There is a reason, and that, being a business, IBM have to make money. IF OS/2 is not economically viable to keep supporting (and in the face of the MS-FUD out there, it quite possibly wasnt, definately seeing as software is not IBM's core business), then why shouldn't they drop it?
Linux on the other hand does not have to be "economically viable" to keep competing.
Microsoft FUDs the hell out of the linux community. What if they succeed? Ill tell you what :
Redhat can die. SuSE can die. Slackware can die. The kernel will still be tweaked, all the GNU stuff will still be worked on, and most likely, Debian will still be around:)
They can FUD all they want, most of the people pushing things forward will continue to do so regardless, whether it is Linux/Hurd/*BSD or whatever.
The net result on development will be effectively 0.
If linux was to miraculously fall over and die tomorrow (which it wont), FreeBSD (or another free NIX) could simply take its place anwyay .
Most debian users probably DO run out of unstable and do an "apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade" every day, but its not really necessary.
Besides, once you get the system installed, you can always just do that later in one hit, or just decide to upgrade the packages you want.
I really don't think the Debian developers are concerned with meeting any "release schedule".
Debian 2.1 (slink) may be about the same age as redhat 5.1 or so, but it is pretty much bug free, and the security issues can be fixed with a simple apt-get dist-upgrade:P My potato box here has been totally upgraded from slink to potato without even needing a reboot...
Debian 2.2 will be "released" when its good and ready, and in the meantime, people will desperately want the bleeding edge will just run from unstable anyway;)
Not everyone uses the syslinux boot floppy that redhat uses. Debian do their own boot floppies complete with dire warnings about fdisking your system;)
The redhat install system may be GPLed, but IMHO it kinda sucks.
For the *most part* the Debian 2.1 installer is much nicer, the only problem is package management using dselect.
Debian 2.2 is going to replace dselect however, so hopefully we should see a nice easy to install debian, even for first time debian installers:)
Oh, and just so you know... Debian has a 2 disk FTP install. It can also install over a PPP connection, which is something that I dont believe Redhat can do...
Debian rocks for getting a bare bones system and working your way up:)
The way I currently install Debian (after about 10-12 installs of it) is this:
Boot from cd/floppy disk Partition disks Install base system, configure base system, reboot
Once you perform the first reboot, Debian has all of the "base" files you need to run.
(having a network connection, here is where i configure apt to point to the nearest unstable mirror, and install the rest from unstable:)
From there, do not install one of the preconfigured setups.
Run dselect (argh, i know, i do network installs and use apt-get;) and pick the things that you want to use.
Do not concern yourself with packages you dont know about, if they are needed, Debian will install them:)
So for a minimal system with X, you would for example pick WindowMaker, the X server to match your card, and any X apps/C compilers you are going to use.
Debian will automatically select and install which packages are required to install what you want to use:)
I recommend WindowMaker if you are running a p120 with 32 meg. Should run about the same speed as fvwm or so, and it looks MUCH MUCH nicer:)
Last i checked, *working* hardware does not cause blue screens and system dying in linux, upon application of a "service pack" - so uh.. "especially NT" example: Trident video cards (admittedly they're crap, but a server that sits in the corner shouldnt NEED a video card)
No emergency repair disk? No problem - download one and mount your drives then fix the problem (ie, re-run lilo:P). Try that with NT without an ERD:P
Forgot the password? lilo: linux init=/bin/sh
applying service packs unwisely? hrm. linux kernels are tested before they are released as stable, and serious (ie data loss) problems are fixed very quicky if they occur (ie hours or days, rather than the next "quarterly service pack":P
2.1/2.3 kernels do not count as "service packs".
I'll agree its very easy to make wrong decisions with any OS, however a lot (most) of the bad decisions you make with NT leave you having to reinstall, whereas linux is generally fixable (how hard is it to have your old kernel in lilo boot menu?)
Also, a lot of the "bad decisions" aren't immediately clear, such as order to install software so it doesnt collapse (eg, the microsoft internet services such as IIS, exchange, service packs, etc).
anyway... i just thought the comparison was a bit harsh.. granted, you can do stupid things in any OS, but short of rm -Rf / not many leave you totally screwed... by comparison;)
and in 1985 Amiga Workbench was fully pre-emptive multitasking in 128k of ram, with dedicated custom chips for graphics and sound, displaying 4096 colors on screen, with 4 channel stereo.
unfortunately, commodore could not sell to save their life, and was FAR FAR too late with CPU updates.
smash (a 68020 (or better, 68030 with MMU) based amiga should have been available at a decent price in 1990 - rather than 1994:P)
Interesting, but being an old time gamer myself (trash 80, c64, amiga, pc) games had less bugs in them say 10-12 years ago than they do now, by a long shot.
