Rooting a linux box is something I have had to do in the past (sysadmin changes database passwords, packs up, goes home, leaves mobile phone turned off. Nice). However, it was a desktop system which is just sat there just waiting for the reset button to be pushed.
To do that to any of the servers we actually care about I would have to have the relevant security clearance to get into the building holding the servers, never mind into the server room itself.
This isn't a windows security floor, but you might want to take it up with your building manager if people can wander up to your servers unchecked.
Many programmers have strong opinion one way or the other about black box programming. However, the fact is that you are _always_ developing in a black box environment.
What I mean is, there is always some point at which you have to develop within a certain set of defined interfaces with some other system. If that happens to be the ANSI C standard on one end, then that's fine.
You don't need to develop in or out of the box, just ensure that you know where the boundaries of that box are.
The idea of a programming language and an OS being even conceptually similar is absurd. Sure, parallels may be drawn in that they both allow people to access the system, but in fundamentally different ways.
A program language is just that, a language. It is a method for a programmer to instruct the system to perform tasks. This is then converted into something the operating system can understand by the compiler/linker, or the interpreter. The OS then has the responsibility of loading the executable, assigning memory, timeslicing, virtual memory management, and ultimately allowing it access to the real hardware underneath.
Always there are 4 levels:
hardware -> OS -> compiler/interpreter -> language
There are those who point out that old IBMs loaded ROM BASIC if there was no other OS. This does _not_ mean that BASIC is an OS! It means that a very small OS with only enough nouse to access the BIOS functions (which in this case is acting as th e barrier between user and hardware, the OS) via the interpreter built into the ROM. There are the 4 levels again.
A similar argument is made for the various 8 bit home computers, which apparently had BASIC for an OS. But take the BBC B. What happened if you remove the BASIC ROM? Can it now not boot due to having no OS? Of course it can, because of the OS built into the ROM. It was roughly equivalent to a modern BIOS, with a simple commandline interface (the * commands) but it knew enough to be able to load and execute binary files from disk or other ROMs. The same 4 levels existed, the interpreter being the BASIC ROM, and the language being the files on disk.
I'm rambling a bit now, but to bring it to a modern perspective, there are folk who say that JAVA is (or can be) an OS, because of the virtual machine. However, there are still three levels (language->bytecode compiler->VM) which still needs the OS and hardware underneath. The Java VM concept actually needs more levels of abstraction than a conventional language!
I once had a rather unsavoury experience with RedCarpet (ximian) in which I found that I wanted to remove Ximian gnome from my RH 6.0 system, as it was bloaty and slow. So, I selected the core gnome libraries from the remove list, and assumed (dangerous) that it would also remove anything which depended on those libraries.
it did. It also removed _every other rpm_ on the system. don't know why, and I don't know why it didn't warn me either. Things just stopped working, one by one, as the hard disk thrashed.
So, undelete. No, I probably couldn't have used an undelete utility to rebuild my trashed RPM database, and I probably couldn't have fixed that problem anyway, but some way of retrieving those directories with custom configs it had somehow managed to remove without so much of a by-your-leave (--force on, then) would've been nice.
Have a look at the Shuttle Mini PC. Toms hardware have an in depth review. There is a NIC on board, as well as USB, firewire, video, sound, etc. It can also accept 1 PCI card (second NIC), a hard drive, floppy, and CD-Rom (or other 5.25" drive).
Re:How Object-Oriented is Perl
on
Ask Larry Wall
·
· Score: 1
I guess I would answer this by asking what is an object oriented language?
Object Orientation is a programming methodology, and a good one, helped along by some programming languages use of classes et al. However, I have done OO in C. How? well, using structures and libraries to work on those structures. The interfaces were well designed, the structures elements were well defined, and all was well.
Sure, if I had used Java it would've _forced_ me to use OO, but with a little discipline and a good understanding of the methodology, you can get away without.
Sorry about the off topic post, BTW. To make it more on topic... I use perl for OO a fair amount, because it doesn't tie me down to working how the designer(s) of the language expect me to work. It gives me the power to work as I choose, as Perl always has, but with all the features of a good OO language.
One of the negative points was that Mozilla does not look like a Windows app. I shall ignore the existence of the IE skin for now.
However, what I will mention is software such as QuickTime player, RealOne, MusicMatch Jukebox, and literally anything written in Java. None of these use the MFC toolkit (not the widgets, anyway) nor do they follow the theme of the widgets in WinXP.
