Linux-Advocacy Digest #571, Volume #25 Thu, 9 Mar 00 10:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Disproving the lies. ("Nik Simpson")
Re: Open Software Reliability (Christopher Browne)
Re: BSD & Linux (Donn Miller)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: ("John C.
Randolph")
Re: What the cross-posters need to grok (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Disproving the lies. ("Nik Simpson")
Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ... (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Salary? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Salary? ("Martin Knoblauch")
Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ... (2:1)
Re: What the cross-posters need to grok (2:1)
Reverse thinking ("Me")
Re: The Windows GUI vs. X (Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Reverse thinking (2:1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 08:50:03 -0500
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8a6phv$dpt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I helped implement some of the earliest LIFE 911 systems, for
> Computer Consoles - now a division of Nortel. These systems
> all ran on UNIX. Last I heard about 90% of the 911 market was
> still running on variants of UNIX. Mainframes also had a small
> niche. What percentage of the market does NT have?
I don't know percentages, but I do know that one of the largest implementers
of 911 systems is Intergraph Public Safety and they only sell NT based
systems.
>
> I should point out that if you put enough redundant servers
> into parallel, you can make a system appear to be much more
> reliable. Dell and Barns&Noble both use this approach, as does
> the Microsoft site. I've heard of some systems which use load
> balancing routers and firewalls (actually UNIX systems disguised as
> appliances) to distribute the traffic across as many as 300 servers.
No significant website whether its running NT, UNIX or flipping CP/M runs on
a single machine. Multiple machines are used for website for many reasons
including availablity and price, it's cheaper high availability and high
performance in web applications from lots of small machines than an
equivalent performance large machine.
> Many clusters also use dynamic DNS - a little feature UNIX and Linux
> have used for years to balance loads across multiple systems.
>
Roundrobin DNS schemes are function of the DNS for the site and have nothing
to with the web site itself or the platform used for the website.
>
> Same source I got the 24x7 figures (the company with 3000 servers).
> I'm suprised Aberdeen didn't include it. But on the other hand,
> this glowing review WAS located on the Microsoft site. One can
> guess that some of the more embarrassing results were deleted.
So tell us the source or do we just have to take your word for it.
>
> There are very few users familiar with multiple operating systems,
> especially those popular with UNIX who would consider NT uptimes to
> be superior to an version of UNIX. Furthermore, there is more manual
> maintainance required (Most of NT administration is only supported
> from the GUI interface). Most companies at least try to use Citrix
> to eliminate the need for one console per box.
>
This just shows how clueless you are, CITRIX would not make this task
easier, you would be able to admin the Citrix box, but you couldn't get to
the console of a non-CITRIX machine this way.
> > > By the way, the industry average uptime for UNIX systems is 99.9998%
> >
> > Getting even close to "five 9s" availablity
> > without using highly fault
> > tolerant hardware is very tough, do
> > you have any statistics or references to
> > back this claim up, my BS detector is going crazy right now.
>
> Service level guarantees from IBM, HP, and Sun. And yes, you are
> correct, most of these systems are configured with RAID, TUXEDO, and
> XA databases. Remember, UNIX systems are designed to be redundant,
> reentrant, and self-maintaining. The use of cron jobs, distributed
> processing, and recovering protocols has helped increase the uptime
> of overall systems.
There are similar levels of service guarantees from NT vendors, HP for one
and they use similar approaches. To suggest that this is an industry average
is laughable.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Open Software Reliability
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 13:52:36 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when mlw would say:
>> "Frank Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I wonder if someone could help me understand a claim that the development
>> > paradigm for open source software in general (and for Linux in particular)
>> > yields higher reliability, maintainability and stability.
>> >
>> > I understand that open source software is developed by a large decentralised
>> > group as a labour of love. It is hard to imagine that the developers would
>> > voluntairly submit themselves to the irksome quality requirements of, for
>> > instance, software generated using ISO-9000 standards.
>> >
>> > On the other hand, I imagine (?) that when a central authority pays for an
>> > operation system (or other) development, they can institute and enforce
>> > demanding quality standards. So I would expect that the code generated under
>> > the centrally controlled paradigm to be more easily maintainable.
>> >
>> > The Linux community claims that this is not so.
>> >
>> > Am I missing something?
>
>Before one understands software development on must understand software
>developers. There is an expression, "managing engineers is like herding
>cats."
The EDS commercial this year on the Super Bowl was appallingly
outrageous, showing a "cat drive" like unto a "cattle drive." They
had "Catboys" on horses herding cats, fording streams, sitting by
campfires, and such. "Git along, little cattie..."
They had the arrogance to imply that:
a) It would be *plausible* to herd cats;
b) The cats would *accept* an attempt to herd them.
