They told NT things like "set maxmem=1024" in boot.ini, but did NOT tell Linux "RAM=1024" in/etc/lilo.conf. So Linux only detected 960MB.
And there were others! Which tells me these guys were NOT very familiar with Linux (like compiling the kernel). It does not look like they compiled it for the PII either. And, BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION, the RAID driver was beta. Is it binary only? I hate to be a skeptic, but we could have OEMs purposely botching binary-only Linux drivers (it would be stupid, but NOT beyond what M$ is capable of).
Also, try going past 144 users and NT will start to choke. Why? Because it needs 1GB of RAM to support 144 users. Slim the memory down to 256MB of RAM and see what happens.
Pre-installed Windows vs. you-install Linux ...
on
Slate Takes on Linux
·
· Score: 1
Actually, a more REAL comparison is installing Linux to installing NT.
I am sorry, but with the age of the Internet -- the age of single-user has come and gone. Home users will just have to grow up sooner than later. Hence, why we have these virus problems today.
Pre-installed Windows vs. you-install Linux ...
on
Slate Takes on Linux
·
· Score: 1
I understand your points, but you were missing mine...
I was talking about getting a pre-installed Linux system (not installing either). Your mentioning of the video problem points out the issue, you need to check the hardware compatibility list before installing. If you buy a system with Linux pre-installed, you do not have such issues my friend.
As far as your "easy" of installing Windows 98, it was on a system that already had Windows 95 -- right? I can say the same for upgrading RedHat 5.0 or 5.1 to 5.2! Very easy to do. Linux is NOT an upgrade for Windows 95! People seem to miss that point!
And if you had to install Windows 98 from just the CD on a blank system, could you do it? Especially from a Windows 95/A/B CD-ROM, which does not seem to be bootable in any system. And if you read the one article over on a Microsoft publication, you would have heard about the user who spent two paragraphs complaining how she could not get the RedHat CD to boot (because she did not know how to tell the BIOS to boot from the CD first).
Again, I think you missed my points here. But you are just among the 99% of the population that does. That is why it is so hard to fight the FUD onslaught, it is coming from biased people. They are still thinking with a "Windows is everything" mentality. If you are already used to Windows, OF COURSE IT WILL BE EASIER!
As I have said before, most people find rebooting is often easier than using a new OS. And don't even get me started on security!
Maybe Eric S. Raymond will send a letter to "cease all use of the OpenSource(TM) trademark" stating it is being incorrectly used.
It is not only a damn funny idea but a wake up call to GET OFF THE HYPE!
PS, I always have though Gore is 10x worse than Dan Quayle!
They call the ZD SMB Bench "Specialized"???
on
WSJ Says Linux Lags
·
· Score: 1
Linux fares better in more specialized tests, though. In one recent test by Smart Reseller, a trade publication, Linux proved to be more than 2 1/2 times faster than Windows NT in certain common computer-networking tasks.
That is utter bull! The Smart Reseller test was the STANDARD ZD SMB/WINDOWS SERVER BENCHMARK!!! It is how ALL WINDOWS SERVERS ARE BENCHMARKED! It IS THE STANDARD OF WINDOWS NETWORKING BENCHMARKS!
There was an article over on Ziff-Davis a couple of weeks ago. They spoke with the director of sales.
The article focused on how Microsoft may be killing themselves when they strong-arm OEMs.
Pre-installed Windows vs. you-install Linux ...
on
Slate Takes on Linux
·
· Score: 2
Pre-installed Windows vs. you-install Linux...
I am SICK AND TIRED of articles comparing pre-installed Windows systems vs. "you-install" Linux. Totally unfair.
Can we PLEASE get some REAL ARTICLES showing a pre-installed Linux system vs. a pre-installed Windows 98 system?
And also, compare Linux more to Windows NT since Windows 98 IS easier to understand from a layman's standpoint since it is a single user system. Of course that comes with the fact that a cracker can trash it in their sleep!
60% OF ORACLE SERVERS ARE NOW SHIPPING WITH LINUX!
Why? Because M$ does not allow top-tier vendors to bundle Oracle with Windows NT servers. This is designed so end-users are forced to go with M$ SQL Server. But the actual result is that the strategy is backfiring along a different path, people are chosing Linux over NT.
I mean, if you are a Dell, IBM, Compaq or HP customer, what would you choose?
An NT server with Oracle SQL post-installed by either a 3rd party or yourself, unsupported by the OEM?
Or a Linux server with Oracle SQL pre-installed with vendor support?
The same goes for the other non-M$ DB players, Oracle, Sybase, Informix, IBM, etc...
Trust me, Oracle SQL Server on Linux is MUCH, MORE STABLE than NT! Against, Solaris, that is a completely different question (especially since it scales much higher). But for a workgroup/mid-enterprise server, I'd say you cannot got wrong with Linux.
Don't be surprise when Linux outsells NT PRE-INSTALLED on servers this year.
Possibly DVD-RW and other, non-standard optical formats as well?
They want you to shove out over $100 for the NT drivers with most DVD-RAM kits (which are $500-1,000 themselves and only include Win9x drivers). If Linux had UDF support built-in, that would kick butt.
Since Linux has some PD (Panasonic's Phase-Dual technology, rewritable CDs in cases, used before CD-RW was standardized) support, does that use UDF too? Actually, know that I am thinking straight, I believe you had to format PD disks in another filesystem format under Linux (FAT16 or Ext2).
DVD-RAM works very similiar to PD (and, not surprisingly, came out of Panasonic).
