IE, at least on Windows, and in the versions I've tested on Linux, is just faster, more stable, more flexible in terms of add-ons it will accept
without problems... better.
Hello! Moderators! Since when was IE available for Linux? Let me answer that for you: never.
I can't believe that this was moderated up to a 5 when it is obviously a troll.
Of course, this post is OT and flamebait, but don't let that stop you from giving this post a 5, insightful rating.
That's an awfully big difference between Apache and IIS (100,000 hits versus 1,000,000 hits, respectively). Considering the
MANY issues with Apache versus the few holes in IIS, it's clear who the winner is, and the Linux crowd is afraid to admit
that.
I used to be one of these people that didn't want to admit that NT is sometimes the right tool for the job. However, based on your comment, I suspect that you don't want to admit that Linux is sometimes the right tool for the job. I could be wrong, so feel free to flame me on that point:-)
Remember, a web server is only as good as the software it's running. Also, configuration makes a big difference, too. With
only a few tweaks, most (if not all) of the security holes in IIS are covered. As for Apache, you always have to upgrade the
entire server (can you say downtime?), and maybe even the Linux/BSD kernel (can you say MORE downtime?).
Have you ever upgraded an Apache installation? I've never had to recompile the kernel to upgrade Apache. I've never had to upgrade the entire server to upgrade Apache. Where did you get this information? First-hand experience? If so, why have you had to upgrade the entire server or kernel to upgrade Apache?
When I do an upgrade of Apache, I test out the new version on a different port. This means that I run both versions concurrently - I don't want the customer to have any downtime.
When I'm done testing, I bring down the old Apache server and bring up the new one on the right ports - all on one command line. This means that the customer has less than one second of downtime during an Apache upgrade.
Is this possible with IIS? Can you run two concurrent versions on different ports? If not, how do you limit downtime and do proper testing when upgrading IIS?
None of which can read/write BFS at this point, despite the fact that it's well documented in Practical File System Design with the Be File System by Dominic Giampaolo.
Do you have a need for this? If so, and you have coding skills, you should start work on BFS for Linux.
That's why most of these projects get started - somebody had an itch they needed scratched.
Through this new partnership, Loki and BSDI will work together to ensure Loki's gaming titles are compatible with FreeBSD using the Linux-compatibility features. Certified games on this configuration will be fully-supported by Loki.
They aren't porting the games to FreeBSD - they are just making sure that they run under the Linux emulation.
If I understand Mr. Moody's logic correctly, he is stating:
number of bugs / number of users = a numeric value that tells us how good an operating system is. Lower numbers are better.
He neglects to mention that "number of bugs" is really "number of publicly reported bugs."
So, if this is the equation he is using, where are the numbers to back up his argument? He must have done some calculations to come up with this statement.
Show me the numbers, Mr. Moody! Not that it will help your flawed argument, but at least try.
Slashdot Mirror
- The installer gets the CPUID to figure out which kernel to install.
- The installer looks in its database for a kernel that matches that CPUID
- The installer can't find the CPUID, so it can't figure out which kernel to install
- The install fails
As you can see, this isn't a problem with the kernel, but a problem with the installer program.The article mentions that the Linux kernel runs on the Pentium IV. In fact, Redhat 7.0 and Turbolinux 6 will install and run on a P4 system just fine.
Hello! Moderators! Since when was IE available for Linux? Let me answer that for you: never.
I can't believe that this was moderated up to a 5 when it is obviously a troll.
Of course, this post is OT and flamebait, but don't let that stop you from giving this post a 5, insightful rating.
I used to be one of these people that didn't want to admit that NT is sometimes the right tool for the job. However, based on your comment, I suspect that you don't want to admit that Linux is sometimes the right tool for the job. I could be wrong, so feel free to flame me on that point :-)
Have you ever upgraded an Apache installation? I've never had to recompile the kernel to upgrade Apache. I've never had to upgrade the entire server to upgrade Apache. Where did you get this information? First-hand experience? If so, why have you had to upgrade the entire server or kernel to upgrade Apache?
When I do an upgrade of Apache, I test out the new version on a different port. This means that I run both versions concurrently - I don't want the customer to have any downtime.
When I'm done testing, I bring down the old Apache server and bring up the new one on the right ports - all on one command line. This means that the customer has less than one second of downtime during an Apache upgrade.
Is this possible with IIS? Can you run two concurrent versions on different ports? If not, how do you limit downtime and do proper testing when upgrading IIS?
Do you have a need for this? If so, and you have coding skills, you should start work on BFS for Linux.
That's why most of these projects get started - somebody had an itch they needed scratched.
They aren't porting the games to FreeBSD - they are just making sure that they run under the Linux emulation.
number of bugs / number of users = a numeric value that tells us how good an operating system is. Lower numbers are better.
He neglects to mention that "number of bugs" is really "number of publicly reported bugs."
So, if this is the equation he is using, where are the numbers to back up his argument? He must have done some calculations to come up with this statement.
Show me the numbers, Mr. Moody! Not that it will help your flawed argument, but at least try.
He probably doesn't - I believe the the End User License Agreement limits Microsoft's liability to the cost of the OS