Installing Lazarus 1.8.4 on Ubuntu 18.04

[MarkMLl]

Hmm, sorry, careless wording. I should have said "unix" or  "*nix". While I started using computers with VMX, I soon progressed to Ultrix, OSF and then True64 on the Dec/Compaq Supercomputers.  I used something called Coherent, maybe 1985 or 1986 - that was the first Unix like OS I used running on PC hardware. Maybe we could consider that as one of many fore runners to Linux ?

Perhaps these days we should describe those as "Linux-like OSes" :-)

I remember Coherent, and was actually referring to its manual until comparatively recently on account of the usefulness of its permuted index.

MarkMLl

[winni]

Over 30 years would legitimately bring you to 1990 or earlier. Given the first release of Linux in 1991, it actually is almost that old. This is apart from the fact that the first distributions came out in 1992, which weren't even useful for a production desktop at the time. Point being, 30 years don't really give a mistaken impression about the age of Linux. It does give a mistaken impression about the GNU/Linux operating systems or distro's that could actually be used in production environments. Even SuSE version 6.4 in 1998 was a pain to install because it required manual selection of dependencies against 'unsatisfied' error messages (don't remind me).

Hi!

You did not need a Linux distro in those days. You could download it all and compile it by yourself.  The days when computing was an adventure.

It was boring to install Slackware because it came on 14 (??)  floppy disks. Most time you were a diskjockey.
So what a joy when Suse 4.3  appeared in 1996. And so easy to install related to Slackware.

The only trouble was my Diamond graphic card. Until a chinese man send  the driver source. Without any words.

Winni

[winni]

While I started using computers with VMX, I soon progressed to Ultrix, OSF and then True64 on the Dec/Compaq Supercomputers.  I used something called Coherent, maybe 1985 or 1986 - that was the first Unix like OS I used running on PC hardware. Maybe we could consider that as one of many fore runners to Linux ?

Davo

Hi!

Coherent started to get a little famous in the early 90s with version 4.0. It needed an Intel 386 and was a realy multiuser system (3 users).

But parallel was the development of Linux.

Coherent lost the race because
* In Germany the wanted 100,- Marks - Linux was free
* They had no TCP/IP
* The had no  X11 system
* Related to Linux their development was slow

Some years later Coherent was bankrupt.

I those days every major company wanted to have their own Unix:
AIX (IBM) , Xenix (Microsoft), Sinix (Siemens), HP-UX (HP), .....

Winni

[munair]

I those days every major company wanted to have their own Unix:
AIX (IBM) , Xenix (Microsoft), Sinix (Siemens), HP-UX (HP), .....

IBM already set their cards on the development of OS/2 Warp which to my knowledge became the first true 32bit multitasking OS. But they weren't that good at marketing so Windows 95 became the hit while still 16bit DOS at the heart. No matter, any distro with a linux kernel at the time was still light years behind and only gained real traction in the early 2000s when Gnome and KDE became more mature desktops.

[winni]

Hi!

You should have  enough knowledge to not mix up things:

The first real 32 bit systems where Unix, VMS and Linux. Noboday needed a desktop in those days but anyway X11 was developed.

You could run BSD 4.2 on low cost midrange machines with a Motorola 680x0.
Example: Stride 400 series with 16 or 32 ASCII-Teminals. The most exspensive part was the BSD license.

And on the other hand: There were cheap machines beside the Apples with a graphic Desktop:

Atari ST and Amiga. 5 years before Windows 3.1 and even more before OS/2  (OS half). The Atari survied a long time in the music buisiness because of the Midi ability. Last time I saw a lot of them: 2005. In a 19" rack on stage.

And a lot of Amigas were busy at that time in a local TV station because of the video abilities.

KDE and Gnome are  these morbid tries to become a better desktop than Windows. And when a version seems to run then the next generation starts produce the newest version, which is full of faults.

There are enough  slim desktops and if you have understood Linux you use the half time a console. And the other time a browser.