Sure, on the amiga we used to cry "Lame ST-port!" from time to time, but generally games seemed to be reasonably stable.
I'm sure the various ports to different platforms meant extra work, but that also meant more people employed;) The same people who did the ST/Amiga versions of games didnt often do the C64/Megadrive/PC/Spectrum ports for example...
There was probably a lot of competition between the various developers as well, to try and justify the superiority of (or in the case of the old 8 bits, the point in continuing to support;) their chosen architecture
smash(its only got mono sound! lame st port! (of course, with 20-20 hindsight that is not meant to be flame (anymore;):P)
does that mean AOL are going to stop bothering to send people CDs now?:)
smash
Re:Just when I thought I was happy with Gnome...
on
KDE Looks Ahead
·
· Score: 1
The following is my experiences with both Gnome and KDE desktops, and is not meant to be flame. Try each for yourself, your mileage my vary;)
I have to say that I have tried both Gnome (twice, a 0.3 release, and a 1.0something), and KDE (been using it off and on since beta3), and have the following observations:)
Gnome: It just didnt work well. The panel would crash, the help system takes forever to load, the desktop icons (from GMC) just "feel" clunky. The fact that E/Windowmaker will try to use screenspace that is in use for GMC icons for example.
I know the "feel" is very subjective, but it just "felt" awful to try and use. I admit I did not try to make it pretty with themes, mainly due to the crashing and general sluggishness, I couldnt be bothered.
The help system is a measurable thing though, I honestly dont know what it is doing, but it takes over 10-20 seconds to load (p2-350, 128meg, just a desktop machine). The more complete KDE help system loads almost instantly (ok, so i timed it: less than 5 seconds).
Gnome 1.0 was a lot better than 0.3 in most respects (especially the panel crashing for example), however i would in no way label it as a "1.0" release. I think a more realistic version would be about 0.6. Eventually I just got bored and uninstalled it (and spent forever tracking down all the libraries it had installed to eradicate them - thank god for dpkg:)
Some people say KDE is ugly, and I will definately agree that gnome currently has the potential to look much nicer (if you download or make your own themes) however the default KDE setup is clean, understandable, and gets the job done. Personally I think it looks neat:)
KFM just plain craps all over GMC. All i want from it is Java/Javascript support that doesnt lock up constantly (a la Netscrape Navigoater) and I'll be very happy.
Installation is another issue. Everything I install these days is with APT, however I compiled KDE beta4 (and 1.0) from source under slackware without a hitch.
I gave up trying to track down all the RPMs for gnome (and required updates) under redhat (5.2), and didnt bother getting it installed until I used apt.
The fact that Gnome uses GTK is a big plus, as a lot of apps I use (xmms, gimp, etc) use it, but to be honest, loading both KDE and GTK into ram seems to be snappier than running gnome for me at the moment.
At the moment, my general feeling is that if i gave up KDE, id just go back to straight Windowmaker (+ the obligator Xterms) that I was using before.
If there is a Gnome release that people can point at and say "yes this is stable" that doesnt look like a hacked together mish mash of a clumsy panel and GMC then I'm all for it.
People will no doubt comment that Gnome has a lot more going on underneath or whatever, and the grand scheme of things is going to be great, but currently, I want to get my work done. I currently dont care, I'm goig to use the best tool for the job, and for me that is currently KDE.
Id just like to point out that other than gnome itself, the vast majority of GTK applications have been very nice:)
Sorry to be blunt and all.. but thats my experiences, lets hope they arent pointless;)
To the person who was talking about slow framerates in UT... its not optimized for TNT support yet...
Anyway.. on the parallel processing thing... arent biological processors that they are playing with relatively slow, but massively parallel? I can just see it now... one processor for each PIXEL on your screen... perfect application for SMP if you ask me:)
at 550Mhz, the entire machine is running at 550Mhz.
The fact that it has 2 cpus means it can just do more in each clock cycle.
Consider if IBM was to put multiple G4 cores on the same die running at 600mhz. People would not say that they had a 1200Mhz CPU.
The reasoning that 2 CPUs increases clockspeed is similar to arguing that your 386dx-33 is twice the megahertz of your 386sx-33 because it has a bus which is twice as wide.
OR that a 486dx-33 is twice the megahertz of a 486sx-33 because it has an on board FPU.
smash
Re:Mine worked surprisingly well under win32
on
Mozilla M10 Released
·
· Score: 1
hrm.. i have a potato debian machine running netscape, usually less than a week off current, and I dont have many problems with Netscape crashing anymore..
what i DO have a problem with tho, is that it leaks memory like a sieve:P leave it running for a day or 2 and it grows to like 80megs.