Many people complain that Linux apps don't fit together because QT != GTK != Motif etc. However, it is commonplace in Windows apps for larger development outfits to use their own widget sets, and nobody bats an eyelid.
As a simple example, I use Mozilla with the excellent Orbit-Retro theme. My dad can't figure it out. So, I switch to the IE theme. The layout is identical, but the look/feel of the widgets is more 'windows like'. Suddenly he's right at home.
Perhaps the comment should have read 'doesn't look like any of the windows apps we're used to'
I find the java plugin available as a link from the mozilla.org download page is _very_ unreliable.
If you grab the latest jre1.4 from java.sun.com, install the RPM, tgz or whatever your preference, then link the file (path to jre)/plugin/i386/ns610/libjavaplugin_oji140.so to your plugins directory, not only do you gain much reliability and speed, but also a handy per class progress bar:)
Free Software is about Freedom. Linux (the kernel) is Free Software. If someone chooses to exercise that freedom by choosing not to use it, that's fine by me.
I've exercised my freedom by shunning Gnome and using KDE, much to the disgust of some of my colleagues. But it's up to me. Why should anyone else care?
I've had several computer fires in during my career in the systems dept. (before moving on to bigger, better, Perl flavoured things:) ranging from your motherboard catching fire, right through to a monitor PSU exploding, with one of the caps blowing a hole clean in the side of the case.
Worst one, though, was an old 386, which had the PSU short to the case. This had no effect at first, but then it made contact after jarring the case, and BOOM! blue sparks flashing across the mobo. Three small fires started, and the chip on the video card blew out. We kept that one as sobering evidence of what happens when good wiring goes bad:)
Incidentally, it had metal mounting posts, instead of the nice plastic ones nowadays.
Another fun one was my 3DFX voodoo 1. The monitor ground pin had come loose in its cable, and so one of the trannys on the board got so hot during Glide gaming sessions it glowed so you could see it through the PCB. Worked fine, and, AFAIK, still works now!!
"6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License." (emphasis added)
As there is no specific mention that the GPL applies only to source (it applies to computer programs, including binaries and object code, as specified in section 3), one can only take this to mean that forcing it to comply with Palladium would be imposing further restriction on the users ability to excercise the rights given to them by the GPL. This is itself breaking the GPL.
Just something for the GNU friendly legal types to chew on:)
I agree that Linux on the _mainstream_ desktop is essentially a fruitless effort. The simple fact of the matter, no matter how much we dislike it, is that the man in the street cares little of our woes and intentions of a free (software) world. In this sense, Microsoft has already won.
However, Linux on the desktop is most certainly not dead! There always has, and always will, be those individuals who want more from their computers than the mainstream can give. These are the tinkerers, the hackers, the terminally inquisitive. I am proud to stand as one of them, and will continue to use an operating system which gives me the freedom to do what I want with my computer.
Good question. I have had an Epoc based device (Osaris, as it happens) with built in WP, SpreadSheet, DB, etc etc. Changed it for a Visor Deluxe (smaller, more convenient) and I'll never look back.
I have a good WP, spreadsheet, project planner, time management, and other useful tools. It does everything I need of it, and I can play Elite! (Thanks to Void)
My point? If you want all the flash stuff get an iPaq. You can install Linux on it, emulate a SNES on it, and other stuff that is nice, but not worth the cash. If you want to just have a useful piece of kit, get a visor Deluxe. Weighs in at only $169 now anyway!
After reading many posts, some pro-linux, some pro-MS, some just waiting to be flamed, I think I ought to add this little snippet.
The numbers involved here are most likely completely accurate. The problem here is the reaction of people TO those figures. Sure, 8.6% of servers may be sold with GNU/Linux on board, but as so many people pointed out, it is very (although decreasingly) hard to get a machine with Linux pre-installed.
So 24% of server run Linux? Possibly, but it's an estimate. The fact is that all these figures are subject to three facts;
1) All PC's are bought with OS and preinstalled
2) All PC's are bought in their final configuration
3) The user has a gut reaction to any word in the subject matter (Linux is bad... AAAGH! Windows is bad... YAY! etc. etc.)