Slashdot Mirror
Coincides with the nice signed 32-bit POSIX/C overflow of 99.9% of the world's systems. :->
They told NT things like "set maxmem=1024" in boot.ini, but did NOT tell Linux "RAM=1024" in /etc/lilo.conf. So Linux only detected 960MB.
And there were others! Which tells me these guys were NOT very familiar with Linux (like compiling the kernel). It does not look like they compiled it for the PII either. And, BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION, the RAID driver was beta. Is it binary only? I hate to be a skeptic, but we could have OEMs purposely botching binary-only Linux drivers (it would be stupid, but NOT beyond what M$ is capable of).
Also, try going past 144 users and NT will start to choke. Why? Because it needs 1GB of RAM to support 144 users. Slim the memory down to 256MB of RAM and see what happens.
Actually, a more REAL comparison is installing Linux to installing NT.
I am sorry, but with the age of the Internet -- the age of single-user has come and gone. Home users will just have to grow up sooner than later. Hence, why we have these virus problems today.
I understand your points, but you were missing mine ...
I was talking about getting a pre-installed Linux system (not installing either). Your mentioning of the video problem points out the issue, you need to check the hardware compatibility list before installing. If you buy a system with Linux pre-installed, you do not have such issues my friend.
As far as your "easy" of installing Windows 98, it was on a system that already had Windows 95 -- right? I can say the same for upgrading RedHat 5.0 or 5.1 to 5.2! Very easy to do. Linux is NOT an upgrade for Windows 95! People seem to miss that point!
And if you had to install Windows 98 from just the CD on a blank system, could you do it? Especially from a Windows 95/A/B CD-ROM, which does not seem to be bootable in any system. And if you read the one article over on a Microsoft publication, you would have heard about the user who spent two paragraphs complaining how she could not get the RedHat CD to boot (because she did not know how to tell the BIOS to boot from the CD first).
Again, I think you missed my points here. But you are just among the 99% of the population that does. That is why it is so hard to fight the FUD onslaught, it is coming from biased people. They are still thinking with a "Windows is everything" mentality. If you are already used to Windows, OF COURSE IT WILL BE EASIER!
As I have said before, most people find rebooting is often easier than using a new OS. And don't even get me started on security!
Maybe Eric S. Raymond will send a letter to "cease all use of the OpenSource(TM) trademark" stating it is being incorrectly used.
It is not only a damn funny idea but a wake up call to GET OFF THE HYPE!
PS, I always have though Gore is 10x worse than Dan Quayle!
Linux fares better in more specialized tests, though. In one recent test by Smart Reseller, a trade publication, Linux proved to be more than 2 1/2 times faster than Windows NT in certain common computer-networking tasks.
That is utter bull! The Smart Reseller test was the STANDARD ZD SMB/WINDOWS SERVER BENCHMARK!!! It is how ALL WINDOWS SERVERS ARE BENCHMARKED! It IS THE STANDARD OF WINDOWS NETWORKING BENCHMARKS!
Just more FUD.
When did that happen (or did he help found Cygnus?)
How does Delorie.COM factor into Cygnus then (still a separate entity?).
There was an article over on Ziff-Davis a couple of weeks ago. They spoke with the director of sales.
The article focused on how Microsoft may be killing themselves when they strong-arm OEMs.
Pre-installed Windows vs. you-install Linux ...
I am SICK AND TIRED of articles comparing pre-installed Windows systems vs. "you-install" Linux. Totally unfair.
Can we PLEASE get some REAL ARTICLES showing a pre-installed Linux system vs. a pre-installed Windows 98 system?
And also, compare Linux more to Windows NT since Windows 98 IS easier to understand from a layman's standpoint since it is a single user system. Of course that comes with the fact that a cracker can trash it in their sleep!
My $0.02 and damn good pennies too!
60% OF ORACLE SERVERS ARE NOW SHIPPING WITH LINUX!
Why? Because M$ does not allow top-tier vendors to bundle Oracle with Windows NT servers. This is designed so end-users are forced to go with M$ SQL Server. But the actual result is that the strategy is backfiring along a different path, people are chosing Linux over NT.
I mean, if you are a Dell, IBM, Compaq or HP customer, what would you choose?
The same goes for the other non-M$ DB players, Oracle, Sybase, Informix, IBM, etc...
Trust me, Oracle SQL Server on Linux is MUCH, MORE STABLE than NT! Against, Solaris, that is a completely different question (especially since it scales much higher). But for a workgroup/mid-enterprise server, I'd say you cannot got wrong with Linux.
Don't be surprise when Linux outsells NT PRE-INSTALLED on servers this year.
Possibly DVD-RW and other, non-standard optical formats as well?
They want you to shove out over $100 for the NT drivers with most DVD-RAM kits (which are $500-1,000 themselves and only include Win9x drivers). If Linux had UDF support built-in, that would kick butt.
Since Linux has some PD (Panasonic's Phase-Dual technology, rewritable CDs in cases, used before CD-RW was standardized) support, does that use UDF too? Actually, know that I am thinking straight, I believe you had to format PD disks in another filesystem format under Linux (FAT16 or Ext2).
DVD-RAM works very similiar to PD (and, not surprisingly, came out of Panasonic).
Your are probably fine on the video end with the latest X. Do not know about sound though.
-- Bryan
Yep, cost is the issue -- WAS: Yummy!
If they start charging >$5K for these things, the price just moves closer to Sun/SGI solutions.
I hope the Corel rummor on a 2+8 cluster that fits in a 9U (or similar) rack form-factor is true.
Why hasn't anyone come up with a low-profile form-factor cluster of of Socket370 or Slot1 CPU mainboards yet? The market is there!