tgoe wrote:If you did a little more research I think you'd be pretty suprised by how wrong you are on basically everything you've stated here in this thread.
I agree with you that the multitude of Linux distros can be annoying to develop and test for and taking your argument for an "Official Nix" further to an "Official OS" would certainly make things a little easier for a programmer. But that is simply unrealistic and a step back technologically in light of code sharing and competition. It sounds like you're just getting a taste of the power of the unix way via a cross-platform language and there might be a little confusion. Heredocs and command substitution for example are unixy things predating the invention of Ruby and Windows.
Saying things like *nix is underdeveloped, vb is the only language with "with" and admitting that your *nix experience is limited to a chapter in a book about Ruby is.... WTF
Just wanted to add that while getting some experience with *nix is a good thing and just about any of them will work, I think some are better than others for the purpose of learning Unix. I'd recommend something "Pure" like one of the BSDs or something like Arch or Debian.
This^ Just all of it.
KthProg wrote:Also relative to Windows *nix systems are less developed.<br>by this i mean theres nothing you cant do in windows that you can do in *Nix but the opposite is not true.
This is a contender for the most ignorant thing I've ever read. There is a TON you can do on Linux that you can't on Windows. A TON.
There's a reason MOST web servers are run on Linux and NOT windows. There's also a reason most tech startups use Linux and not Windows.
Also, just to clarify, just about anything written for any version of your "*nix" will run on any other version. Perhaps only a few things to alter to get them to run perfectly. It could be argued it's harder to develop for the different versions of Windows.
Open up the Terminal program in Ubuntu to access the command line.