Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

37 Operating Systems, 1 PC 450

Posted by michael from the chaining-bootloaders-for-fun-and-profit dept.
cpaluc writes "Bored? Surplus spare time and PC hardware? Read on. OSNews has links to a couple of articles (1,2) about a guy who installed 37 operating systems on one PC. There's something to do with your spare time and hardware."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

37 Operating Systems, 1 PC More

37 Operating Systems, 1 PC

Comments Filter:

  • 37? (Score:5, Funny)

    by mao che minh ( 611166 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @06:25PM (#4340053) Journal
    I can't even name 37 operating systems

    • Re:37? (Score:5, Funny)

      by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @06:37PM (#4340153) Homepage
      37? In a row? [viewaskew.com]

    • Re:37? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rppp01 ( 236599 )
      It's entirely possible to install almost every version of Linux on one machine. New versions of LILO eliminate the 1,024th cylinder boundary, enabling you to use up to 160GB for Linux. However, I decided to stop at around 10 versions because any more seemed redundant.



      um, what is your definition of redundant? Anyone?

    • Re:37? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Idaho ( 12907 )
      You can't name 37 OS'es? You should take a look here [fuckmicrosoft.com] - sorry about the offensive domain name, but they really do have a very long list of OS'es, both old and new!

  • Business Model: (Score:4, Funny)

    by b1nd0x ( 206244 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @06:28PM (#4340076)
    Step 1: install 37 operating operating systems on one machine
    Step 2: mount everything possible in linux (not sure about partition types, inconsequential detail though), cat it all to /dev/audio. Convince moma that this is a somber reflection on the fractured nature of our decentralized, technological culture.
    Step 3: Profit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Apple Rhapsody x86 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by green pizza ( 159161 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @06:28PM (#4340082) Homepage
    He should have included Apple's x86 version of Rhapsody (developer release 1 or 2 of Mac OS X from several years ago). Either that or Darwin x86, which is available from Apple's website.

    • Re:Apple Rhapsody x86 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Aqua OS X ( 458522 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @07:56PM (#4340645)
      It'd be neat to see that guy toss in a PPC and a 68xxx emulator too. If did that he could be up to 50+ OSes... however I guess emulators might be thought of as "cheating."

      It might be fun to try an build a modern version of one of these old Apple machines: Power Macintosh 7300/180 PC Compatible [apple.com]
      These thing has both a PPC 604e and a Pentium 1. They could boot a PPC OS and an x86 OS at the same time. One could use a key combo to switch OSes on the fly.... they where rad :).

  • VMWare! (Score:2, Informative)

    by lscotte ( 450259 )
    We do this all the time with VMWare on big GSX/ESX servers. Not that many DIFFERENT OS's, just that many of them.

    He could probably count each JDK as an OS too.

  • Why??? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Doppler00 ( 534739 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @06:29PM (#4340089) Homepage Journal
    He installed these?
    Windows 1.01
    Windows 1.03
    Windows 2.03
    Windows 2.10

    How could you even find these versions let alone tolerate installing them? Hmm... Just imagine all the versions of Minesweeper and Solitare!

    Honestly, who could possible have the time to do something like this?
    • I think you can get three of them from this link - http://toastytech.com/guis/indexlinks.html
    • Who says he found them? Maybe he actually purchased them, way back when, and kept the floppies, reverently, until such time as he might use them again.

      "Squadron leader, we have pigs at 11 o'clock high" :-)

      Incidentally, you can get yourself some OS/2 bits here [abandonkeep.com] They used to have Windows 1.01, and 2.0, but I suppose the Beast got to them. I mean, MS have got to try their best to protect their large sales volume of these products, as we enter the 21st century.

      And if you're feeling really trippy, you can see some old Windows screenshots here [toastytech.com].

    • Re:Why??? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by hoagieslapper ( 593527 )
      Correct me if I am wrong here, but are Windows 1.x and Windows 2.x even operating systems? I know Windows 3.x wasn't. The OS for Windows 3.x was DOS.

  • I can't find my favorite! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 26, 2002 @06:30PM (#4340097)
    Where is emacs?
  • I've got the x86 Rhapsody Operating system somewhere around here. For those who don't know that's Apple's foray into the x86 market with the NeXt OS - now pretty much OS X.

