Shared publicly  - 
 
You know, I really don't care for Windows 8 much, but as I explained in this story I did see it having one spot where it might shine: On business tablets where Active Directory (AD) support would make it a natural for Windows shops and for companies that are taking a jaundiced view of the whole "bring your own device" (BYOD) movement. Well, guess what MSFT isn't putting in its tablets? AD.

Amazing.
12
8
Blair Kennedy's profile photoSally Wiener Grotta's profile photoRobin “Roblimo” Miller's profile photoColin Jones's profile photo
21 comments
 
Thats too bad. Right now I have 60 users on a Windows Server 2007 network with all the users on Windows 7. This arrangement has been the easiest for me to manage ever!! The two mesh almost flawlessly. I have all kinds of great control over the users and their accessing. For those employees with tablets I have set up a DMZ that keeps them away from the main network resources since no one here is using their tablets for anything else but email and goofing off. I was hoping for for some smarter integration coming with the next gen of Tablets, guess not.

Seems like no one listens to the consumer except for Linux users. But those OS are so alien to the MUGGLES at work that I fear the endless questions to bring that around. Besides corp is willing to shell out the $$ for the windows products.

I still dual boot MINT on my computer or use my MAC. Linux rules and MAC is nothing more than LINUX with a pretty cover on it.
 
While I agree with you and I love Linux, Mac isn't "Linux with a pretty cover". Mac came out before Linux even existed and they're both based off of Unix. And yea, Windows 8 is gonna crash and burn.
 
While you are right it did come first it was not always so. Mac did not get the Unix makeover until OSX. Previously is was crash heavy and burdensome to run. Now days Mac has more in common with linux than unix with many of the commands having similar keystrokes to make them go.
 
+Brandon Golway Mac came out before Linux even existed and they're both based off of Unix.

Bzzzzttt, sorry wrong, but we have some nice parting gifts for you.

Mac OS has only been "UNIX Based" since OS X. Linux was out long before that happened.

OS X came out in 1999, but only on servers. The desktop version wasn't out until 2001.

Linux took it's first breath in 1991. That's a LONG time before Mac OS X given that years in computer technology are like dog years.

The Mac OS that was out before OS X had nothing to do with UNIX and was not by any standard a modern operating system.
 
Linux is not based on Unix. It is Unix-like, yes, but apart from sharing a few basic concepts and ideas they are not related, they do not have much code in common. Mac OS X however is based on original Unix code and a direct descendant of BSD Unix. But Mac OS X was first created around 1999 / 2000; Linux started in 1991, so your claim is not correct. Linux is older. Mac OS Classic (versions 1-9) was created 1984 - 1999 but it is not Unix-based or even remotely Unix-like.
 
+Charles Clemens If SAMBA ever gets their AD module running as well as the rest of SAMBA, the final remaining use for Microsoft server products will disappear. That said, Microsoft is eliminating the need for this to happen by shooting themselves in the one remaining foot that they have to stand on. That being AD as mentioned in the story. Doh!
 
Maybe Win8 will have a POSIX LDAP API.
 
+Drazenko Djuricic Saying Linux is not based on UNIX is like saying Penguins aren't like other birds.
Sure it's something Stallman might say.
You're nitpicking semantics on the difference between "like" and "based on".
Linux wouldn't be nearly functionally identical to UNIX if it wasn't based on it. In fact that's the whole point. Linus was just another poor, cheap college student who wanted but couldn't afford a UNIX box of his own, so he made one out of cheap commodity PC's and his own "UNIX Like" OS.
 
For me "based on" means that software B is a direct descendant of software A, e.g. the two share lots of source code and one is in fact nothing but a newer version of the other. Examples: Windows 95 > Windows 98 > Windows Me ...

With Linux this certainly is not the case. Linux is what people call a "clean-room implementation".
 
Good lord. Windows without AD is like a 72 T-Bird with no gas in the tank. You could double the value of the T-Bird with a tank full of fuel, Windows tablets would only be half as worthless if they played ball with AD.

Sell your MS stock, if you haven't already...
 
Poor Wile... He deserves better! :-(
And I saw some bad comments from win users there. Why get angry with Steven!!?? Get angry with M$ that made that mess! :-P
 
My apologies, I never really used Mac before OS X. I know OS X and Linux are very similar, but I had never really used Unix or older versions of Mac. Everything I read says that Mac kernel, Darwin, is a heavily modded Unix-like kernel. They were probably talking about OS X when I took it to mean Mac in general.
 
BEEP! Enough with the semantic argunents already. If you want to argue over this kind of stuff take it to your own circles. Thanks.
 
Steven, I take issue with your use of the word "semantic..." JUST KIDDING! ;-)
Add a comment...