"There's some truth to that. I'm sitting here using Windows 2000, but most of the Slashdotters stopped using Windows back at 95 or 98. Those OS's were 100% shitty. I will never defend either of them (or ME) because they really were incredibly unstable."
Very true, Win9x did/does suck!:) Of that group, WinME was the biggest joke.
"Then the switch to Linux happens, and nobody has sat down and used Windows 2000. So they have no idea that the stability is a hell of a lot greater (it's based on NT instead of DOS) or that work can actually be done about it."
Contrary to popular belief, there are quite a few of us linux users that have jobs that require the use of windows everyday. Or in my case, my job is to fix all the broken Windows boxen. Now, granted, I think that Windows 2000 was the best OS to come out of Redmond (yes better than XP, IMHO). I also have a box here at home running 2000. From my experience at a tech, I've seen more problems with XP than 2000. Now, I can't say I have seen a ton of BSODs on XP. Usually it has been all or nothing with XP. Either it's a minor error (usually via Stupid User Syndrome(TM)), or the system comes in unbootable (always fun!).
"I can't say I blame a lot of the peeps here who think the BSOD jokes are funny. I wish they'd understand that Windows development didn't suddenly stop in 1998, though."
Not all BSOD jokes are funny. I can laugh at most of them, though. I can't say Windows hasn't earned it, either. I know Windows development didn't stop in 98. Otherwise, we wouldn't have Windows 2000 which is the only version I can tolerate for my use.
"Yes, they can click through a Redhat install (doubtful as one of the first things to do is partition the drive, and I can't see my mother doing that), but it'll be different enough from what they know."
I shouldn't be nitpicky, but in the latest red hat versions there is a choice (selected by default, too) that has the installer partition FOR you. As long as you don't have a Windows installation you care about keeping it is quite easy to just keep clicking next.:)
If I'd had mod points, you'd be a troll. Why? Your last statement is flawed:
The way I see it is that Open Source is only free if your time isn't worth anything. And as I said, I have better things to do than dick around with an OS.
How many years have you been using Windows before ever using one of the Linux distros? I will admit that Linux/Unix has a much higher learning curve than Windows. However, most of the people who complain about the switch to Linux (coming from a Windows or Mac background) never take the time to properly read books/documentation. You didn't learn all the aspects of Windows overnight! Nor do you probably know everything there is to know about Windows right now. I certainly don't despite many years & serveral manuals. I probably don't know everything about DOS even though my first computer ran DOS 4.0 and I read that manual from cover to cover. I was competent, but probably not a whiz... I'm not going to learn everything there is to know about the CCNA exam overnight. That's why I am taking classes and reading the books (2 books covering 4 parts... each book has over 1,000 pages cover to cover). Take the time to read the linux books and manuals before getting in over your head and crying "help!". Otherwise, it is going to take you at least as long as it did to get "familiar" with Windows (most likely years unless you studied from day one of touching a computer).
One of the key reasons was it's anal retentive nature about Anonymous FTP. Anonymous FTP shouldn't be any less secure than a real account. The fact that the FTP accounts were tied into system accounts really turned me off from Linux. GuildFTPd aliviates that obvious security risk by not being tied into the OS. As it should be set up.
And exactly what ftp server on what distro (and version) was this? I'll take a guess and say it was either Red Hat or Mandrake. Well, both of those distros stopped using wu-ftpd a while back (which has had it's fair share of hacker-friendliness). Red Hat switched to VsFtpd (in 8.0 I think) and Mandrake has been using ProFtpd for quite a while now. Both are much better than wu-ftpd. Also, you don't think the ftp server provided by Microsoft for Win2k Server isn't tied to the OS? It is tied as much as IIS is tied to Windows (and we all know about IIS's problems). The fact that you use GuildFTPd shows that you know it's a problem. Well, any good admin sets the ftp service on a linux box to run as an unprivledged user. And even better, set the ftp server up to jail the user into their home directory on top of that.
Another was it's inability to communicate with the Windows box to transfer the server over. Kind of key when you have 80GB of files you're serving up.
Samba... learn it. It isn't hard to learn the basics of Samba, which is all that's needed to mount a remote Windows share. If you had a directory called/mnt/tmp (which I use for temporary mounts) then you can mount a share (we'll call it "web") on a windows machine (let's call it "www") by doing this:
# mount -t smbfs -o username=johndoe,password=foo//www/web/mnt/tmp
(replace johndoe and foo with real username and password). You don't even need the samba server files installed, just the common and client files. (On Red Hat, samba-client-(version)-(arch).rpm and samba-common-(version)-(arch).rpm if I remember right).