I just installed squid this week and turned off all netscape caching... so hopefully maybe that will stop it leaking so bad...
for those who havent tried setting up squid, try it:) its MUCHMUCH MUCH faster than netscrape's built in caching.. and you can use it with KFM, lynx, whatever else as well as one unified cache:)
Summary The Linux operating system is not suitable for mainstream usage by business or home users. Today with Windows NT 4.0, customers can be confident in delivering applications that are scalable, secure, and reliable--yet cost effective to deploy and manage.
Linux clearly has a long way to go to be competitive with Windows NT 4.0. With the release of the Windows 2000 operating system, Microsoft extends the technical superiority of the platform even further ensuring that customers can deliver the next generation applications to solve their business challenges.
Maybe someone should tell the DOJ. I was under the impression that Microsoft was under grave danger from the mighty Linux:P
All systems are vulnerable to security issues, however it's important to note that Linux uses the same security model as the original UNIX implementations- a model that was not designed from the ground up to be secure.
FALSE The unix security model has had 20-30 years of scrutiny by the hackers the world over. Lots of IT people put linux boxes in as firewalls in front of their Windows (NT as well) network. I know of no-one who uses Windows NT as a firewall in front of anything else (but maybe im just a minority)
Linux only provides access controls for files and directories. In contrast, every object in Windows NT, from files to operating system data structures, has an access control list and its use can be regulated as appropriate.
FALSE In unix, files represent everything from files to devices. An Access list can be achieved by using group ownership. NT just confuses the issue by representing devices and files in 2 completely different ways. (any ideas how to prevent users from using the soundcard for example?:) unix - chmod 000/dev/audio (or other) )
Linux security is all-or-nothing. Administrators cannot delegate administrative privileges: a user who needs any administrative capability must be made a full administrator, which compromises best security practices. In contrast, Windows NT allows an administrator to delegate privileges at an exceptionally fine-grained level.
FALSE You can either set the PC up properly with group access to devices/files/whatever, or you can set up SUDO to allow certain users to perform certain commands only. define "exceptionally fine-grained level":) Compared to DOS?:)
Linux has not supported key security accreditation standards. Every member of the Windows NT family since Windows NT 3.5 has been evaluated at either a C2 level under the U.S. Government's evaluation process or at a C2-equivalent level under the British Government's ITSEC process. In contrast, no Linux products are listed on the U.S. Government's evaluated product list.
TRUE - but misleading Microsoft neglects to mention that the C2 certification is null and void if the NT machine is plugged into a network:)
Linux system administrators must spend huge amounts of time understanding the latest Linux bugs and determining what to do about them. This is made complex due to the fact that there isn't a central location for security issues to be reported and fixed. In contrast Microsoft provides a single security repository for notification and fixes of security related issues.
IRRELEVANT Linux is not Red Hat. Run Debian, and if you have a properly secured machine, bugs are fixed when you do your regular "apt-get update;apt-get dist-upgrade":) If you do this daily, the chances are the security hole is fixed within a day of it becoming known.
NT requires a SPACK application (uh.. service pack;) which has a high probability of breaking installed services (as outlined below).
Configuring Linux security requires an administator to be an expert in the intricacies of the operating system and how components interact. Misconfigure any part of the operating system and the system could be vulnerable to attack. Windows NT security is easy to set up and administer with tools such as the Security Configuration Editor.
FALSE FALSE FALSE!! Linux requires that you either read the documentation, or sure, get someone with experience to secure your machine. Windows NT on the other hand, requires an expert to INSTALL THE SOFTWARE IN THE CORRECT MAGIC ORDER for it to work at all. Example: Install NT server. Install BackOffice, Routing and RAS. Install SP5. MS proxy server breaks.
Windows NT servers are typically a hodge-podge of poorly integrated patches that break each other if applied in anything but one magic order. This order is discovered by trial and error, and NT reinstalls.
anyway.. i just had to have my say.... one of our client's NT servers (which we are due to firewall with a debian box) BSODed and didnt come back up. Upon reinstall, SP5 broke MS proxy today:)
I'm not ever going to bother with Redhat again unless they fix the following major problems:
RPMS There is no way that I know of to easily upgrade packages. Sure, you can just rpm -i the new rpm, but then it depends on some other new rpm that you have to locate, download, upgrade, only to find THAT requires something else.. etc.. There is no central repositry for RPMs like there is with debian... Something like apt (debian) is desperately needed to figure out package dependancy downloading for you:) To get around the braindead dependancies i just compiled stuff from source, which kinda defeats the purpose of HAVING rpms:P
General flakiness The last redhat release i played with (version 5.2) had sendmail 8.8, and bind version 4.9 or something... any reason for this? Both were known security problems (that had been fixed for a while) on the day it shipped AFAIK:P
I really dont know what everyone seems to see in redhat...
smash (not intended to be flamebait, just curious - btw I was a Redhat user for all versions between 4.1 and 5.2, switched to debian...)
