I had a system with multiple intesive prcoesses causing it to halt - replaced the mobo and it was fixed.
I couldn't use any two of the following simultaniously (except two in the high-cpu category)
- High intensive CPU tasks
- Graphical Tasks
- network transfers of more than a few MB.
lol yeah, Norton is a great system destabilizer.
Not overly fond of adobe either, but their destabilizations tend to stick to their own software and not take the OS with them.
I see Linux like is see MacOS, I've use FC4, Ubuntu, KUbuntu, and Gentoo.
Gentoo at least had the documentation decent, but all of them had issues which maked working with the system an unreliable pain in the butt with me. I'll happily use them, but I wouldn't want to admin them.
XP pro, doesn't slow down at all, I don't reboot it, it's a 24/7 box:
Home:
MS Office
Trillian
Final Fantasy XI
Winamp
Cygwin
IE
Firefox
Outlook Express
Corel Photopaint
Visual Studio
Macaffee Virus Scan Enterprise
Work:
Like home except without Final Fantasy XI
You've got bad hardware, virii or spyware.
both have 1GB of memory, home is a 2500+ AthlonXP, work is a Gateway with a 3.2Ghz P4.
Now, on an "improperly" maintained machine, I find an equal amount of bluescreens and crashes to be due to virii and spyware that's corrupted an XP install/taken over critical services/etc.
I'll grant you that well enough - the problem is, with the average user, that would happen on just about any system that became sufficiently popular.
The question is, should we not count those in the total because the end-users should be "properly" maintaining their machines (ie: patches, AV and AS software, a real firewall, etc) - or do we count those towards the total # of crashes/BSODs and hold MS responsible because they released an OS that had so many unresolved issues (after all, many of the buffer overflow/underrun issues have existed in the code since the NT4/2000 days)?
I'd say that these are issues, but what other OS is popular enough that it's been tested by the malevolents of the world to the extent of Windows? Linux for a while was over Windows a few years ago, in the server market, and if memory serves, hand more successful hack-ins too. Were it a user OS, I would expect that to lead to the issues mentioned in Windows if it ever became sufficiently popular.
I'm not arguing either side, btw. I'm just pointing out that either answer is "right" depending on the base premise behind it - which many here and elsewhere differ on (and is yet another debate in it's own right)
So you are saying we are all right, but just in our own minds? I like that. Shame I can't give you good karma for that one (haven't quite figured out how to turn it on).
I've found an OSs security and stability are inversly proportional to it's popularity, all other things being approximately within an order of magnitude of eachother.
I've only found 2 that can fit that description though - I can't hold it against them:
MacOS: as long as you don't have errors, you are fine, get errors and you are screwed.
FreeBSD: Kinda like Linux, but the documentation is so anal, when you run into an error, it's much easier to fix (unless that error is lack of drivers)
Call me weird, but 99% of the time, I found windows crashes to be due to poor hardware. At least in the 2k/xp world. 9x just crashed on a whim. I easily get several-month uptimes now that I have a UPS.
However, I would expect that a beta/rc software would not be that stable.
As for not ready for the prime time - well, there are a lot of bugs that don't involve stability.
My initial concerns about these voting machines was someone obtaining one through other means than stealing one from the government and then creating trojan software for it.
When, one election, you see millions of write ins for president, where the write-in is Linus Travolds or Larry Flint, you'll know your fears have come to pass.
as much as I like BSD, I suspect BSD will go belly up long before Linux - BSD just doesn't get the marketing Linux does, and won't achieve the popularity.
many non-metallic/stone obstacles won't cause much of a hinderance I suspect.
Stille, a 20 meter radius isn't so bad, that's enough to cover many houses except for a couple corners. The question is:
how much falloff is there past that range?
how much falloff is there due to various types of blocking materials (plaster, metal pipes, wrapping paper [hey, it actually interfears with my 802.11g router, there was some stored in a closet between my notebook and the router - removing it, even though it was replced by cloths, increased signal strength], etc).
And when i read that 99.99% of desktop computers uses Microsoft Window i don't think that Linux is dying. I just use it on my desktop every day, and it is enough:)
When I read that 99.99% of desktop computers use Windows, I think that someone hasn't done their research... I believe it is high, but/that/ high?
funny, the GNU tools are the only thing I find advantageous of Linux against BSD in my experience.
I have my FreeBSD box running, but installed and use the GNU tools because:
(1) more flexibility and options
(2) command line arguments tend to be more flexible in their placing...