    Back around 96 or 98 I decided I needed to find a better Operating System. I put Rhapsody, BeOS, Slackware, Redhat, Debian and Win9x on my PC. I liked BeOS and Rhapsody the most, but the applications I wanted weren't there; and I didn't see a future for them either. I ended picking Redhat out of the lot.

    Now adays I use OS X or Win XP at home, and Redhat on my server.
    Joseph Elwell.

  • Patience? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Zen Mastuh ( 456254 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @06:31PM (#4340108)

    I couldn't sit still that long. Sure, some OS installations are more time-consuming than others, but in general I don't look forward to the interminable wait between prompts.

    I'd also be curious to know how many reboots it took. I also want to know how come nobody cared enough to get William Shatner to go to this guy's house and say "What's wrong with you? Have you ever slept with a woman?".

  • partition table (Score:2, Insightful)

    by DrLudicrous ( 607375 )
    Yikes! Think about how long it must have taken to partition that hard drive! Someone must have had a LOT of time on their hands...
  • of a dream I always had: to install Win 3.1.1 on my 1ghz pc, just to see how fast it would boot. Soundcard and just about everything else probably wouldn't work, but dang it would be nice to see windows start up quickly.

  • Alright, let me ask this. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by antis0c ( 133550 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @06:31PM (#4340116)
    Where the hell did he get all these Operating Systems from? Not even getting into how does he have licenses for them all, but Windows 1.01? All the versions of QNX? I'm asking a serious question too, anyone know where?
    • I have an early CD-ROM program(some reference) that not only runs on Windows v1.xx but includes a copy as well.
    • Well, you can download QNX from their site for free for personal use (Neutrino, anyway, I'm not sure about older versions, but I'd bet you can download QNX 4 from there as well).

      Where one would find Windows 1.01, though, I have no idea. Ebay, perhaps?

    • Re:Alright, let me ask this. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Oztun ( 111934 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @06:50PM (#4340260)
      I found a page [toastytech.com] with google that looks to have windows 1.01 and QNX links.
    • I have still have both licenses and media for Windows 2.01 and 3.0 (the only version ever to run under DOSEMU), OS-9000 x86, OS/2 1.0 and OS/2 2.1, OS9/68k 2.3, TRS-DOS and some old version of SunOS, I don't even remember which, from a Sun 3 (now there was a beast). The SunOS is on a bootable QIC cartridge! I think I even have an Archive Viper 2150 somewhere that I could probably use to boot it, if I had a Sun 3. Oh, and I also have the original Mac Finder 'System' disk from a 128k Mac that cost about $3,000 back in the day. Come to think of it, I also have the Mac 128k somewhere, closeted away, though I doubt whether it runs now.

      They're all just left hanging around from my own computers over the years. *shrug* That's sort of how it works, isn't it?!

  • 37! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Da J Rob ( 469571 )
    In a row?

    -Clerks

  • Quick! Someone call the BSA! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Aexia ( 517457 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @06:32PM (#4340121)
    * Windows 1.01
    * Windows 1.03
    * Windows 2.03
    * Windows 2.10
    * Windows 3.1
    * Windows 95
    * Windows 98 First Edition
    * Windows 98 Second Edition
    * Windows 98 SE Lite (not counted as separate)
    * Windows Me
    * Windows 2000
    * Windows XP

    Not only do we need to verify that he has licenses for each of those installations, I'm willing to bet he illegally transfered licenses from their original systems!

    In short, this man is a terrorist who only wishes to kill each and every freedom-loving American. Arrest him now!

  • Simple purpose (Score:5, Funny)

    by theefer ( 467185 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @06:32PM (#4340123) Homepage
    Actually he just wanted to be on Slashdot ...

    What would *you* do to be on /. ? :)
  • It's entirely possible to install almost every version of Linux on one machine... However, I decided to stop at around 10 versions because any more seemed redundant.

    That's a little bit of an understatement. So how many version of Windows before it starts getting redundant?

