new kernel being built (does that mean compiled) every time I install Windows. Where is it? And why is it new every time? If it is new every time, what's the difference between builds? Do you really believe M$ is capable of something like that?

}TCP{aLICe wrote: 2) Windows 9X has own, separated shell - explorer.exe. You can change your shell and use another, for example LiteShell or GeoShell (look here http://www.shellfront.org/), or look&feel of GUI only - using WindowBlinds.

I am perfectly aware of these but what has that todo with the fact most of Win9X is just a GUI? A shell is just a command interpreter (at best) or something that delivers commands to system calls, if you already insist on distinguishing system calls from commands, which is more or less hair-splitting in the context...

}TCP{aLICe wrote: 3) Windows 9X is working well without HIMEM.SYS which is used only for DOS programs - I had empty AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS files

Really? Mine doesn't work without it Give me yours, must be better than mine

}TCP{aLICe wrote: 4) Windows 1.0 to 3.11 are GUIs without multitasking, because are using MS-DOS kernel (YES - kernel !). MS-DOS kernel is msdos.sys file and console (command line interface) is command.com file.

I agree, I thought you only wanted to post stuff you DISAGREE with me on? LOL

}TCP{aLICe wrote: 5) Windows 9X was designed to maintain compatibility with MS-DOS programs. This is why it has so many disadventages.

I 100% agree again. How boring LMAO

}TCP{aLICe wrote: 6) Windows 9X operating system first loads MS-DOS system, which next loads Windows 9X kernel (switches to protected mode, bla, bla, bla, and forgetting about MS-DOS previously loaded).

No, if it "forgets", then no DOS-Driver would ever interfere. But there are lots of DOS drivers that do.

}TCP{aLICe wrote:

}TCP{Wolf wrote: The kernels are so tiny they can fit on a single-density disk and can already run (basic) programs off that base!

It isn't truth.
1) My current Linux kernel has size of 1.5 MB (1555154 bytes exacly) and is strongly compressed using bzip2 algorithm.
2) Linux kernel doesn't run basic programs, it is not purpose for kernel. It loads INIT. Init is the parent of all processes. Its primary role is to create processes from a script stored in the file /etc/inittab and respawn when are killed

Oh my bad, I thought Linux kernel was small. Looks like it grew fat over time just like Windoze... so, in 20 years Linux will be where Windoze is today maybe

}TCP{aLICe wrote: KDE doesn't just run on top of the Linux kernel. It is a process which communicates with X Window server to present GUI for user. MS Windows kernels have window server built into kernel; Linux doesn't. This is the way MS GUI is faster, and this is the why (having Linux) you can work easily on remote machine using GUI locally (just connect to remote X Window server instead of local).

I don'T see where I was wrong, KDE has to run on top of something, if you remove the Linux kernel from a machine, would the code still run? That would be your implication... confusing

My Win98 works fine with empty autoexec.bat and config.sys files.

When Windows was first brought in (up to Win3.11 I think) it was described as sitting on top of DOS and interpreting mouse clicks for DOS much like Wolf describes. It was intended to make DOS more user friendly for the average punter (and to steal the thunder of the competition ?).

lets wait for xp 2 longhard :p

apple first invented the WIMP crap i think...stupid microsoft steal everything.