Winni

[Fred vS]

...

Noboday needed a desktop in those days but anyway X11 was developed.

...

And still living.
People have announced his death for decades, that Wayland is the future but X11 is still there and Wayland is still unstable.

[winni]

Hi!

Yes the only answer to Wayland can be: Don't touch it.

A typical answer in the KDE board:

Code: Text  [Select][+][-]

1. Maintainer: KDE Team
2.  
3. * Not implemented for wayland windows, rules only work for X11 ones
4. * Sounds like a plasmashell crash or freeze, please report the bug
5. * Known bug
6.  

Since years the same answers.

Winni

[dbannon]

I think Wayland is driven by applying the "its old, so it must be replaced" rule to X11. Most of the performance measures in favour of Wayland compare todays Wayland to X11 as it was back when the Wayland project started. If you factor in how X11 now diverts many calls via XCB, its probably just as fast.

I personally don't understand the security aspects that Wayland claims. I guess Wayland, being more modern code, might end up easier to maintain.

And, to be fair, Wayland on newest release Fedora and Ubuntu does seem to work better (mainly by dropping back to an X11 layer).

And Coherent ?  The very best thing about it by far was the great manual it came with. So much easier than the info command. I don't remember what I paid for it but it could not have been too much, money was pretty scarce back then...

Davo

[munair]

The first real 32 bit systems where Unix, VMS and Linux. Noboday needed a desktop in those days but anyway X11 was developed.

To be clear, I'm taking about full blown desktop operating systems, not command line interpreters and such. VMS was for minicomputers only. "Linux" wasn't an operating system; it was the development of a kernel built from scratch, modeled after Unix. The earliest distro's were attempts to build an OS around the Linux kernel, incomparable to Unix and OS/2 at the time. The first more mature desktop OSs with a Linux kernel didn't arrive until the late 90s.

I'm not 100% familiar with the history of 32 bits Unix, but I do know that Unix and OS/2 were competing from the very beginning with regards to 32 bits capabilities. I used OS/2 at the time, and yes, there definitely was the need for a graphical desktop or Apple, IBM and Microsoft wouldn't put so much effort in the late 70s and 80s in developing a graphical UI to make things so much easier for office and graphical industry use.

Anyway, Wikipedia confirms the competition between Unix and OS/2 32 bits capabilities, as we can read: "the introduction of the 32-bit Intel 80386, caused Unix to "explode" in popularity for business applications; Xenix, 386/ix, and other Unix systems for the PC-compatible market competed with OS/2 in terms of networking, multiuser support, multitasking, and MS-DOS compatibility."

Atari ST and Amiga. 5 years before Windows 3.1 and even more before OS/2  (OS half).

Are you talking about GUI or 32 bits development? Because Windows 3.0 and 3.1 was just a graphical shell over a 16 bits OS. The very first to develop a GUI I think was Xerox in the early 70s. But that's quite a leap to the 32 bits desktop OSs of the early and mid 90s.

If I'm not mistaken, none of the computers at the time such as the Motorala 68k in the late 70s were 100% 32 bits capable as they still had 16 bit data bus addressing. It wasn't until 1985-1986 with the introduction of the 386DX (which were very expensive at the time) that OSs could be developed to fully run in protected mode allowing 4GB memory adressing. Even in 1995 I could tell the difference between OS/2 and Win95 desktop/multi-tasking performance. OS/2 was clearly superior and much more stable. But IBM wasn't good at marketing and as a result the three main desktop OSs in use since the late 90s are Mac, Linux and Windows.

[munair]

People have announced his death for decades, that Wayland is the future but X11 is still there and Wayland is still unstable.

I just installed Manjaro 21 with Gnome the other day. It is my very first experience with Gnome since version 2.32 because I never liked the Gnome 3 concept. It's also my first experience with Wayland and so far it seems pretty stable, but I haven't thoroughly tested it yet with doing graphical stuff.