  • Win earlier than 95 were shells for DOS (Score:3, Informative)

    by intermodal ( 534361 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @06:34PM (#4340134) Homepage Journal
    They weren't technically operating systems
    • Prior to Win 95? Actually, I consider everything up to and including Win ME to be DOS-based shells.
    • All the non-NT versions of Windows still are technically DOS shells, but the boot process has been changed so that Windows loads immediately (and cannot be started from another version of DOS).

      There may be a valid technical reason for it, but the main effect was to completely shut out competing DOS implementations, as Caldera argued in their lawsuit against MS. During this lawsuit they actually demonstrated a slightly-modified Windows 95 running under DR-DOS.
    • To those who have replied to intermodal : You got your definition of an OS all wrong. An OS's job is to mediate between multiple program trying to access to same ressource. That could be the disk, the memory, the ports, the printers, etc. Msdos hardly qualifies, Win3.1 is twisted and Win95 is proper.

      Msdos always just barely qualified as an operating system. It had some memory layout libraries and provided some basic disk access libraries, both of which could be ignored by programs. Win3.1 added mediation of screen estate space, of the printers and of the sound card. Those were the bad old days where the high levels function, which had fairly proper mediation, were running on a non-kernel. It was the Eric-the-half-a-bee of operating systems. Painful days indeed.

      With its prehemptive scheduler, Win95 introduced clock-cycle mediation. It also brought proper memory mediation (memory "protection") For the first time, Windows was providing something more than a set of ignorable library functions, which qualified it as true OS.

      You will indeed find Msdos code shipping with Win95 : it's upside down. It is part of the msoldapp compatibility layer that ran 16-bits apps, and it ran them under the new 32-bits kernel. This doesn't take anything away from Win95's OS-ness.
  • Dos 6.22 w/Dosshell Dos 7.0 DR-Dos FreeDos OS/2 warp IV SkyOS Windows Menu: Windows 1.01 Windows 2.03 Windows 3.1 Windows 95 Windows 98 First Edition Windows 98 SE (2 installations - Main, Lite) Windows ME Windows XP Pro Windows 2000 Pro Unix Menu: AtheOS Syllable OS Aos (Bluebottle)/Oberon 2.3.6 BeOS 5 Personal Edition BeOS 5 w/ Mac skin BeOS 5.03 Developer Edition QNX 6.1 QNX 6.2 FreeBSD OpenBSD NetBSD Minix LInux Menu: Storm 2000 Immunix Conectiva Libranet Vector JBLinux Slackware Trustix Red Hat 7.2 Mandrake 8.2 Debian Dos Window Managers Menu: Tandy Deskmate Desktop 2 Dos94 Dosstart Egress Gaze Glance IconDOs Iconshell QBfos99 Iconshell 2.1 xgui 3 xgui 4 MAcShell MilleniumOS XTos

  • 37 not quite... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DjMd ( 541962 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @06:37PM (#4340155) Journal
    Aos|Oberon 2.3.6

    DrDOS 7.2
    FreeDos 7
    MS DOS 5.0
    MS DOS 7
    OS/2
    QubeOS
    SkyOS

    Linux menu
    Conectiva
    Debian
    Immunix
    JBLinux
    Libranet
    Mandrake
    RedHat
    Slackware
    Storm
    Vector

    Unix menu
    AtheOS 0.3.7
    BeOS 5 Personal Edition
    BeOS 5.0.3 Developer Edition
    FreeBSD 4.4
    Minix 2.2
    NetBSD 1.5
    OpenBSD 2.9
    QNX RTP 6.0 (hosted)
    QNX RTP 6.1 (dedicated)
    QNX Neutrino OS 6.2
    SyllableOS 0.4.0

    Windows menu
    Windows 1.01
    Windows 1.03
    Windows 2.03
    Windows 2.10
    Windows 3.1
    Windows 95
    Windows 98 First Edition
    Windows 98 Second Edition
    Windows 98 SE Lite (not counted as separate)
    Windows Me
    Windows 2000
    Windows XP
    Ok I make the list realisticly at 28-ish. I count all the DOS's, Linux distro count as one, 9 Unix's (verses 11 listed), and 10 windows (all win98 as one)...
    You can argue beyond that, but 28 is still impressive... No WinNT?