I don't know how many times I've wanted to look at a file, and only after typing the command, considered *how* I wanted to look at it:
$ ls somedir -l
works great with gnu tools, the BSD tools have a hissyfit. As much as I like (love) the rest of the OS, I stick to GNU for the tools.
I agree, if NetBSD goes (I hope it doesn't), I hope the devs go to Free or Open BSD. By consolodating development, it can really help the projects move faster, and maybe get driver support to the point where we can easily compete with Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
I had a system with multiple intesive prcoesses causing it to halt - replaced the mobo and it was fixed. I couldn't use any two of the following simultaniously (except two in the high-cpu category) - High intensive CPU tasks - Graphical Tasks - network transfers of more than a few MB.
lol yeah, Norton is a great system destabilizer. Not overly fond of adobe either, but their destabilizations tend to stick to their own software and not take the OS with them.
I see Linux like is see MacOS, I've use FC4, Ubuntu, KUbuntu, and Gentoo. Gentoo at least had the documentation decent, but all of them had issues which maked working with the system an unreliable pain in the butt with me. I'll happily use them, but I wouldn't want to admin them.
XP pro, doesn't slow down at all, I don't reboot it, it's a 24/7 box: Home: MS Office Trillian Final Fantasy XI Winamp Cygwin IE Firefox Outlook Express Corel Photopaint Visual Studio Macaffee Virus Scan Enterprise Work: Like home except without Final Fantasy XI You've got bad hardware, virii or spyware. both have 1GB of memory, home is a 2500+ AthlonXP, work is a Gateway with a 3.2Ghz P4.
I'll grant you that well enough - the problem is, with the average user, that would happen on just about any system that became sufficiently popular.
I'd say that these are issues, but what other OS is popular enough that it's been tested by the malevolents of the world to the extent of Windows? Linux for a while was over Windows a few years ago, in the server market, and if memory serves, hand more successful hack-ins too. Were it a user OS, I would expect that to lead to the issues mentioned in Windows if it ever became sufficiently popular.
So you are saying we are all right, but just in our own minds? I like that. Shame I can't give you good karma for that one (haven't quite figured out how to turn it on). I've found an OSs security and stability are inversly proportional to it's popularity, all other things being approximately within an order of magnitude of eachother.
I've only found 2 that can fit that description though - I can't hold it against them: MacOS: as long as you don't have errors, you are fine, get errors and you are screwed. FreeBSD: Kinda like Linux, but the documentation is so anal, when you run into an error, it's much easier to fix (unless that error is lack of drivers)
Call me weird, but 99% of the time, I found windows crashes to be due to poor hardware. At least in the 2k/xp world. 9x just crashed on a whim. I easily get several-month uptimes now that I have a UPS. However, I would expect that a beta/rc software would not be that stable. As for not ready for the prime time - well, there are a lot of bugs that don't involve stability.
Göterborgs-Posten do I win a prize?
nice... and that shows that if NetBSD merges into another BSD (please be Free! please be Free!), it won't be an unprecidented action.
as much as I like BSD, I suspect BSD will go belly up long before Linux - BSD just doesn't get the marketing Linux does, and won't achieve the popularity.
many non-metallic/stone obstacles won't cause much of a hinderance I suspect. Stille, a 20 meter radius isn't so bad, that's enough to cover many houses except for a couple corners. The question is: how much falloff is there past that range? how much falloff is there due to various types of blocking materials (plaster, metal pipes, wrapping paper [hey, it actually interfears with my 802.11g router, there was some stored in a closet between my notebook and the router - removing it, even though it was replced by cloths, increased signal strength], etc).
When I read that 99.99% of desktop computers use Windows, I think that someone hasn't done their research... I believe it is high, but
ok, I'm not good with history, I just know what's important... FreeBSD makes me happier than any other OS can.
oops, misread that, didn't see Linus' name there. No, I don't think he'd be good for the BSD projects.
funny, the GNU tools are the only thing I find advantageous of Linux against BSD in my experience. I have my FreeBSD box running, but installed and use the GNU tools because: (1) more flexibility and options (2) command line arguments tend to be more flexible in their placing... I don't know how many times I've wanted to look at a file, and only after typing the command, considered *how* I wanted to look at it: $ ls somedir -l works great with gnu tools, the BSD tools have a hissyfit. As much as I like (love) the rest of the OS, I stick to GNU for the tools.
I thought OpenBSD is the continuation of the original, whereas "Net" and "Free" are the two major forks.
I agree, if NetBSD goes (I hope it doesn't), I hope the devs go to Free or Open BSD. By consolodating development, it can really help the projects move faster, and maybe get driver support to the point where we can easily compete with Linux.