Sure, I could have spent a couple days to get it all working, but within 3 hours I had a fully functional Windows server so I don't bother with Linux. It has nothing I need that Windows doesn't offer in a simplier to use fashion.
I have Red Hat 8 on a system I don't really use and it works fine but it's nothing I don't have with Windows.
In three hours I'd have a fully functional Linux server. I do need linux as it does offer many useful tools that I've never seen a windows equivalent of. Most of (almost all) of
PCI-X is just an extension of existing PCI. Basically the same thing but faster and backwards compatible (I believe).
From my experience with PCI-X (not a ton) you can plug regular PCI in and expect them to work. PCI-X, IIRC, is 66mhz/64bit as opposed to the regular 33mhz/32bit PCI slots. An analogy would be the relationship between the old ISA 8-bit/16-bit buses. You can plug an 8-bit ISA card into a 16-bit ISA slot, but you could consider that as wasting a 16-bit slot:) Most (if not all?) gigabit ethernet controllers (and multi-port 100base) are usually PCI-X, as are any SCSI controllers from Ultra160 on up. Which goes to show that PCI-X was meant for servers and that's where it has always stayed. The only "desktop" (using the term loosely of course) motherboard I can think of having PCI-X was that Tyan dual Athlon board with the MPX chipset.
It's serial and can be thought of as being similar to ethernet. Kinda like the computer is a ethernet switch and all the devices are nodes plugged into it.
Yeah, the three layers of the PCI Express layout look alot like the OSI model except the higher levels are missing.
It's faster and far more efficient (at least than PCI) when multiple devices are being accessed at once.
Yep. a serial point-to-point link from each node to the hub(chipset) allows much better access of multiple devices since the bandwidth isn't being divided among all devices like on the regular parallel PCI bus. This is also what allowed Intel to do away with IRQs since each "node" has it's own "pipe" back to the hub.
Fourth, the main push is for tiny motherboards, not large motherboards. The full size format is there mostly so that there will be a large enough BTX audience to make a difference.
(OK, before I gripe I admit that Joe User won't care but...) I need more space than the micro- and pico-BTX cases are going to offer. Anandtech says, "MicroBTX cases will feature one 3.5" bay and up to two 5.25" bays." So, looks like when I switch over to BTX it's going to be the full size case. In regards to the micro-BTX case, while I only need two 5.25" bays (one for DVD and the other for CD/DVD writer), I need more than one 3.5" bay. I usually have two hard drives and as such one 3.5" bay would not be enough. Hopefully, the "one 3.5" bay" reference was for the floppy bay and not the number of internal bays for hard disks.
One thing I want to see is a standardized case connector for the power and reset switches, LEDs, and speaker. Having each of them on a separate cable is just stupid. If they standardize that, I will be very happy.
And DRAM's power usage is miniscule compared to CPU or disk drive motors. But then, since the CPU is mostly idle (unless you run seti@home or something like that) and drives spin down when not in use, most of juice is being used by the CRT.
And you can set your CRT to go into standby as well, lowering the consumption of electricity even further!:)
I think the sweet spot for 3ware starts at 4-drive systems, where you can do both mirroring and striping (performance and data protection). IMO, it's too early for almost anyone to deploy SATA; it's more expensive and doesn't really perform better. However, if you have space constraints, need a relatively large number of drives, and can't bring the server down to replace disks, then a SATA config may have some advantages over a parallel ATA based RAID setup.
Actually, there is only one reason to run SATA right now, IMO. The Western Digital Raptor 10K rpm Enterprise SATA drive w/ 8MB buffer. It's got a 5 year warranty. Why? Because, It is a SCSI drive with an SATA PCB underneath! w00t! Costs less than a SCSI drive but *SHOULD* have the reliability of a SCSI disk. Otherwise, I don't see how they would be comfortable with that 5 year warranty. After all, the manufacturers keep cutting the IDE drive warranties. Meanwhile, as a system builder I am still getting brand new drives (from all brands) dead on a arrival at the same rate as before the warranty cut!