    • Planning issues (Score:3, Interesting)

      by div_2n ( 525075 )
      He had six IDE hard drives. As the article states, some OS's have severe temper tantrums if you try to install them past a certain cylinder on the HD (1024). NT can't exist on the same physical drive as 2000. I am not sure if the same is true for XP and 2000 on the same drive.

      My guess is that given these limitations, it might have been impossible to add NT even if he wanted to.

      • Re:Planning issues (Score:3, Interesting)

        by acoustix ( 123925 )
        XP and 2000 can be installed on the same physical drive.

        I have 98, 2000, and XP Pro (installed in that order) on my drive.
      • NT can't exist on the same physical drive as 2000.

        Yes, it can. You can't have their system directories on the same partition, though. Same thing with 2k and XP or NT and XP. Or NT, 2k and XP.

        That said, I miss DOS 6.22 and Gentoo from his list, not to mention the Apple internal OS X for i386, MS Longhorn, SunOS 4.1.3 (Sunview rocks!), Solaris, NeXTStep and the Amiga Digital Environment, although the QNX Neutrino kernel probably is a good start there. Hm. Were there ever a VMS/OpenVMS version for the i386?

        My workstations typically multiboot at least three OSes, sometimes more if I'm currently migrating; DOS (6.22/98SE), Linux (Gentoo) and Win32 (NT/2k/XP).

    • I count all the DOS's, Linux distro count as one, 9 Unix's (verses 11 listed), and 10 windows (all win98 as one)..

      Well, since Windows 1-Me are DOS at their heart, you probably shouldn't count them as separate, either. Only 2 in that list are not running on top of DOS.
    • Windows menu
      Windows 1.01
      Windows 1.03
      Windows 2.03
      Windows 2.10
      Windows 3.1

      Windows 1-3x were not OSs, you had to have a DOS OS installed and boot in to DOS before running Windows - they were systems that ran over the top. That's excluding 95 still technically working that way but making you boot in to Windows then exit out (dressed up as logging out) to DOS.

      It's the equivalent of calling RedHat two different OSs because it comes with Gnome and KDE.

      • Re:37 not quite... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rabidcow ( 209019 )
        Windows 1-3x were not OSs, you had to have a DOS OS installed and boot in to DOS before running Windows

        This alone does not make Windows a shell running on DOS. An OS may boot from another OS. You can start Linux from DOS, that doesn't make it any less of an OS. (even if it *only* booted from DOS)

        The key is whether Windows used DOS functions while it was running or provided its own. Win95 avoided using 16-bit drivers as much as possible. Since DOS is entirely 16-bit, I think that at least begins to qualify it as a separate OS.
  • 11 Linux distros - 1 OS. Still, no less of an accomplishment!
  • Imagine having to go through all those at bootup! I can see extending the bootloader to provide regex searches.
  • It's entirely possible to install almost every version of Linux on one machine. New versions of LILO eliminate the 1,024th cylinder boundary, enabling you to use up to 160GB for Linux. However, I decided to stop at around 10 versions because any more seemed redundant. (Emphesis mine)

    This must be a use of the word "redundant" I have never heard before.

  • Hey, I need to get in touch with this guy. I have DESQView 386 and DESQView/X at home. He could bump up to 39 OSes in just minutes...!

    And put a dedicated MAME installation in there! C'mon Defender is almost an OS unto itself! ;)

  • Wonder if he paid for those 10 different versions of Windows??? ..

  • Oh sure... (Score:2, Funny)

    by zizzo ( 86200 )
    And I bet his sound card doesn't work under a single one.
  • Now I like wasting my time on technology as much as the next geek, but really! The words "more", "must", "out" and "get" spring to mind here...