Neither of which are true. Just one more reason why I will *never*
work for EDS...
>Software engineers will not put their best work in to something that
>they do not wish to do. Period. In a company, a guy who is assigned to a
>problem will not always want to work on it, thus you will not get his
>best work.
>
>In OSS the guy who needs something written, thus very involved with the
>project, will write it. It will be better than because there is a
>sympathetic need.
>
>Anecdote: I worked in a banking software company, boring work. When I
>worked on the infrastructure, i.e. error recovery, memory management,
>process scheduling, and low level stuff, I had fun and did some cool
>things. When I had to work on the financial math portion, I almost
>always felt myself drifting off to a nap. In OSS, there would be a high
>probability of some real math nut jumping in and doing that portion
>really well.
Ah, you needed Patrick McPhee or I...
>Lastly, the idea that one can "institute and enforce" demanding quality
>standards is a joke. It can't happen. One has to be a good software
>engineer to recognize bad code, it had NOTHING to do with coding
>standards or any other non-sense that passes for management, it has to
>do with how you construct your algorithms, how you access data in a
>loop, etc. For instance:
Indeed. This is the aspect of things like ISO-9000 that is a "lie."
The claim is that if you use "quality procedures," a "quality result"
is guaranteed.
Reality lies elsewhere. A truly high-quality result will have the
somewhat ineffable quality of "elegance." And *that* requires having
someone involved that has:
- Freedom of action, to design things the way *they* wish,
- Clarity of vision, to know what it is that they wish to design,
- The "intelligence" (for lack of a better term) to be able to make
this result "elegant."
--
"I doubt this language difference would confuse anybody unless you
were providing instructions on the insertion of a caffeine enema."
-- On alt.coffee
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 08:55:44 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, Tore Lund wrote:
> I thought Debian was about to adopt HURD, correct me if I am wrong.
>
> But the idea is interesting nevertheless. Some of us want to see a
> serious competitor to Windows, and Debian just might fill that role
> (with or without a FreeBSD kernel).
Debian already has a distribution with the FreeBSD kernel/Linux
userland. It's called Debian GNU/FreeBSD or something like that. I guess
they found putting the two together suited their needs. <shrugs>. If
they wanted to make it more interesting, they could have merged the
FreeBSD and Linux userland+kernel. But, I think the main reason for using
the FreeBSD kernel in the first place was to satisfy Debian users who
didn't like the GNU license and preferred the BSD license.
- Donn
------------------------------
From: "John C. Randolph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 13:59:59 GMT
John Jensen wrote:
> I remember something about an open source developer trying to get some
> information released so he could try it. IIRC, he was one of the
> developers of an X11 MPEG player. Perhaps someone else remembers more.
QT handles much more than MPEG.
-jcr
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What the cross-posters need to grok
Date: 9 Mar 2000 14:03:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
William Adderholdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Time to start killfiling entire newsgroups...
Try a killfile rule for the group in question that nukes all messages
with a comma in the newsgroups line. Sure it's an aggressive way to
tackle cross-posts, but highly justifiable in *.advocacy...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 09:17:21 -0500
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8a7038$ihe$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> It will be interesting to see how Win2k $/TPM-C actually translates
> in the real world.
>
> It will be even more interesting to see what Linux $/TPM-C looks like.
> (has anyone published a "legal one" yet?). The last unofficial one
> I saw was $2/TPM-C on a 30,000 TPM system based on P-II/300s and Linux.
Utter bullshit, care to provide a reference. PII-300 are limited to dual
processor systems with a maximum memory of 512MB, it's simply not feasible
with any operating system to get within an order of magnitude of 30K TPM/C
on that configuration. I might just possibly beleive 3K on such a
configuration but given the nature of the benchmark's demands for memory I'd
be very sceptical about the results. If you don't beleive me, try asking
about the plausability of the result on one of the database groups, anybody
with even a passing familiarity with TPC/C and the hardware limitations of
PII-300 systems will laugh so hard they'll take days to type a reply.
The numbers mean that overall price of the system is 60K (for your
$2/transaction.) Just look at the numbers, a 30K TPC/C result is going to
need:
The server, lets be generous here and allow your 2-way P-300 with 512MB of
memory: Rough guess 4K
(but for the record the 33K result that HP announced last week was 6x550MHx
XEON & 4GB of memory.)