Windows 2000 Professional, Windows 2000 Server, Windows 2000 Data Center, Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional, Windows NT 4.0 Server, Windows NT 4.0 Workstation, Windows Me, Windows 98, Windows 98SE
Also, don't forget Windows 2000 Advanced Server, not to be confused with Windows 2000 Server. I have no clue what the difference is between them as shipped, but the 2 do exist. I've seen Windows 2000 Server on a shelf at CompUSA. I have only seen Advanced Server available in places that sell to large companies. (i.e. Not your local retailer and not your local mom & pop shop).
I mean who really cares... MS IM in my opinion isnt even that great of a service, let them go
Well as far as being a user of the MSN IM service, I'm not. And in that respect, I *DON'T* care. The only part that ticks me off is that it's MS at their old practices again. Like I said in the previous post: MS wanted AOL to open their service and "standardize". Now, MS is closing their end. Hypocrisy at it's finest!
I don't understand why people are all pissy about this.
Microsoft built a private system for communication, they allowed/tolerated anyone connecting to the network with any compatible client up to this point.
People are pissy, because MS bitched and bitched for AOL to open thier IM service, and preached about an open IM standard. Now, MS is closing off their service (so it appears...).
... if scientists could reproduce what the sponges are doing synthetically in a lab. This way we could have our new form of fiber optic without killing tons of sponges.
Kudos on the awesome response! (Very informative to myself and others too I'm sure.)
Unfortunately, (even though I have taken a couple chemistry classes and a physics class), I must have missed the part where the professor explained WHY we have unstable elements. We have so many stable elements that I've always wondered why everything on the table >92 is unstable?
Anyway, I figure I must have slept through the important lecture or something. I passed the class(es) and that's all I cared at the time
Between Windows and Redhat I find myself rebooting Redhat way more than my Windows 2K box due to it hard locking when I try to run too many Gnome apps. GUIs are still pretty buggy in *nix and ease of installation and running programs needs to be integrated. Once they get that right maybe more apps will be written for it.
Fortunately, I don't have to reboot my RedHat server except for a kernel upgrade;) I really don't have to reboot my Win2k server that often except after a windows update session (and that happens more often than I have to reboot linux for an update:P ).
(Disclaimer: This is not a troll, this is my actual experiences with Gnome).
Well, I stopped using Gnome a long time ago. As in the last time I used Gnome Red Hat 5.2 was still considered relatively new. It was my first distro and seeing apps on Gnome crash I had wondered what in the hell my friend had been smoking when he told me "linux is more stable." What I did was switch to KDE. At that point in time KDE was absolutely UGLY but very functional for me (i.e. didn't crash every 20 minutes). I have "taken a peek" at Gnome every so often and I still see apps crashing on Gnome even when I'm just evaluating it and haven't pushed it very hard. I just don't see that many crashes on KDE. When something does crash on KDE, it is usually a "Gnome app" (such as Gaim). No, it was not my hardware. I've tried Gnome on more systems then I care to count and despite liking the looks of GNome, I've always stuck with KDE as it has always been more functional for me.
Anyway, as I stated at the beginning, this is not a troll against Gnome. I've just had rotten luck with Gnome and KDE has been a good friend to me. Consider this a KDE advertisement if you will.;)
There are just too many bugs. Using Redhat9 to connect to an NT4 share via Samba is buggy as hell. The first connection works great. After that I practically have to reboot to get back into the share again. I find that very user unfriendly.
I cannot comment on samba with RH9 in that RH9 is the client and NT4 serving the share. I can say, however, that I have a RH9 samba server in production at work that serves large files and images to windows clients all day long, with great uptimes. Takes a beating sometimes... never stops:) Now, I have connected to windows shares from a linux box in the past without problems. It could be a bug in samba shipped with RH9. Try using up2date and get a newer version of samba if available.
New users are mainly turned away when they can't even figure out how to install an app. I was really confused when I first started. I could download to my home directory & make a new folder to put it in, had to spend 15 minutes looking up how to unzip it with tar (man tar made it sound like it was only used for tape backups), went to the folder and stared blankly and the directory listing. It turned out I was supposed to know you have to type:
make
make depend
make install
OK did that....where the hell is it?
