{center}
{subhead} Linux vs AmigaOS{def}{p}
Article by Mark A. Tierno
{left}
{p} {p}

It just seems to be everywhere, everyone jumping on board the Linux
bandwagon, there's even an Amiga port of it. Better than anything in
the PC world, more stable than Windows, it's the OS of the future.
{p} {p}
But IS it?
{p} {p}
Linux is being ported to every known computer system, all based on the
arguement that there's nothing better, lumping into this category our
own beloved AmigaOS. Well, before we assume this argument to be true,
perhaps a head to head comparison is in order.
{p} {p}
First off, you have to keep in mind that the ones touting Linux's
wonders are from the Wintel world- which means that what they're
otherwise used to is bottom of the barrel OS-wise. More stable then
Windows? The San Andreas Fault is more stable then Windows. Being
better than Windows doesn't prove much, and it does not follow that such
would be better than others; each must be compared separately.
{p} {p}
Well, here's my quick thumbnail comparison between Linux and AmigaOS
(AOS). First the good points for Linux; it brags true multitasking,
shared libraries, TCP/IP, virtual memory, is Unix-Based, multi-user, has
networking built in, and can have multiple shell windows open at the
same time.
{p} {p}
Hmm, a lot of this sounds familiar. Multitasking? Do I EVEN have to go
there?  Shared libraries? AOS invented them. For TCP/IP we have Miami,
and while virtual memory isn't built into the OS there are some
third-party programs (okay, so I'll give them half a point for this
last).
{p} {p}
AOS was Based on Unix, and multiple shell windows is so old hat for us
it doesn't even register as a feature. Multiple user? Okay, they got
that one, but there are some networking packages out there.
{p} {p}
But wait, there's more. AOS has multiple screen capability while Linux
and the rest of the world is still wondering what one is.  Furthermore,
the Linux windowing system still needs lots of RAM; a smaller amount
when compared to Windows, but in comparison to our own AOS it's still a
memory hog, typically to the tune of 4 to 16 megs. It also requires
video acceleration just to run, not to mention a whole lot of hard rive
space (20 to 200 megs for a bare installation?).
{p} {p}
But then we come to the big let down that I just found out about.
everytime a new piece of software is installed in your system (DTP,
wordprocessor, game, whatever), then the OS kernel needs to be
recompiled! By the USER.
{p} {p}
Did I mention that the whole thing comes UN-compiled? You'd better have
that $400 compiler ready because you'll be needing it just to get your
own OS going.
{p} {p}
So, is Linux worth it? Better then Windows? Perhaaps. Better than
Amiga? Heck, it ain't even better than MAC. The only reason I can figure
for an Amiga port is if either 1) people will port anything to the
Amiga just to proove it can be done, or 2) some cruelty-obsessed people
just like running an inferior OS on their Amigas.
{p} {p}
In my opinion, an Amiga port of Linux falls in the "if it ain't broke
don't fix it" category.