Now we get on to the hard part and a part that is OS independent, the disk
subsystem, you'll need in the order of 2.2TB of storage for this result,
thats a function of the number of transactions. And this 2.2TB is not going
to be cheap IDE drives, the HP result used 240x9GB (10K) and another 14x18GB
(10K) drives. For the sake of argument, lets price this drive configuration
using HPs numbers from last week:
9GB 10K drive $508 each ~$136Ktotal (for 268 drives which includes
spares)
18GB 10K drive $799 each ~$13K total (for 16 drives which includes
spares)
12bay disk housing 1890 each ~43.5K total (for 23 chassis including spares)
So, just for the IO subsystem needed for a 30K result we are in the 200K
range, hard to see how you can do a 60K result, unless you have access to
some of the finest weed on the planet.
> Unfortunately, it was not approved, not properly sponsored, and the
> TPM review committee demanded that all references to these results
> be removed.
How convenient! No shit it wasn't approved, for the simple reason that it is
not possible with current technology or even close to being possible. The HP
result was ~$13/transaction, the only difference would be the cost of the
OS, on a configuration that cost ~500K. If you know anything at all about
TPC/C you'll know that the vast majority of the costs are in two areas:
Hardware
5 years maintenance
Even if you gave away the OS and the database you still don't get even close
to what you claim.
>They appearantly didn't disagree with the results, only
> that the results couldn't be published without the permission of the
> entire membership.
More unsupported bullshit, at this point we are knee deep in the stuff.
>Since the membership included Oracle, Sybase, IBM,
> HP, and SUN, there weren't any votes that wanted to see these results
> published.
ROTFLMBFAO
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ...
Date: 9 Mar 2000 14:22:33 GMT
2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
: WHY do people keep posting `Linux will fail' gibberish? There some very
: good reasons why it wont (to winvocates: this has *nothing* do do with
: replacing windows, so don't bother replying along that line)
Linux has obviously intimidated or threatened these people in some way.
Perhaps it threatens their favorite OS. Perhaps they wanted to get
involved but found it too difficult to use and felt dejected. For
some reason Linux has given these people grief.
So, a nice response for them is that "Linux will fail", bringing to mind
images of Tux sitting in a gutter and hundreds of Linux users wailing
pitifully because their beloved OS has "failed". No real rationale
accompanies these sort of responses, it's just an exercise in
getting back at the OS (and its users) that they don't like.
They don't like Linux, so no one else should either.
I think that's why it keeps getting brought up - that and people
like to troll for flamage.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 07:39:41 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 08 Mar 2000 19:43:31 -0500...
...and Greg Yantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > they have tax-free highways.
>
> They get taxed in plenty of other ways.
>
> > they have 6 weeks vacancies, you have 2.5.
>
> I thought it was 5.
My sister got 30 days of paid vacation per year on her first job, I
think. That's six weeks at five days each.
> > . language: hardly understandable or spoken :-)
>
> True. I never had any trouble finding people who spoke better English
> than I do, when I needed help. :)
Germans tend to be better at English grammar than most Americans
because they've had to learn German grammar first ;)
> The US (again, from what I hear) seems to have a vastly superior
> communications infrastructure, overall. Though some parts of Europe
> are pretty well wired, or linux and cryptography software might not
> be so widespread today. :)
Germany, for one, has pretty much the best ISDN network on this
planet; we've got almost a third of our households hooked up to ISDN
by now.
mawa
--
User: Ich hätte gern ein paar MByte Speicher.
malloc(): OK. Welche Sicherheiten haben sie?
------------------------------
From: "Martin Knoblauch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 15:36:13 +0100
"Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It was the 08 Mar 2000 19:43:31 -0500...
>
> Germany, for one, has pretty much the best ISDN network on this
> planet; we've got almost a third of our households hooked up to ISDN
> by now.
>
But then the question is who else is interested in ISDN anyway (besides
Deutsche Telekom). Japan and France I believe are the only counties who
really take it serious. The US definitely not. Now, if DT would be serious
about DSL .....
Martin
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ...
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 14:49:40 +0000
Brian Langenberger wrote:
>
> 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> : WHY do people keep posting `Linux will fail' gibberish? There some very
> : good reasons why it wont (to winvocates: this has *nothing* do do with
> : replacing windows, so don't bother replying along that line)
>
> Linux has obviously intimidated or threatened these people in some way.
> Perhaps it threatens their favorite OS. Perhaps they wanted to get
> involved but found it too difficult to use and felt dejected. For
> some reason Linux has given these people grief.
>
> So, a nice response for them is that "Linux will fail", bringing to mind
> images of Tux sitting in a gutter and hundreds of Linux users wailing
> pitifully because their beloved OS has "failed". No real rationale
> accompanies these sort of responses, it's just an exercise in
> getting back at the OS (and its users) that they don't like.
> They don't like Linux, so no one else should either.
I think you've got a point.
There will never be dejected users, sad that linux has failed, because
as long as there are people who run linux, it won't have failed. Viva
Tux
> I think that's why it keeps getting brought up - that and people
> like to troll for flamage.
