[IRJustman]

Originally Posted by Sides

Linux is fine for devs and for home usage, but when it comes to business it is either Unix, MacOS or Windows.

Tell that to Google, whose entire search farm runs Linux. Or many of the image rendering shops used by or at many motion picture studios (including and especially Dreamworks SKG).

However, what do you mean when you say "Unix"? Do you mean an OS specifically named "Unix" (only one platform that I know of actually is called "Unix", notably SCO's UnixWare) or any platform which has been certified by The Open Group (which owns the trademark to the name "Unix")? Given the fragmented nature of the Unix market, you need to be very specific.

Besides, a lot of sites do run Linux, plus a few run the BSDs, e.g. FreeBSD and OpenBSD.

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Anyone who doesn't have initdefault set to 3 (text mode) is a wuss.

It depends on how a distribution uses the SysV runlevel system, if at all.

Debian presently uses the exact same runlevel for multiuser interaction whether you're using a GUI or not, which is runlevel 2.

Ubuntu does not use the SysV init system at all, but instead, uses an event-driven program called "Upstart". There are no runlevels in the SysV init sense, though it can be emulated. More info can be had at http://upstart.ubuntu.com. Debian is using it in experimental, while Fedora Core apparently already uses it according to the page.

BSD init does not support runlevels at all. The machine is either running single-user, multiuser (GUI or not), or it is down.

On my desktop Linux box, because I use a GUI on it, does that make me a wuss? I quite frequently have at least one terminal window open, so there.

Originally Posted by Sides

Seeing how those subnotebooks, or netbook, are exploding on the market at the moment, it is just a matter of time people will jump to alternatives.

In the ultracompact laptop/netbook market, Microsoft SERIOUSLY missed the boat. Linux already has a stranglehold on this one, while XP Home is eking its own market, but I still think Home is a poor choice if you want to do anything serious.

Obviously OSes like QNX, FreeBSD or OpenSolaris probably won't make it onto people's desktop.

Actually, you are wrong. Just in that list above, some of them have already been on users' desks.

Remember the i-Opener? Its native OS was QNX. The main people who bought the i-Opener were hackers who wanted a nice, cheap Linux platform, which was not the device's target audience. Though it also should be noted that the i-Opener was not a general-purpose computer. Its only intended uses were to browse the web and read e-mail.

Plus it could be argued that FreeBSD is already on people's desks in some form, notably in the form of Macos. Granted it uses its own form of BSD (Darwin), the fact that Jordan Hubbard, the initial leader of the FreeBSD project, has moved on to Apple, bringing a lot of his FreeBSD experience with him, brings some of FreeBSD onto users' desktops.

The only item enumerated in your list I can really agree with you on is OpenSolaris.

Funny, i always thought that pixar were using solaris for their rendering farms.

Sun has never been known for graphics work, but that's not to say that it hasn't been used as a rendering farm platform.

Silicon Graphics Inc., on the other hand, very much is, being the specifier of OpenGL. As such, the main commercial OS which has found such use is IRIX. A lot of Square's work is rendered using IRIX-powered render farms.

And if you don't think Linux isn't big in the render farm market, think again. Titanic's CG scenes were done with DEC Alpha machines running Linux. Any CG movie released by Dreamworks SKG is done with Linux. As for Pixar, I don't know.

There's a lot of info about Linux in the motion picture production industry as well as software that can be used (and even obtained) from www.linuxmovies.org.

Meanwhile, to go to my own systems, I use a wide variety of systems based on the need.

In my case, I use:

• Windows XP as my main desktop and entertainment platforms. Windows is a great desktop system. And it should stay that way.
  
• Windows Vista is on my laptop only because it came with it. This doesn't mean I have to like it. In fact, I absolutely hate it. I make it livable by switching everything over to "classic" interfaces, which has an additional beneficial side effect of killing Aero, the biggest resource pig in Vista.
  
• Ubuntu Linux on several of my infrastructure systems. I went with Ubuntu because I got a bit tired of Debian's politicking as well as long development cycles. However, since I've used Debian in the past and since Ubuntu is directly based upon Debian, my admin skills transfer (with a very few exceptions) right over.
  
  I have a desktop which runs Kubuntu, but I presently do not run it due to space and electrical constraints. I may get a secondary machine, like an Eee with an HDD or an Acer Aspire One and put a larger hard drive into it to have Windows XP Professional and either Kubuntu or Xubuntu on it (mainly as a platform to take to jobsites for equipment installation, configuration and/or troubleshooting).
  
• FreeBSD on a few more of my infrastructure systems, partly because that's what my revenue systems run, which were based upon the systems I had acquired from my last job when it closed its doors. Partly because I want some heterogeneity in my network. Partly due to familiarity (I used it at my most recent workplace as well as the one before it). Mostly because I like it as much as I like Linux.

I think OS choice depends entirely on skill level and needs. I think my network setup fits my needs and skill level (very high) pretty well, but then, to fulfill said needs along with what I want to do, I use multiple computers each with different operating systems and configurations to suit the need/want set they are set up for.

For just one computer for a normal user, that's another matter entirely, and as others have said, it's a very personal thing. You have to weigh what you need against what the desired system can(not) do, what sacrifices you feel willing to make (if any), and how comfortable you feel with learning a new system.

--Ian.