On 11/26/05, Randomthots <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Chad Smith wrote: > > I'm not saying that Linux "can't" run games, like there is something > within > > Linux itself the prohibits the high-end performance that Windows can > > deliver. I know that's not the case. > > Actually, that may be the case. I recall a thread in this forum many > months ago -- another one of those Linux rulez, Windows droolz things -- > where a comment was made concerning the stability of Linux vs. Windows. > The upshot was that Linux was more stable because Windows has some > graphical processing built into the kernel, whereas Linux separates > them. So an app could crash the X-window system but the kernel would > keep on running.
That may or may not be limiting. I'm not smart enough to know for sure. In this respect the GNU/Linux architecture is similar to Windows 3.1 > running on top of DOS. > I hope people read the first paragraph before jumping all over you for this statement. This can be a big advantage; for example, I'm > running a Smoothwall firewall on my network on an old P120 w/ 80 MB of > ram. No GUI, but it has a web-based admin system like my wireless > router. Works just fine -- total cost: about $30 for a network card > (that I could have gotten cheaper on-line). Yes, running stuff from the commandline does make it work a lot faster, and on much lower levels of hardware. > If they play Solitaire and Free Cell, then, yeah, Linux can do that. > > For that matter, I think the cards in the Linux versions are butt-ugly. You and me, both, Rod! -- - Chad Smith http://www.gimpshop.net/ Because everyone loves free software!