This is the first area that I will agree with you. Installation from source is not hard for the initiated, but for the new user (who has had zero computer programming experience) it is hell. I took a few C++ classes in college but didn't persue the computer science degree because I don't make a very good programmer:( I was very shaky about compiling programs on linux even though I had taken C++ classes because it's just not the way you do it on Windows with Visual Studio, which is what I was taught at Wright State.:( However, today you will find me compiling test kernels on "test machines" just to play around and I'm pretty good at it now... but I should be considering I've used Linux since '96 or so.
It's a long and rocky road to learn *nix and unfortunately/. shows how snobby and childish 99% of them ar
You do know that the newest redhat & mandrake distros have an "add/remove programs" now right? Now, I think you still have to have all the rpms to satisfy dependencies, but at least you have a GUI to work with for newbs. I still use the command line for such tasks so I haven't had any experience with the add/remove apps other than I noticed it was there;)
...but it was available and recognized by the automatic updates service I have running on my Win2k Server... I noticed the automatic updater flashing in my systray on Monday, August 4th(and it was probably available before then... hadn't looked at the system in 2 days), saying that a new update was available. After looking at the attached description I of course decided to install it.
In all seriousness, the automatic updater should be running on ALL home users systems, and system admins can set it to "prompt before downloading AND prompt before installing" so that you can cancel or delay if need be (for whatever reason.. testing, etc).
Apache (running on my aforementioned patched win2k server) keeps logging a bunch of http requests matching that of code red... appearantly even that one is still floating around.
"I guess I wonder why windows can't make it more difficult for people to create self spreading virus ? Linux, BSD, and UNIX don't SEEM have these self spreading virus. Don't you ever wonder why MS with all is billions of spare dollars, can't prevent this?"
Actually, Linux has some known (nasty) worms out there, too. I should know, one of my linux servers was hit by a nasty one a couple years ago. Now, had I kept up with security notices & patched my systems more regularly as I do now that wouldn't have been a problem. These days I am on the CERT advisory mailing list, and a few others as well.
"Also I heard you do not have to do a "make modules" when compiling."
Well, I don't know about that. If you type "make modules" it does indeed do something. However! Typing "make dep" gets you a message saying that it is no longer required;)
The homepage, http://www.codeasart.com/index.html, though has a java applet on it. Upon hitting that page, mozilla crashed. Sorry, I should have been more specific. I have now removed the JRE plugin simply because it appears to be broken. I've tried several versions, too, all with the same prob.:(
Slashdot Mirror
Very true, Win9x did/does suck! :) Of that group, WinME was the biggest joke.
Contrary to popular belief, there are quite a few of us linux users that have jobs that require the use of windows everyday. Or in my case, my job is to fix all the broken Windows boxen. Now, granted, I think that Windows 2000 was the best OS to come out of Redmond (yes better than XP, IMHO). I also have a box here at home running 2000. From my experience at a tech, I've seen more problems with XP than 2000. Now, I can't say I have seen a ton of BSODs on XP. Usually it has been all or nothing with XP. Either it's a minor error (usually via Stupid User Syndrome(TM)), or the system comes in unbootable (always fun!).
Not all BSOD jokes are funny. I can laugh at most of them, though. I can't say Windows hasn't earned it, either. I know Windows development didn't stop in 98. Otherwise, we wouldn't have Windows 2000 which is the only version I can tolerate for my use.
"Yes, they can click through a Redhat install (doubtful as one of the first things to do is partition the drive, and I can't see my mother doing that), but it'll be different enough from what they know."
I shouldn't be nitpicky, but in the latest red hat versions there is a choice (selected by default, too) that has the installer partition FOR you. As long as you don't have a Windows installation you care about keeping it is quite easy to just keep clicking next. :)
If I'd had mod points, you'd be a troll. Why? Your last statement is flawed:
The way I see it is that Open Source is only free if your time isn't worth anything. And as I said, I have better things to do than dick around with an OS.
How many years have you been using Windows before ever using one of the Linux distros? I will admit that Linux/Unix has a much higher learning curve than Windows. However, most of the people who complain about the switch to Linux (coming from a Windows or Mac background) never take the time to properly read books/documentation. You didn't learn all the aspects of Windows overnight! Nor do you probably know everything there is to know about Windows right now. I certainly don't despite many years & serveral manuals. I probably don't know everything about DOS even though my first computer ran DOS 4.0 and I read that manual from cover to cover. I was competent, but probably not a whiz... I'm not going to learn everything there is to know about the CCNA exam overnight. That's why I am taking classes and reading the books (2 books covering 4 parts... each book has over 1,000 pages cover to cover). Take the time to read the linux books and manuals before getting in over your head and crying "help!". Otherwise, it is going to take you at least as long as it did to get "familiar" with Windows (most likely years unless you studied from day one of touching a computer).