I entirely believe that only 8.6% of systems are sold with GNU/Linux preinstalled. I equally believe that more systems are sold as a large pile of component parts than complete systems. I know for a fact that at the company I work for, precisely two machines have been bought complete. All the rest were built in house (that includes the desktops). So how do we rate? Well, 100% of out purchased systems ran Win95 (both of them). They don't know, but they did when new.
All those who would post their immediate gut reaction should hold back and think 'do we really need to defend this? or are we just responding to the MS publicity machine?'
I think you'll find that the latter is more often the case.
We don't _have_ to go down RMS' road of brainwashing, but the simple fact is this: you take out the GNU tools and you will have exactly this: a kernel and a load of user software with little or nothing to hold it all together.
Linux is a kernel. GNU is an OS. GNU/Linux is my favourite way to run a computer. Thats it!
When I started using Linux, it was for three reasons:
1) Cheap (6 CD's for 24 quid)
2) Stable (or so I'd heard)
3) Lots of development tools
4) A true hackers OS
OK, so I can't count, but anyhow...
The beauty of Linux for me is that it is made by hackers, for hackers. It is the OS for the technically elite. This is a GOOD THING
The problem with 'average' users (ie the have-nots) is that the want it easy. They would much rather sacrifice stability, functionality and expandability for a set of fancy new graphics. In fact, one guy who heard about Linux from his list of Quake3 servers asked of it, as his first question, 'so, does this Linux thing look as good as windows?'. My response? Yes, but if you need to ask that you aren't technically inclined enough to bother.
The fact is that in the right hands, it is one of THE most powerful operating systems available, simply due to the amount of incredible software available. Thanks to emacs, LaTeX, xfig and the pstools, I can create the best looking and easily the most readable technical reports and assignments in our university group. The others look on and say 'how do I get word to do that'. Simple. You can't. I put in the time (about 30 minutes, thanks to the simple tag structure) to learn TeX, and am reaping a lifetime of benefit.
Cold hard fact #1. I have not used an office suite of ANY KIND, including KOffice and SOffice etc. in over 18 months, and even before that, I repeatedly complained about the lack of any actually useful features in the bloated offerings. I would sooner an advanced automatic layout controller and equation editor than flashing text and 'clippy'.
So, yay! Maybe we can finally put this 'Linux is good enough for the technically incapable' thing behind us, and leave it where it belongs, with the hackers!
I beg to differ. Consider this extract from the hackers dictionary ( http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/jargon.html#boxe n )
Node:boxen, Next:boxology, Previous:boxed comments, Up:= B =
boxen/bok'sn/ pl.n.
[very common; by analogy with VAXen] Fanciful plural of box often encountered in the phrase `Unix boxen', used to describe commodity Unix hardware. The connotation is that any two Unix boxen are interchangeable.
I only have a 4'x3' cupboard, which houses 2 boxen, two printers, a scanner, two monitors, and my various speakers. And a desk. And a chair. But would I swap my monster cases for these? No, because I like to be able to control EXACTLY what goes on inside them.
Folk who want a computer, but not a dirty great beige box, are the niche market here. They also tend to be able to afford LCD displays and such too...
Just my 2p...
I have been using PC's since I was 7 (thats 14 years, by my reckoning), and by PC I mean personal computers, not IBM compats.
I have worked asa technician for several years, and as a programmer. And in that time, I have found that installing Windows on two IDENTICAL machines (even down to the mobo and RAM etc are from the same production run on each machine!) Windows will display problems on one, and not the other! I follow the recommended installs for each driver, in the order MS told me too, and BANG! One falls down.
However, I recently installed Debian on a notebook from some unknown Japanese origin. Installed XF86_SVGA and ALSA, and a working, not crashing, machine was mine in little under half an hour.
So, % of Windows installs that a stable after new install: 10%, % of Linux installs stable after new install: 95%.
And believe me, I have done a LOT of installs!
This seems to be rapidly moving away from the Unix philosophy of 'lots of small tools which do one job each, and do it well' to the MS philosphy of 'lets stick as much in as we can, it doesn't work, but hey, it's cool!'
I'd rather have a small, fast, RELIABLE browser, and perhaps a small userspace HTTP server which could be run as a single user process by a user. Removes complication of setting up apache or whatever, but allows website testing in a proper server environment.
Hmmm.. theres an idea. Just off to sourceforge...
Slashdot Mirror
Rooting a linux box is something I have had to do in the past (sysadmin changes database passwords, packs up, goes home, leaves mobile phone turned off. Nice). However, it was a desktop system which is just sat there just waiting for the reset button to be pushed.
