@Hattig

As for NFS, tha Amiga can cope with it since early 90' when Commodore launched
the Almighty Amiga 3000 UX there even is an Amiga Novell client too

For the full featured Browser, just wait a little more to have IBrowse 3.0 with
the most important goodies of modern browsers integrated (and when I say "modern" I DON'T think IE )

Amigalement,
Jean-François, Amiga ONLY since 1985.
--------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to Happy Computing : AMIGA! (©2K4 by voxel)

_________________
Amigalement,
Jean-François "voxel" Bachelet, Amiga NUTS since 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to Happy Computing : Amiga! (© 2

I've been running my Amiga as a server for about 3 years now for my own interests. It has apache running PHP (1.3.20 and 4.0.5 respectively), mysql (v4.0.4 (I believe) which is the only thing unstable=read goes nuts and has a half life of about a month before requiring a reset), UIRCd, FTPd, Telnetd, Ilona (IRC bots, 5 of them) and Samba. I've been running phpBB forums and a 1.3 version of XOOPS on it. The only thing that runs slow is PHP. Everything else no one noticed that it was only a 50 Mhz 060. All this on a 128 MB machine (and if it wasn't for Mysql going kooky it would only need half that). So it's quite workable as a low end server, but I wouldn't want to try the PHP under a high stress environment like Amigaworld.net or someplace really popular like that. The 060 can't handle the PHP side, but I think apache and everything else could. I'm hoping someone does the work needed to port PHP to PPC native so that speeds up (It's an Ixemul issue from what I understand). But in anycase, it can be done. Security wise, well, it's security through obsurity you know? Lets face it, the hackers know how to get into Windows and Linux because they are popular. Only amiga people know how to get in on Amigas.

@mjohnson
Quote:

Obviously it's not a server OS, atm. But why would it be useless to any type of enterprise?

I likes the article not because of what it said about the Amiga but because what it said about Linux.

Linux could, but hasn't become a desktop OS. Part of this is its Open Source base which allows thousands of blossums to bloom, but cannot make them grow in rows or understandable patterns. Making Linux into a Desktop OS is a major undertaking in which only a bit of Linux remains -- MacOSx as an example (yes I know its kernal is not Linux per se, but it belongs to the same family of open source Unix like kernals).

Its strength as server machine, is also its weakness as a Deskop system. I have believed this for some time and the article seems to be saying the same thing. Wait as long as you like and the silk purse will not become a sowe's ear. The only way it could would be to bring in big bucks, impose a strict design upon it and rewrite a hell of a lot of stuff that works well as it is but is far too scattered and dependant for slimdowned Desktop use.

The basic difference is this. The needs of heavy traffic use, run counter to light traffic use -- a desktop OS is a light traffic vehicle, not a huge truck. A server needs Kernal services which can be finely tuned, extended or reduced, lots of security devices and controls etc etc. A Unix type solution is ideal for this for it supplies the greatest flexibility at the lowest levels. The defecit is that you can only really have a system that is arcane and expert run.

Look at how many times novices using Linux on the A1 reinstall and how long it takes them and usually for annoyingly simple problems (won't recognise the mouse, X11 doesn't work the graphics card etc.) Ok experts laugh at this niavety, and why shouldn't they, they know the thousands of shortcuts and how-tos. The novice is overwhelmed by the size of the thing, the tiny programlets that only do one thing, the massive documentation needed to find a way to achieve a single thing etc etc -- all of this is what makes it a good expert system and a lousey user system.

A desktop Linux would no longer be a Linux, the connection that makes one thing work well, all fall apart when making the other thing. This does not stop a Desktop OS system having Linux or even frontending parts of it, but it does stop Linux becoming a Desktop OS and remaing Linux.

MS is a disaster, cost and maintence wise as a desktop OS -- everyone knows this, despite its popularity, open the hood and you may as well be looking at a full Linux distribution without any of the documentation. While Linux has been evolved to serve as an OS experts OS, MS has been designed for being maintained by "experts" without giving them the expert control that Linux does, in short MS maintence has become a semi-professional business in itself and that is where its major costs are.

The gap between what is available and what is actually needed is huge. So I put this to readers, whatever the shortcomings of OS4 in regard to business use they are on a much smaller scale then the problems of either Linux and MS filling the gap. MacOSx has its limits as well, its niche of use is narrower but what it does there is effecient.

OS4 is exactly what is required (yes it will have to be further developed -- but that is also in the plans). Small robust, easy to understand, easy to maintain and very flexible to adapt to doing business like things. It is the very description of a Desktop OS. The author recognises this at least in part, its about time we also recognised it as a long term goal.

_________________
Greg Schofield, Perth Australia