One of the key reasons was it's anal retentive nature about Anonymous FTP. Anonymous FTP shouldn't be any less secure than a real account. The fact that the FTP accounts were tied into system accounts really turned me off from Linux. GuildFTPd aliviates that obvious security risk by not being tied into the OS. As it should be set up.
And exactly what ftp server on what distro (and version) was this? I'll take a guess and say it was either Red Hat or Mandrake. Well, both of those distros stopped using wu-ftpd a while back (which has had it's fair share of hacker-friendliness). Red Hat switched to VsFtpd (in 8.0 I think) and Mandrake has been using ProFtpd for quite a while now. Both are much better than wu-ftpd. Also, you don't think the ftp server provided by Microsoft for Win2k Server isn't tied to the OS? It is tied as much as IIS is tied to Windows (and we all know about IIS's problems). The fact that you use GuildFTPd shows that you know it's a problem. Well, any good admin sets the ftp service on a linux box to run as an unprivledged user. And even better, set the ftp server up to jail the user into their home directory on top of that.
Another was it's inability to communicate with the Windows box to transfer the server over. Kind of key when you have 80GB of files you're serving up.
Samba... learn it. It isn't hard to learn the basics of Samba, which is all that's needed to mount a remote Windows share. If you had a directory called /mnt/tmp (which I use for temporary mounts) then you can mount a share (we'll call it "web") on a windows machine (let's call it "www") by doing this:
//www/web /mnt/tmp
# mount -t smbfs -o username=johndoe,password=foo
(replace johndoe and foo with real username and password). You don't even need the samba server files installed, just the common and client files. (On Red Hat, samba-client-(version)-(arch).rpm and samba-common-(version)-(arch).rpm if I remember right).
Sure, I could have spent a couple days to get it all working, but within 3 hours I had a fully functional Windows server so I don't bother with Linux. It has nothing I need that Windows doesn't offer in a simplier to use fashion.
I have Red Hat 8 on a system I don't really use and it works fine but it's nothing I don't have with Windows.
In three hours I'd have a fully functional Linux server. I do need linux as it does offer many useful tools that I've never seen a windows equivalent of. Most of (almost all) of
PCI-X is just an extension of existing PCI. Basically the same thing but faster and backwards compatible (I believe).
From my experience with PCI-X (not a ton) you can plug regular PCI in and expect them to work. PCI-X, IIRC, is 66mhz/64bit as opposed to the regular 33mhz/32bit PCI slots. An analogy would be the relationship between the old ISA 8-bit/16-bit buses. You can plug an 8-bit ISA card into a 16-bit ISA slot, but you could consider that as wasting a 16-bit slot :) Most (if not all?) gigabit ethernet controllers (and multi-port 100base) are usually PCI-X, as are any SCSI controllers from Ultra160 on up. Which goes to show that PCI-X was meant for servers and that's where it has always stayed. The only "desktop" (using the term loosely of course) motherboard I can think of having PCI-X was that Tyan dual Athlon board with the MPX chipset.
It's serial and can be thought of as being similar to ethernet. Kinda like the computer is a ethernet switch and all the devices are nodes plugged into it.
Yeah, the three layers of the PCI Express layout look alot like the OSI model except the higher levels are missing.
It's faster and far more efficient (at least than PCI) when multiple devices are being accessed at once.
Yep. a serial point-to-point link from each node to the hub(chipset) allows much better access of multiple devices since the bandwidth isn't being divided among all devices like on the regular parallel PCI bus. This is also what allowed Intel to do away with IRQs since each "node" has it's own "pipe" back to the hub.
Fourth, the main push is for tiny motherboards, not large motherboards. The full size format is there mostly so that there will be a large enough BTX audience to make a difference.
(OK, before I gripe I admit that Joe User won't care but...) I need more space than the micro- and pico-BTX cases are going to offer. Anandtech says, "MicroBTX cases will feature one 3.5" bay and up to two 5.25" bays." So, looks like when I switch over to BTX it's going to be the full size case. In regards to the micro-BTX case, while I only need two 5.25" bays (one for DVD and the other for CD/DVD writer), I need more than one 3.5" bay. I usually have two hard drives and as such one 3.5" bay would not be enough. Hopefully, the "one 3.5" bay" reference was for the floppy bay and not the number of internal bays for hard disks.