  • What? No GEOS 1.0 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nickgrieve ( 87668 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @06:51PM (#4340263) Journal
    This *EXTREMELY RARE* operating system was the first release for the IBM-PC. Previously, different versions of GEOS had done very well with the Commodore 64 and Apple 2 line. This GUI-based OS was primarily used in businesses and schools, and seldom saw its way into the hands of the public. This was the very first version that was ever released for PC users. The welcome screen had three buttons, for the Appliances level, Professional level, and the DOS Room. In the first level, the user is greeted by large buttons for the calculator, Rolodex, planner, and notepad. These four apps run in full screen, and there is no multitasking or task-switching. In the Professional level, the user is exposed to all the applications, which can run in windows and multitask with one another. The screen could be filled with a background (wallpaper in Windows lingo) for some fancy decoration. The accessories included Clock, Calculator, GeoBanner, GeoComm, GeoDex, GeoPlanner, Notepad, and Scrapbook. The major applications were GeoManager, GeoDraw, GeoWrite, and Preferences. There was also an icon for the client software to America Online. (At that time, it was the only way to connect to AOL). The user interface was Motif, and a dark cyan color scheme was used. In the DOS Room, a button for the DOS prompt was the default entry. There was a utility for creating new buttons for running other DOS applications, and there was a broad selection of icons to choose from, including both generic and branded icons. This version was later followed by versions 2.0, and New Deal School Suite '98.
    • Didn't the Amstrad PC's that were incredibly popular for a few years ship with GEOS? That would make it not-so-very-rare-after-all...

      I imagine "rare" would probably be Xenix on 8" floppy or something for some of those old monster Tandy systems...
    • Geos was as much of an OS as Win3.x was, being that it just sat on top of DOS. Perhaps a moot distinction, but I only ran geos (or windows) when I needed to use a particular program that ran under that GUI.

      For example, Geos had the best tetris game I've ever played on the PC :)

      Travis
    • Not as rare as you might think. Most PC's sold in Sears, Leachmere and JC Penney (yes they sold pc's) shipped with GEOS for awhile.
    • I actually bought GEOWorks as an add-on on top of DOS...around 89/90 or so. Excellent shell 'OS' of the day. Probably still have the 720kb install disks around

      Beautiful print drivers. Unbelievable print quality, even from a Panasonic 9-pin. I did some work at home, brought it in to work, and the boss asked "WHAT did you print this on?"

      With the right marketing (and being as much of an ass as Uncle Bill seems to be), this coulda been a contenda.
    • I have that rotting on some disks somewhere...

      It was renamed GeoWorks in '92.

      It had MASSIVE share problems with DOS 4.01 (which was was what included with the 286 it ran on).

      Nice GUI in general, though, but certainly not an OS. Had the coolest support for Dot-Matrix printers I've ever seen (it could get a full 244 DPI from one, if you had the time to wait).

      Memories... precious memories.

  • Windows 1.0 screenshots (Score:5, Interesting)

    by stefanlasiewski ( 63134 ) <(moc.ocnafets) (ta) (todhsals)> on Thursday September 26, 2002 @06:51PM (#4340264) Homepage Journal
    For a trip down memory lane (ok, I'm lying, my memory lane begins at Windows 3.0), here's a set of Windows screenshots, starting at 1.0 up to Win XP.

    http://www.infosatellite.com/news/2001/10/a25100 1w indowshistory_screenshots.html

    Interesting how similar Windows 2.0 looks to Windows XP, and many other GUI environments...
  • Were there any OSes you couldn't find?

    Yes. Windows 1.0...Oh, and I couldn't find an OS that would tell me how to successfully deal with girls either.

    You've just geeked 37 OS'es onto your PC. Just open your bedroom door (in your Mom and Dad's house) and wait for the babes to come stampeding in.

  • ...I could do this if I wanted to. All I would need would be more hard drives and more drive docks. Here's a peek [lowendpc.com] at what I've been doing.
  • Ok so it was just a pretty wrapper for the OS...but het so are DOS mindow managers....

  • I did 24 os's (Score:3, Interesting)

    by os2fan ( 254461 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @07:01PM (#4340344) Homepage
    I did 19 different operating systems on the 486. It's actually quite useful to fire up some specific version of dos to twinkle some version-specific bug. Here's my list.

    The installations of these were heavily stripped, because both msdos and pcdos will run the pcdos 7.0 utilities, along with a scattering of other utilities.

    System commander provided the menu.

    msdos 5.00 6.00 6.20 6.21 6.22 7.00b
    pcdos 5.00 5.02 6.00 6.10 6.30 7.00 2000
    drdos 6.00b 7.00
    mswin 95a
    os/2 3.00 4.00
    nt 4.00

    OS/2 3.0 was heavily stripped to 9MB total, it was used for burning cdroms.