To do that to any of the servers we actually care about I would have to have the relevant security clearance to get into the building holding the servers, never mind into the server room itself.
This isn't a windows security floor, but you might want to take it up with your building manager if people can wander up to your servers unchecked.
Many programmers have strong opinion one way or the other about black box programming. However, the fact is that you are _always_ developing in a black box environment.
What I mean is, there is always some point at which you have to develop within a certain set of defined interfaces with some other system. If that happens to be the ANSI C standard on one end, then that's fine.
You don't need to develop in or out of the box, just ensure that you know where the boundaries of that box are.
The idea of a programming language and an OS being even conceptually similar is absurd. Sure, parallels may be drawn in that they both allow people to access the system, but in fundamentally different ways.
A program language is just that, a language. It is a method for a programmer to instruct the system to perform tasks. This is then converted into something the operating system can understand by the compiler/linker, or the interpreter. The OS then has the responsibility of loading the executable, assigning memory, timeslicing, virtual memory management, and ultimately allowing it access to the real hardware underneath.
Always there are 4 levels:
hardware -> OS -> compiler/interpreter -> language
There are those who point out that old IBMs loaded ROM BASIC if there was no other OS. This does _not_ mean that BASIC is an OS! It means that a very small OS with only enough nouse to access the BIOS functions (which in this case is acting as th e barrier between user and hardware, the OS) via the interpreter built into the ROM. There are the 4 levels again.
A similar argument is made for the various 8 bit home computers, which apparently had BASIC for an OS. But take the BBC B. What happened if you remove the BASIC ROM? Can it now not boot due to having no OS? Of course it can, because of the OS built into the ROM. It was roughly equivalent to a modern BIOS, with a simple commandline interface (the * commands) but it knew enough to be able to load and execute binary files from disk or other ROMs. The same 4 levels existed, the interpreter being the BASIC ROM, and the language being the files on disk.
I'm rambling a bit now, but to bring it to a modern perspective, there are folk who say that JAVA is (or can be) an OS, because of the virtual machine. However, there are still three levels (language->bytecode compiler->VM) which still needs the OS and hardware underneath. The Java VM concept actually needs more levels of abstraction than a conventional language!
UK retailer Time (AKA Tiny, The Computer World, and probably more) also ships PCs without MS Office, this time in favour of Star Office 6.0
Link to one of the PCs
Slightly off-topic, but not far :)
I once had a rather unsavoury experience with RedCarpet (ximian) in which I found that I wanted to remove Ximian gnome from my RH 6.0 system, as it was bloaty and slow. So, I selected the core gnome libraries from the remove list, and assumed (dangerous) that it would also remove anything which depended on those libraries.
it did. It also removed _every other rpm_ on the system. don't know why, and I don't know why it didn't warn me either. Things just stopped working, one by one, as the hard disk thrashed.
So, undelete. No, I probably couldn't have used an undelete utility to rebuild my trashed RPM database, and I probably couldn't have fixed that problem anyway, but some way of retrieving those directories with custom configs it had somehow managed to remove without so much of a by-your-leave (--force on, then) would've been nice.
Have a look at the Shuttle Mini PC. Toms hardware have an in depth review. There is a NIC on board, as well as USB, firewire, video, sound, etc. It can also accept 1 PCI card (second NIC), a hard drive, floppy, and CD-Rom (or other 5.25" drive).
See it at Toms
Well worth a look.
I guess I would answer this by asking what is an object oriented language?
Object Orientation is a programming methodology, and a good one, helped along by some programming languages use of classes et al. However, I have done OO in C. How? well, using structures and libraries to work on those structures. The interfaces were well designed, the structures elements were well defined, and all was well.
Sure, if I had used Java it would've _forced_ me to use OO, but with a little discipline and a good understanding of the methodology, you can get away without.
Sorry about the off topic post, BTW. To make it more on topic... I use perl for OO a fair amount, because it doesn't tie me down to working how the designer(s) of the language expect me to work. It gives me the power to work as I choose, as Perl always has, but with all the features of a good OO language.
One of the negative points was that Mozilla does not look like a Windows app. I shall ignore the existence of the IE skin for now.
However, what I will mention is software such as QuickTime player, RealOne, MusicMatch Jukebox, and literally anything written in Java. None of these use the MFC toolkit (not the widgets, anyway) nor do they follow the theme of the widgets in WinXP.