One thing I want to see is a standardized case connector for the power and reset switches, LEDs, and speaker. Having each of them on a separate cable is just stupid. If they standardize that, I will be very happy.
Amen!
For a long time, sendmail was the only choice for a real MTA, but I think Postfix has proven itself a worthy successor.
Yes, I agree. I've been using Postfix reliably for 2 years now on the server at work. So much easier to configure, too!And DRAM's power usage is miniscule compared to CPU or disk drive motors. But then, since the CPU is mostly idle (unless you run seti@home or something like that) and drives spin down when not in use, most of juice is being used by the CRT.
And you can set your CRT to go into standby as well, lowering the consumption of electricity even further! :)
I think the sweet spot for 3ware starts at 4-drive systems, where you can do both mirroring and striping (performance and data protection). IMO, it's too early for almost anyone to deploy SATA; it's more expensive and doesn't really perform better. However, if you have space constraints, need a relatively large number of drives, and can't bring the server down to replace disks, then a SATA config may have some advantages over a parallel ATA based RAID setup.
Actually, there is only one reason to run SATA right now, IMO. The Western Digital Raptor 10K rpm Enterprise SATA drive w/ 8MB buffer. It's got a 5 year warranty. Why? Because, It is a SCSI drive with an SATA PCB underneath! w00t! Costs less than a SCSI drive but *SHOULD* have the reliability of a SCSI disk. Otherwise, I don't see how they would be comfortable with that 5 year warranty. After all, the manufacturers keep cutting the IDE drive warranties. Meanwhile, as a system builder I am still getting brand new drives (from all brands) dead on a arrival at the same rate as before the warranty cut!
Windows 2000 Professional, Windows 2000 Server, Windows 2000 Data Center, Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional, Windows NT 4.0 Server, Windows NT 4.0 Workstation, Windows Me, Windows 98, Windows 98SE
Also, don't forget Windows 2000 Advanced Server, not to be confused with Windows 2000 Server. I have no clue what the difference is between them as shipped, but the 2 do exist. I've seen Windows 2000 Server on a shelf at CompUSA. I have only seen Advanced Server available in places that sell to large companies. (i.e. Not your local retailer and not your local mom & pop shop).
(P.S. I own a copy so yes it does exist).I mean who really cares... MS IM in my opinion isnt even that great of a service, let them go
Well as far as being a user of the MSN IM service, I'm not. And in that respect, I *DON'T* care. The only part that ticks me off is that it's MS at their old practices again. Like I said in the previous post: MS wanted AOL to open their service and "standardize". Now, MS is closing their end. Hypocrisy at it's finest!
I don't understand why people are all pissy about this. Microsoft built a private system for communication, they allowed/tolerated anyone connecting to the network with any compatible client up to this point.
People are pissy, because MS bitched and bitched for AOL to open thier IM service, and preached about an open IM standard. Now, MS is closing off their service (so it appears...).
... if scientists could reproduce what the sponges are doing synthetically in a lab. This way we could have our new form of fiber optic without killing tons of sponges.
Repair Windows machines all day long for a living and you too will begin to hate windows (and its users) very quickly....
OTOH, I suppose I should like Windows... I mean as long as MS makes an OS I'll always have a job ;) LOL
.... bullshit!! They just want to close off their service.
Kudos on the awesome response! (Very informative to myself and others too I'm sure.)
Unfortunately, (even though I have taken a couple chemistry classes and a physics class), I must have missed the part where the professor explained WHY we have unstable elements. We have so many stable elements that I've always wondered why everything on the table >92 is unstable?
Anyway, I figure I must have slept through the important lecture or something. I passed the class(es) and that's all I cared at the time
Between Windows and Redhat I find myself rebooting Redhat way more than my Windows 2K box due to it hard locking when I try to run too many Gnome apps. GUIs are still pretty buggy in *nix and ease of installation and running programs needs to be integrated. Once they get that right maybe more apps will be written for it.
Fortunately, I don't have to reboot my RedHat server except for a kernel upgrade ;) I really don't have to reboot my Win2k server that often except after a windows update session (and that happens more often than I have to reboot linux for an update :P ).