OK from personaly experience the following things are "difficult" about linux installs:
1. Disk partitioning 2. X configuration 3. Getting a network card to work
And -
1. Disk Partitioning When i got slackware 3.1 as my first distro (off the net and onto floppies, no less (that kept getting bad sectors.. but thats another story:P), I spent ages figuring out how to partition, and then doing it totally wrong and reinstalling:P
This has been made much better by Redhat (and its variants) in particular offering "default" partition layouts. Good for people who dont know what is what with the unix-type filesystem layout. A simple "root + swap" 2 partition setup would be fine for the average desktop linux user i suspect. People who need more than that (who are setting up servers for example) SHOULD know what the hell they are doing.
2. X configuration This has been largely addressed, however what would be MUCH help is actually having hardware specs available with hardware. I dont mean programming info necessarily, but sync rates of monitors/video cards, etc. Some simple instructions from video card vendors would help here: eg for a TNT2: run xconfig, type options blah blah blah.
Some sort of help file with common video cards and what to set them up as would be a help (displayed on screen with a "click here for help" button:P)
The VESA framebuffer will help here, as a last resort type setup, as a "i dont know" option in setup so that additional updates can be done after X install.
3. Getting a Network card to work. Major problem is that most distros have them all loadable modules, and typically want IO addresses for them, etc. Hopefully PNP will help here?
Other than that, disks are large enough these days for most users to just do an "everything" install, and worry about figuring out what they need after they get some experience (as I gather everbody first did when they first installed windows anyway:)
Linux WAS hard to install. These days, the most difficult thing (assuming you are doing a Redhat install) is video card or network card setup.
Redhat is unfortunately hard to update so I dont use it tho:)
I currently run Debian (potato) and have found that since I upgraded glibc a month or so ago, Netscape has been FAR FAR FAR more stable than it was before.
It still does crash occasionally, but nowhere near as often as it did before.
So I guess I'm saying that if you're running a glibc distro, try upgrading to the latest libc version.
If you happen to run debian, a regular:
apt-get update apt-get dist-upgrade
should keep your libc updated...
May be hard to admit, but possibly there are instabilities in libc that are contributing to the problems. It definately improved things for me anyway...
Doesn't change the fact that its still a bloated pile of uh.. stuff tho, netscape using 20Mb ram as I write..:)
smash(currently libc6 2.1.2-2 and netscape-base-4 4.61-21 debian packages installed)
hrm. let me first just say that I am a linux person (running linux by choice right now:) and this is not intended to slam X at all... just my own observations...
sorry but I have to agree that windows 95 is probably faster than X on a 486 at doing certain things. i havent timed anything (I dont have my 486 anymore;) but i was running Win95 on my old 486-33 a couple of years ago, with 20meg of ram it was actually quite usable - even running netscape 4.0..
the quickest "feeling" graphical interface i have seen actually seems to be Windows NT 4.0. by this I just mean in window redrawing (sizing, moving etc). the OS itself is still pig slow at swapping, and swaps quite a bit more than it should with my 96 meg work machine.
regardless, i can live with X. it is *fast enough* and much more useful than any NT machine:)
hrm.. i seem to recall reading somewhere that the 8087 (the math co-processor for an 8086 XT) can handle 80 bit floating point numbers.
this doesnt make an XT with co-pro an 80 bit system tho... i think "they" only count integer size, as that is what is more commonly used for "normal" data types such as manipulating strings, integers, pointers, etc...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm very surprised that old billy boy hasn't patented "1 click computing" for his craptive desktop that is included with IE4.0...
smash
click here
smash
As another poster mentioned, IBM conceded early.
:)
There is a reason, and that, being a business, IBM have to make money. IF OS/2 is not economically viable to keep supporting (and in the face of the MS-FUD out there, it quite possibly wasnt, definately seeing as software is not IBM's core business), then why shouldn't they drop it?
Linux on the other hand does not have to be "economically viable" to keep competing.