Many people complain that Linux apps don't fit together because QT != GTK != Motif etc. However, it is commonplace in Windows apps for larger development outfits to use their own widget sets, and nobody bats an eyelid.
As a simple example, I use Mozilla with the excellent Orbit-Retro theme. My dad can't figure it out. So, I switch to the IE theme. The layout is identical, but the look/feel of the widgets is more 'windows like'. Suddenly he's right at home.
Perhaps the comment should have read 'doesn't look like any of the windows apps we're used to'
I find the java plugin available as a link from the mozilla.org download page is _very_ unreliable.
:)
If you grab the latest jre1.4 from java.sun.com, install the RPM, tgz or whatever your preference, then link the file (path to jre)/plugin/i386/ns610/libjavaplugin_oji140.so to your plugins directory, not only do you gain much reliability and speed, but also a handy per class progress bar
Free Software is about Freedom. Linux (the kernel) is Free Software. If someone chooses to exercise that freedom by choosing not to use it, that's fine by me.
I've exercised my freedom by shunning Gnome and using KDE, much to the disgust of some of my colleagues. But it's up to me. Why should anyone else care?
I've had several computer fires in during my career in the systems dept. (before moving on to bigger, better, Perl flavoured things :) ranging from your motherboard catching fire, right through to a monitor PSU exploding, with one of the caps blowing a hole clean in the side of the case.
:)
Worst one, though, was an old 386, which had the PSU short to the case. This had no effect at first, but then it made contact after jarring the case, and BOOM! blue sparks flashing across the mobo. Three small fires started, and the chip on the video card blew out. We kept that one as sobering evidence of what happens when good wiring goes bad
Incidentally, it had metal mounting posts, instead of the nice plastic ones nowadays.
Another fun one was my 3DFX voodoo 1. The monitor ground pin had come loose in its cable, and so one of the trannys on the board got so hot during Glide gaming sessions it glowed so you could see it through the PCB. Worked fine, and, AFAIK, still works now!!
A quote from the GPL:
:)
"6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License." (emphasis added)
As there is no specific mention that the GPL applies only to source (it applies to computer programs, including binaries and object code, as specified in section 3), one can only take this to mean that forcing it to comply with Palladium would be imposing further restriction on the users ability to excercise the rights given to them by the GPL. This is itself breaking the GPL.
Just something for the GNU friendly legal types to chew on
I agree that Linux on the _mainstream_ desktop is essentially a fruitless effort. The simple fact of the matter, no matter how much we dislike it, is that the man in the street cares little of our woes and intentions of a free (software) world. In this sense, Microsoft has already won.
However, Linux on the desktop is most certainly not dead! There always has, and always will, be those individuals who want more from their computers than the mainstream can give. These are the tinkerers, the hackers, the terminally inquisitive. I am proud to stand as one of them, and will continue to use an operating system which gives me the freedom to do what I want with my computer.
Void can be found here or here . It's only $10 to register, and provides a worthy diversion in meeti^H^H^H spare time.
Plus, theres some cool extras like the ability to buy space stations and use them to gain much capital!
Good question. I have had an Epoc based device (Osaris, as it happens) with built in WP, SpreadSheet, DB, etc etc. Changed it for a Visor Deluxe (smaller, more convenient) and I'll never look back.
I have a good WP, spreadsheet, project planner, time management, and other useful tools. It does everything I need of it, and I can play Elite! (Thanks to Void)
My point? If you want all the flash stuff get an iPaq. You can install Linux on it, emulate a SNES on it, and other stuff that is nice, but not worth the cash. If you want to just have a useful piece of kit, get a visor Deluxe. Weighs in at only $169 now anyway!
After reading many posts, some pro-linux, some pro-MS, some just waiting to be flamed, I think I ought to add this little snippet.
The numbers involved here are most likely completely accurate. The problem here is the reaction of people TO those figures. Sure, 8.6% of servers may be sold with GNU/Linux on board, but as so many people pointed out, it is very (although decreasingly) hard to get a machine with Linux pre-installed.
So 24% of server run Linux? Possibly, but it's an estimate. The fact is that all these figures are subject to three facts;
1) All PC's are bought with OS and preinstalled
2) All PC's are bought in their final configuration
3) The user has a gut reaction to any word in the subject matter (Linux is bad... AAAGH! Windows is bad... YAY! etc. etc.)