    On top of these, I ran different operating system extenders: These

    dosshell [a hacked win30 standard mode]
    win30
    win31
    win311
    deskView
    qemm

    The other configurations were the main work client (pcdos 2000), a guest system for my mother (pcdos 2000 + win3.11 running a network install.

  • XOSL obviously not planning ahead (Score:5, Funny)

    by prockcore ( 543967 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @07:03PM (#4340351)
    XOSL has a 24 boot-item limit and a 56 partition limit, forcing me to install more than one dedicate installation.

    "24 boot items ought to be enough for everybody!" - Gill Bates, XOSL Developer, 1980

  • What's the record of OSes in VMware, VirtualPC, etc.? ;)

  • It's entirely possible to install almost every version of Linux on one machine. New versions of LILO eliminate the 1,024th cylinder boundary, enabling you to use up to 160GB for Linux. However, I decided to stop at around 10 versions because any more seemed redundant.

    He puts 57 operating systems on one computer, and is worried about redundancy...

  • 37 OSes but none help with the ladies.. (Score:3, Funny)

    by verch ( 12834 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @07:08PM (#4340390)
    So many jokes..

    Brain overloading!

    Anyway, my mission is clear. How could anyone possibly stop when they were so close to 42?!

  • Seen this on Tech TV a while ago (Score:4, Insightful)

    by qurob ( 543434 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @07:50PM (#4340614) Homepage

    This guy was on Tech TV the other day.

    http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/answerstips/sto ry/0,24330,3399433,00.html [techtv.com]

    There's a link to the article
  • Really, what's the point of wasting your hard-drive like that?

    Wow, he put all those versions of Windows on it and it didn't explode?

    BeOS? Huh? What? Oh, that's the road kill MS ran over using their dark force monopoly powers.

    Linx? Huh? What? Where? Hasn't MS that group of infidels yet?

    MS to Richard Robbins: thank you very much for creating a list of all the enemies we need to crush!

    US government to Richard Robbins: Your running QNX on your computer? That must make you a terrorist, since QNX can be used to control nuclear warheads or nuclear reactors!

    BSA to Richard Robbins: What? You can't find the license for Windows 1.01? That'll be 500,000 dollars, and you'll have to remove all those non-windows OS' from your computer, and sign a deal with MS stating you'll only buy MS software in the future.
  • 37 systems nothing on.
    __________________

    I bought a bourgeois house in the Hollywood hills
    With a truckload of hundred thousand dollar bills
    Man came by to hook up my ISP
    We settled in for the night my baby and me
    We switched 'round and 'round 'til half-past dawn
    There was thirty-seven systems and nothin' on

    Well now home entertainment was my baby's wish
    So I hopped into town for a satellite dish
    I tied it to the top of my Japanese car
    I came home and I pointed it out into the stars
    A message came back from the great beyond
    There's thirty-seven systems and nothin' on

    Well we might'a made some friends with some billionaires
    We might'a got all nice and friendly
    If we'd made it upstairs
    All I got was a note that said "Bye-bye John
    Our love is thirty-seven systems and nothin' on"

    So I bought a .44 magnum it was solid steel cast
    And in the blessed name of Elvis well I just let it blast
    'Til my 'puter lay in pieces there at my feet
    And they busted me for disturbin' the almighty peace
    Judge said "What you got in your defense son?"
    "Thirty-seven systems and nothin' on"
    I can see by your eyes friend you're just about gone
    Thirty-seven channels and nothin' on...
    Thirty-seven channels and nothin'

    -

  • Funny.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by phunhippy ( 86447 ) <zavoid.gmail@com> on Thursday September 26, 2002 @08:39PM (#4340847) Journal
    Out of all the OS's he is runnning... He's not running GNU/HURD :)

  • Why not HarrixOS too ?? (Score:3, Funny)

    by MeerCat ( 5914 ) on Friday September 27, 2002 @04:59AM (#4342622) Homepage
    An easy 38th with this [archive.org] - the only OS written in QBasic !
    As enthusiastically reviewed by NTK [ntk.net]

  • VMWare? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tweakt ( 325224 ) on Friday September 27, 2002 @12:55PM (#4345013) Homepage
    Buy VMware and not only have 37 operating systems, but run several simultaneously.

Slashdot Top Deals

Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.

Close