Microsoft FUDs the hell out of the linux community. What if they succeed? Ill tell you what :
Redhat can die. SuSE can die. Slackware can die. The kernel will still be tweaked, all the GNU stuff will still be worked on, and most likely, Debian will still be around
They can FUD all they want, most of the people pushing things forward will continue to do so regardless, whether it is Linux/Hurd/*BSD or whatever.
The net result on development will be effectively 0.
If linux was to miraculously fall over and die tomorrow (which it wont), FreeBSD (or another free NIX) could simply take its place anwyay .
smash
On the release schedule with debian thing...
:P My potato box here has been totally upgraded from slink to potato without even needing a reboot...
;)
Most debian users probably DO run out of unstable and do an "apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade" every day, but its not really necessary.
Besides, once you get the system installed, you can always just do that later in one hit, or just decide to upgrade the packages you want.
I really don't think the Debian developers are concerned with meeting any "release schedule".
Debian 2.1 (slink) may be about the same age as redhat 5.1 or so, but it is pretty much bug free, and the security issues can be fixed with a simple apt-get dist-upgrade
Debian 2.2 will be "released" when its good and ready, and in the meantime, people will desperately want the bleeding edge will just run from unstable anyway
smash
Couple of things so the non-debian people know ;)
;)
:)
Not everyone uses the syslinux boot floppy that redhat uses. Debian do their own boot floppies complete with dire warnings about fdisking your system
The redhat install system may be GPLed, but IMHO it kinda sucks.
For the *most part* the Debian 2.1 installer is much nicer, the only problem is package management using dselect.
Debian 2.2 is going to replace dselect however, so hopefully we should see a nice easy to install debian, even for first time debian installers
Oh, and just so you know... Debian has a 2 disk FTP install. It can also install over a PPP connection, which is something that I dont believe Redhat can do...
smash
Debian rocks for getting a bare bones system and working your way up :)
:)
;) and pick the things that you want to use.
:)
:)
:)
The way I currently install Debian (after about 10-12 installs of it) is this:
Boot from cd/floppy disk
Partition disks
Install base system, configure base system, reboot
Once you perform the first reboot, Debian has all of the "base" files you need to run.
(having a network connection, here is where i configure apt to point to the nearest unstable mirror, and install the rest from unstable
From there, do not install one of the preconfigured setups.
Run dselect (argh, i know, i do network installs and use apt-get
Do not concern yourself with packages you dont know about, if they are needed, Debian will install them
So for a minimal system with X, you would for example pick WindowMaker, the X server to match your card, and any X apps/C compilers you are going to use.
Debian will automatically select and install which packages are required to install what you want to use
I recommend WindowMaker if you are running a p120 with 32 meg. Should run about the same speed as fvwm or so, and it looks MUCH MUCH nicer
smash
Using the wrong hardware?
:P). Try that with NT without an ERD :P
:P
... by comparison ;)
Last i checked, *working* hardware does not cause blue screens and system dying in linux, upon application of a "service pack" - so uh.. "especially NT" example: Trident video cards (admittedly they're crap, but a server that sits in the corner shouldnt NEED a video card)
No emergency repair disk? No problem - download one and mount your drives then fix the problem (ie, re-run lilo
Forgot the password?
lilo: linux init=/bin/sh
applying service packs unwisely?
hrm. linux kernels are tested before they are released as stable, and serious (ie data loss) problems are fixed very quicky if they occur (ie hours or days, rather than the next "quarterly service pack"
2.1/2.3 kernels do not count as "service packs".
I'll agree its very easy to make wrong decisions with any OS, however a lot (most) of the bad decisions you make with NT leave you having to reinstall, whereas linux is generally fixable (how hard is it to have your old kernel in lilo boot menu?)
Also, a lot of the "bad decisions" aren't immediately clear, such as order to install software so it doesnt collapse (eg, the microsoft internet services such as IIS, exchange, service packs, etc).
anyway... i just thought the comparison was a bit harsh.. granted, you can do stupid things in any OS, but short of rm -Rf / not many leave you totally screwed
smash
heh.
:P
:)
The n64 was overhyped as well
Maybe its an omen
smash
and in 1985 Amiga Workbench was fully pre-emptive multitasking in 128k of ram, with dedicated custom chips for graphics and sound, displaying 4096 colors on screen, with 4 channel stereo.
:P)
unfortunately, commodore could not sell to save their life, and was FAR FAR too late with CPU updates.
smash (a 68020 (or better, 68030 with MMU) based amiga should have been available at a decent price in 1990 - rather than 1994
Interesting, but being an old time gamer myself (trash 80, c64, amiga, pc) games had less bugs in them say 10-12 years ago than they do now, by a long shot.
;) The same people who did the ST/Amiga versions of games didnt often do the C64/Megadrive/PC/Spectrum ports for example...