(Disclaimer: This is not a troll, this is my actual experiences with Gnome).
Well, I stopped using Gnome a long time ago. As in the last time I used Gnome Red Hat 5.2 was still considered relatively new. It was my first distro and seeing apps on Gnome crash I had wondered what in the hell my friend had been smoking when he told me "linux is more stable." What I did was switch to KDE. At that point in time KDE was absolutely UGLY but very functional for me (i.e. didn't crash every 20 minutes). I have "taken a peek" at Gnome every so often and I still see apps crashing on Gnome even when I'm just evaluating it and haven't pushed it very hard. I just don't see that many crashes on KDE. When something does crash on KDE, it is usually a "Gnome app" (such as Gaim). No, it was not my hardware. I've tried Gnome on more systems then I care to count and despite liking the looks of GNome, I've always stuck with KDE as it has always been more functional for me.
Anyway, as I stated at the beginning, this is not a troll against Gnome. I've just had rotten luck with Gnome and KDE has been a good friend to me. Consider this a KDE advertisement if you will. ;)
There are just too many bugs. Using Redhat9 to connect to an NT4 share via Samba is buggy as hell. The first connection works great. After that I practically have to reboot to get back into the share again. I find that very user unfriendly.
I cannot comment on samba with RH9 in that RH9 is the client and NT4 serving the share. I can say, however, that I have a RH9 samba server in production at work that serves large files and images to windows clients all day long, with great uptimes. Takes a beating sometimes... never stops :) Now, I have connected to windows shares from a linux box in the past without problems. It could be a bug in samba shipped with RH9. Try using up2date and get a newer version of samba if available.
New users are mainly turned away when they can't even figure out how to install an app. I was really confused when I first started. I could download to my home directory & make a new folder to put it in, had to spend 15 minutes looking up how to unzip it with tar (man tar made it sound like it was only used for tape backups), went to the folder and stared blankly and the directory listing. It turned out I was supposed to know you have to type:
make
make depend
make install
OK did that....where the hell is it?
This is the first area that I will agree with you. Installation from source is not hard for the initiated, but for the new user (who has had zero computer programming experience) it is hell. I took a few C++ classes in college but didn't persue the computer science degree because I don't make a very good programmer :( I was very shaky about compiling programs on linux even though I had taken C++ classes because it's just not the way you do it on Windows with Visual Studio, which is what I was taught at Wright State. :( However, today you will find me compiling test kernels on "test machines" just to play around and I'm pretty good at it now... but I should be considering I've used Linux since '96 or so.
It's a long and rocky road to learn *nix and unfortunately /. shows how snobby and childish 99% of them ar
You do know that the newest redhat & mandrake distros have an "add/remove programs" now right? Now, I think you still have to have all the rpms to satisfy dependencies, but at least you have a GUI to work with for newbs. I still use the command line for such tasks so I haven't had any experience with the add/remove apps other than I noticed it was there ;)
In all seriousness, the automatic updater should be running on ALL home users systems, and system admins can set it to "prompt before downloading AND prompt before installing" so that you can cancel or delay if need be (for whatever reason.. testing, etc).
Apache (running on my aforementioned patched win2k server) keeps logging a bunch of http requests matching that of code red... appearantly even that one is still floating around.
"I guess I wonder why windows can't make it more difficult for people to create self spreading virus ? Linux, BSD, and UNIX don't SEEM have these self spreading virus. Don't you ever wonder why MS with all is billions of spare dollars, can't prevent this?"
Actually, Linux has some known (nasty) worms out there, too. I should know, one of my linux servers was hit by a nasty one a couple years ago. Now, had I kept up with security notices & patched my systems more regularly as I do now that wouldn't have been a problem. These days I am on the CERT advisory mailing list, and a few others as well.
I've had that patch installed on my windows box(es) since August 4th via windows update.
if only i had mod points.... i'd mod you up
Well, I don't know about that. If you type "make modules" it does indeed do something. However! Typing "make dep" gets you a message saying that it is no longer required ;)
Just hardware dongles? How about something built into the system.. like say (gasp) Palladium!
The homepage, http://www.codeasart.com/index.html, though has a java applet on it. Upon hitting that page, mozilla crashed. Sorry, I should have been more specific. I have now removed the JRE plugin simply because it appears to be broken. I've tried several versions, too, all with the same prob. :(