I entirely believe that only 8.6% of systems are sold with GNU/Linux preinstalled. I equally believe that more systems are sold as a large pile of component parts than complete systems. I know for a fact that at the company I work for, precisely two machines have been bought complete. All the rest were built in house (that includes the desktops). So how do we rate? Well, 100% of out purchased systems ran Win95 (both of them). They don't know, but they did when new.
All those who would post their immediate gut reaction should hold back and think 'do we really need to defend this? or are we just responding to the MS publicity machine?'
I think you'll find that the latter is more often the case.
We don't _have_ to go down RMS' road of brainwashing, but the simple fact is this: you take out the GNU tools and you will have exactly this: a kernel and a load of user software with little or nothing to hold it all together.
Linux is a kernel. GNU is an OS. GNU/Linux is my favourite way to run a computer. Thats it!
When I started using Linux, it was for three reasons:
1) Cheap (6 CD's for 24 quid) 2) Stable (or so I'd heard) 3) Lots of development tools 4) A true hackers OSOK, so I can't count, but anyhow...
The beauty of Linux for me is that it is made by hackers, for hackers. It is the OS for the technically elite. This is a GOOD THING
The problem with 'average' users (ie the have-nots) is that the want it easy. They would much rather sacrifice stability, functionality and expandability for a set of fancy new graphics. In fact, one guy who heard about Linux from his list of Quake3 servers asked of it, as his first question, 'so, does this Linux thing look as good as windows?'. My response? Yes, but if you need to ask that you aren't technically inclined enough to bother.
The fact is that in the right hands, it is one of THE most powerful operating systems available, simply due to the amount of incredible software available. Thanks to emacs, LaTeX, xfig and the pstools, I can create the best looking and easily the most readable technical reports and assignments in our university group. The others look on and say 'how do I get word to do that'. Simple. You can't. I put in the time (about 30 minutes, thanks to the simple tag structure) to learn TeX, and am reaping a lifetime of benefit.
Cold hard fact #1. I have not used an office suite of ANY KIND, including KOffice and SOffice etc. in over 18 months, and even before that, I repeatedly complained about the lack of any actually useful features in the bloated offerings. I would sooner an advanced automatic layout controller and equation editor than flashing text and 'clippy'.
So, yay! Maybe we can finally put this 'Linux is good enough for the technically incapable' thing behind us, and leave it where it belongs, with the hackers!
Node:boxen, Next:boxology, Previous:boxed comments, Up:= B =
boxen /bok'sn/ pl.n.
[very common; by analogy with VAXen] Fanciful plural of box often encountered in the phrase `Unix boxen', used to describe commodity Unix hardware. The connotation is that any two Unix boxen are interchangeable.
AyeThangYu ;-)
Au contraire, my friend!
I only have a 4'x3' cupboard, which houses 2 boxen, two printers, a scanner, two monitors, and my various speakers. And a desk. And a chair. But would I swap my monster cases for these? No, because I like to be able to control EXACTLY what goes on inside them.
Folk who want a computer, but not a dirty great beige box, are the niche market here. They also tend to be able to afford LCD displays and such too...
Just my 2p... I have been using PC's since I was 7 (thats 14 years, by my reckoning), and by PC I mean personal computers, not IBM compats. I have worked asa technician for several years, and as a programmer. And in that time, I have found that installing Windows on two IDENTICAL machines (even down to the mobo and RAM etc are from the same production run on each machine!) Windows will display problems on one, and not the other! I follow the recommended installs for each driver, in the order MS told me too, and BANG! One falls down. However, I recently installed Debian on a notebook from some unknown Japanese origin. Installed XF86_SVGA and ALSA, and a working, not crashing, machine was mine in little under half an hour. So, % of Windows installs that a stable after new install: 10%, % of Linux installs stable after new install: 95%. And believe me, I have done a LOT of installs!
This seems to be rapidly moving away from the Unix philosophy of 'lots of small tools which do one job each, and do it well' to the MS philosphy of 'lets stick as much in as we can, it doesn't work, but hey, it's cool!' I'd rather have a small, fast, RELIABLE browser, and perhaps a small userspace HTTP server which could be run as a single user process by a user. Removes complication of setting up apache or whatever, but allows website testing in a proper server environment. Hmmm.. theres an idea. Just off to sourceforge...