;) their chosen architecture
;) :P)
Sure, on the amiga we used to cry "Lame ST-port!" from time to time, but generally games seemed to be reasonably stable.
I'm sure the various ports to different platforms meant extra work, but that also meant more people employed
There was probably a lot of competition between the various developers as well, to try and justify the superiority of (or in the case of the old 8 bits, the point in continuing to support
smash(its only got mono sound! lame st port! (of course, with 20-20 hindsight that is not meant to be flame (anymore
does that mean AOL are going to stop bothering to send people CDs now? :)
smash
The following is my experiences with both Gnome and KDE desktops, and is not meant to be flame. Try each for yourself, your mileage my vary ;)
:)
:)
:)
:)
;)
I have to say that I have tried both Gnome (twice, a 0.3 release, and a 1.0something), and KDE (been using it off and on since beta3), and have the following observations
Gnome:
It just didnt work well. The panel would crash, the help system takes forever to load, the desktop icons (from GMC) just "feel" clunky. The fact that E/Windowmaker will try to use screenspace that is in use for GMC icons for example.
I know the "feel" is very subjective, but it just "felt" awful to try and use. I admit I did not try to make it pretty with themes, mainly due to the crashing and general sluggishness, I couldnt be bothered.
The help system is a measurable thing though, I honestly dont know what it is doing, but it takes over 10-20 seconds to load (p2-350, 128meg, just a desktop machine). The more complete KDE help system loads almost instantly (ok, so i timed it: less than 5 seconds).
Gnome 1.0 was a lot better than 0.3 in most respects (especially the panel crashing for example), however i would in no way label it as a "1.0" release. I think a more realistic version would be about 0.6. Eventually I just got bored and uninstalled it (and spent forever tracking down all the libraries it had installed to eradicate them - thank god for dpkg
Some people say KDE is ugly, and I will definately agree that gnome currently has the potential to look much nicer (if you download or make your own themes) however the default KDE setup is clean, understandable, and gets the job done. Personally I think it looks neat
KFM just plain craps all over GMC. All i want from it is Java/Javascript support that doesnt lock up constantly (a la Netscrape Navigoater) and I'll be very happy.
Installation is another issue. Everything I install these days is with APT, however I compiled KDE beta4 (and 1.0) from source under slackware without a hitch.
I gave up trying to track down all the RPMs for gnome (and required updates) under redhat (5.2), and didnt bother getting it installed until I used apt.
The fact that Gnome uses GTK is a big plus, as a lot of apps I use (xmms, gimp, etc) use it, but to be honest, loading both KDE and GTK into ram seems to be snappier than running gnome for me at the moment.
At the moment, my general feeling is that if i gave up KDE, id just go back to straight Windowmaker (+ the obligator Xterms) that I was using before.
If there is a Gnome release that people can point at and say "yes this is stable" that doesnt look like a hacked together mish mash of a clumsy panel and GMC then I'm all for it.
People will no doubt comment that Gnome has a lot more going on underneath or whatever, and the grand scheme of things is going to be great, but currently, I want to get my work done. I currently dont care, I'm goig to use the best tool for the job, and for me that is currently KDE.
Id just like to point out that other than gnome itself, the vast majority of GTK applications have been very nice
Sorry to be blunt and all.. but thats my experiences, lets hope they arent pointless
smash
To the person who was talking about slow framerates in UT... its not optimized for TNT support yet...
... perfect application for SMP if you ask me :)
Anyway.. on the parallel processing thing... arent biological processors that they are playing with relatively slow, but massively parallel? I can just see it now... one processor for each PIXEL on your screen
smash
heh.
:)
:P
:)
we do primary DNS and mail relay for about hrm.. 400 simultaneous clients on a p200mmx linux box
ah well
our proxy server for the same clients is a p2-300 with 320meg ram.
it also does secondary DNS, and sits on a load of about 0.10 pretty constantly
smash
Mhz = cycles per second.
at 550Mhz, the entire machine is running at 550Mhz.
The fact that it has 2 cpus means it can just do more in each clock cycle.
Consider if IBM was to put multiple G4 cores on the same die running at 600mhz. People would not say that they had a 1200Mhz CPU.
The reasoning that 2 CPUs increases clockspeed is similar to arguing that your 386dx-33 is twice the megahertz of your 386sx-33 because it has a bus which is twice as wide.
OR that a 486dx-33 is twice the megahertz of a 486sx-33 because it has an on board FPU.
smash
hrm.. i have a potato debian machine running netscape, usually less than a week off current, and I dont have many problems with Netscape crashing anymore..
:P
:) its MUCHMUCH MUCH faster than netscrape's built in caching.. and you can use it with KFM, lynx, whatever else as well as one unified cache :)
what i DO have a problem with tho, is that it leaks memory like a sieve
leave it running for a day or 2 and it grows to like 80megs.
I just installed squid this week and turned off all netscape caching... so hopefully maybe that will stop it leaking so bad...
for those who havent tried setting up squid, try it
smash
also relevant:
:P
Summary
The Linux operating system is not suitable for mainstream usage by business or home users. Today
with Windows NT 4.0, customers can be confident in delivering applications that are scalable, secure,
and reliable--yet cost effective to deploy and manage.
Linux clearly has a long way to go to be
competitive with Windows NT 4.0. With the release of the Windows 2000 operating system, Microsoft extends the technical superiority of the platform even further ensuring that customers can deliver the next generation applications to solve their business challenges.
Maybe someone should tell the DOJ. I was under the impression that Microsoft was under grave danger from the mighty Linux
smash
Myth: Linux is more secure than Windows NT
Reality: Linux Security Model Is Weak
All systems are vulnerable to security issues, however it's important to note that Linux uses the same security model as the original UNIX implementations- a model that was not designed from the ground up to be secure.
FALSE
The unix security model has had 20-30 years of scrutiny by the hackers the world over. Lots of IT people put linux boxes in as firewalls in front of their Windows (NT as well) network. I know of no-one who uses Windows NT as a firewall in front of anything else (but maybe im just a minority)
Linux only provides access controls for files and directories. In contrast, every object in Windows NT, from files to operating system data structures, has an access control list and its use can be regulated as appropriate.
FALSE :) unix - chmod 000 /dev/audio (or other) )
In unix, files represent everything from files to devices. An Access list can be achieved by using group ownership. NT just confuses the issue by representing devices and files in 2 completely different ways. (any ideas how to prevent users from using the soundcard for example?
Linux security is all-or-nothing. Administrators cannot delegate administrative privileges: a user who needs any administrative capability must be made a full administrator, which compromises best security practices. In contrast, Windows NT allows an administrator to delegate privileges at an exceptionally fine-grained level.
FALSE :) Compared to DOS? :)
You can either set the PC up properly with group access to devices/files/whatever, or you can set up SUDO to allow certain users to perform certain commands only. define "exceptionally fine-grained level"
Linux has not supported key security accreditation standards. Every member of the Windows NT family since Windows NT 3.5 has been evaluated at either a C2 level under the U.S. Government's evaluation process or at a C2-equivalent level under the British Government's ITSEC process. In contrast, no Linux products are listed on the U.S. Government's evaluated product list.
TRUE - but misleading :)
Microsoft neglects to mention that the C2 certification is null and void if the NT machine is plugged into a network
Linux system administrators must spend huge amounts of time understanding the latest Linux bugs and determining what to do about them. This is made complex due to the fact that there isn't a central location for security issues to be reported and fixed. In contrast Microsoft provides a single security repository for notification and fixes of security related issues.
IRRELEVANT :) If you do this daily, the chances are the security hole is fixed within a day of it becoming known.
Linux is not Red Hat. Run Debian, and if you have a properly secured machine, bugs are fixed when you do your regular "apt-get update;apt-get dist-upgrade"
NT requires a SPACK application (uh.. service pack ;) which has a high probability of breaking installed services (as outlined below).
Configuring Linux security requires an administator to be an expert in the intricacies of the operating system and how components interact. Misconfigure any part of the operating system and the system could be vulnerable to attack. Windows NT security is easy to set up and administer with tools such as the Security Configuration Editor.
FALSE FALSE FALSE!!
Linux requires that you either read the documentation, or sure, get someone with experience to secure your machine. Windows NT on the other hand, requires an expert to INSTALL THE SOFTWARE IN THE CORRECT MAGIC ORDER for it to work at all. Example: Install NT server. Install BackOffice, Routing and RAS. Install SP5. MS proxy server breaks.
Windows NT servers are typically a hodge-podge of poorly integrated patches that break each other if applied in anything but one magic order. This order is discovered by trial and error, and NT reinstalls.
anyway.. i just had to have my say.... one of our client's NT servers (which we are due to firewall with a debian box) BSODed and didnt come back up. Upon reinstall, SP5 broke MS proxy today :)
smash
bah.
;)
keyboards stink
we need a neural interface
smash
ah well.
:)
:)
:)
it still doesnt fix the other problems with releasing products with known dodgy versions of sendmail and bind, etc
Debian's apt is better. total machine upgrade overnight with the following commands:
apt-get update
apt-get dist-upgrade
if some debs are missing, do an apt-get -f to fix them
then go to sleep while it download the 50meg or whatever, wake up and press enter to install it all
smash
I'm not ever going to bother with Redhat again unless they fix the following major problems:
:) :P
:P
RPMS
There is no way that I know of to easily upgrade packages. Sure, you can just rpm -i the new rpm, but then it depends on some other new rpm that you have to locate, download, upgrade, only to find THAT requires something else.. etc.. There is no central repositry for RPMs like there is with debian...
Something like apt (debian) is desperately needed to figure out package dependancy downloading for you
To get around the braindead dependancies i just compiled stuff from source, which kinda defeats the purpose of HAVING rpms
General flakiness
The last redhat release i played with (version 5.2) had sendmail 8.8, and bind version 4.9 or something... any reason for this? Both were known security problems (that had been fixed for a while) on the day it shipped AFAIK
I really dont know what everyone seems to see in redhat...
smash (not intended to be flamebait, just curious - btw I was a Redhat user for all versions between 4.1 and 5.2, switched to debian...)
OK from personaly experience the following things are "difficult" about linux installs:
:P), I spent ages figuring out how to partition, and then doing it totally wrong and reinstalling :P
:P)
:)
:)
:)
1. Disk partitioning
2. X configuration
3. Getting a network card to work
And -
1. Disk Partitioning
When i got slackware 3.1 as my first distro (off the net and onto floppies, no less (that kept getting bad sectors.. but thats another story
This has been made much better by Redhat (and its variants) in particular offering "default" partition layouts. Good for people who dont know what is what with the unix-type filesystem layout. A simple "root + swap" 2 partition setup would be fine for the average desktop linux user i suspect. People who need more than that (who are setting up servers for example) SHOULD know what the hell they are doing.
2. X configuration
This has been largely addressed, however what would be MUCH help is actually having hardware specs available with hardware. I dont mean programming info necessarily, but sync rates of monitors/video cards, etc. Some simple instructions from video card vendors would help here: eg for a TNT2: run xconfig, type options blah blah blah.
Some sort of help file with common video cards and what to set them up as would be a help (displayed on screen with a "click here for help" button
The VESA framebuffer will help here, as a last resort type setup, as a "i dont know" option in setup so that additional updates can be done after X install.
3. Getting a Network card to work.
Major problem is that most distros have them all loadable modules, and typically want IO addresses for them, etc. Hopefully PNP will help here?
Other than that, disks are large enough these days for most users to just do an "everything" install, and worry about figuring out what they need after they get some experience (as I gather everbody first did when they first installed windows anyway
Linux WAS hard to install. These days, the most difficult thing (assuming you are doing a Redhat install) is video card or network card setup.
Redhat is unfortunately hard to update so I dont use it tho
debian's apt-get is just too funky
but now im rambling....
smash
I currently run Debian (potato) and have found that since I upgraded glibc a month or so ago, Netscape has been FAR FAR FAR more stable than it was before.
:)
It still does crash occasionally, but nowhere near as often as it did before.
So I guess I'm saying that if you're running a glibc distro, try upgrading to the latest libc version.
If you happen to run debian, a regular:
apt-get update
apt-get dist-upgrade
should keep your libc updated...
May be hard to admit, but possibly there are instabilities in libc that are contributing to the problems. It definately improved things for me anyway...
Doesn't change the fact that its still a bloated pile of uh.. stuff tho, netscape using 20Mb ram as I write..
smash(currently libc6 2.1.2-2 and netscape-base-4 4.61-21 debian packages installed)
hrm. let me first just say that I am a linux person (running linux by choice right now :) and this is not intended to slam X at all... just my own observations...
;) but i was running Win95 on my old 486-33 a couple of years ago, with 20meg of ram it was actually quite usable - even running netscape 4.0..
:)
sorry but I have to agree that windows 95 is probably faster than X on a 486 at doing certain things. i havent timed anything (I dont have my 486 anymore
the quickest "feeling" graphical interface i have seen actually seems to be Windows NT 4.0. by this I just mean in window redrawing (sizing, moving etc). the OS itself is still pig slow at swapping, and swaps quite a bit more than it should with my 96 meg work machine.
regardless, i can live with X. it is *fast enough* and much more useful than any NT machine
hrm.. i seem to recall reading somewhere that the 8087 (the math co-processor for an 8086 XT) can handle 80 bit floating point numbers.
this doesnt make an XT with co-pro an 80 bit system tho... i think "they" only count integer size, as that is what is more commonly used for "normal" data types such as manipulating strings, integers, pointers, etc...
smash