I suppose. But if there was no M$-Linux wors on the news group, it would
be a bit more boring:) consider:
Re:Linux is great
|
+-Yep, it is
| |
| +-I agree
+-That's what I think too
+-Indeed.
It's boring preaching to the converted, and it's sometines fun to argue
and get worked up without any risk of injury (excluding RSI).
So, Drestin, why don't you post a ridiculous claim to this thread, so we
all have a chance to vent our daily stresses, and watch a huge thread
evolve over several days
-Ed
--
Did you know that the highest point in the world is only eight foot?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What the cross-posters need to grok
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 14:56:31 +0000
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> William Adderholdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Time to start killfiling entire newsgroups...
>
> Try a killfile rule for the group in question that nukes all messages
> with a comma in the newsgroups line. Sure it's an aggressive way to
> tackle cross-posts, but highly justifiable in *.advocacy...
>
> Donal.
> --
> Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
> be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
> borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
--
Did you know that the highest point in the world is only eight foot?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
From: "Me" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Reverse thinking
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 14:55:39 GMT
Why has had VMware such a boom ? Just because each of the workstation
GNU/Linux user NEED Windows applications (I should dare to say that Windows
OS too). People think that Linux is a good base OS to run Windows (even when
in fact, games run slow), but have you ever thought that Windows 2000 is
perfectly suited to run "Linux in a box" ? This is another approach of
having the two platforms, but using as base the better one and having the
toys inside the VMware virtual machines; besides, are there so many X11 end
user good applications ? Then, why not to run console tools (Linux have
little more to offer) under VMware ? Sure the run faster than Windows
applications under Linux or under X11 (not to talk about X11 tech).
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Windows GUI vs. X (Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 14:45:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike Kenzie wrote:
>
> > So having no choice of widgets is a feature now. And the Blue
Screen is
> > not my idea of great graphics.
>
> But with Windows, you don't _have_ to use the default widgets in the
> Win32 API. You can override it with your own. Ever see Gtk running
> under Windows? Microsoft did a pretty good job of providing a
> practical and good-looking GUI. I kind of like the fact that all the
> widgets look the same under Windows. And, I like how the "file open"
> dialogs are integrated with the desktop. One thing Windows has is
> consistency.
>
> With X, a lot of times you have numerous apps that all have different
> widget sets & look and feel. Also, the DnD doesn't work between a
> Motif and Qt app, for example. X is a great windowing system in that
> you have a choice as to your look and feel. But, it looks live you've
> got a mish-mash of different GUIs and look and feel if you've got a
> Qt, Gtk, and Motif app open on my screen. And please, let's knock off
> the bitching about Motif, OK? I happen to like Motif, and Lesstif
> works very well if you don't have the money to buy a Motif license.
>
> The general consensus in these unix/linux NGs is that "We all hate
> Motif, and we should all be using Gtk because GNOME rulez" or "we
> should all be using Qt because KDE is so popular".
There is also: "Gtk has plenty of useful language bindings" and
"Qt is a very nice toolkit".
> Linux/unix people
> tell me (and I'm one myself) that Qt/KDE is the best thing that ever
> happened to X, because now we finally have some consistence in X's
> look and feel. The same people are saying X is better than Windows'
> Windowing system/GUI, because X gives you a choice in widget
> sets/look-n-feel. So, what's the point in having multiple widget sets
> if I'm supposed to despise Motif and love KDE or GNOME because it has
> "consistency"? Don't people see the contradiction there? What's the
> point in even having a mechanism for different widget sets if we're
> only "supposed" to be running KDE with Qt or GNOME with Gtk? What
> good does the "mechanism, not policy" do for X in that case? Well,
> then stop bitching about Motif and non-{Qt,Gtk} widget sets then,
> people!
I'll bitch about Motif, but for other reasons. For instance, Motif sucks
very much.
> Guys, it's OK to like Motif.
Only if you like it enough to use it yourself on your own programming
projects. If a Motif lover comes and asks *me* to use Motif becuase
*he* likes it, I will simply not care at all.
> Remember, us unix people were the ones
> trumpeting about how great X is because it allows for any GUI we
> wish. We should also note that it's possible to create any widget set
> for Windows that we wish; we don't have to use the Windows GUI/widget
> sets if we don't like. Hello people, Lesstif IS Motif comaptible!
> Knock knock, Lesstif? Ever hear of Lesstif? It's - I SAID, LESSTIF
> IS FREE! YES, THAT'S RIGHT. IT'S FREE, AS IN FREE BEER. YOU CAN
> DOWNLOAD IT TO YOUR COMPUTER, YOU KNOW, THAT THING YOU'RE READING THIS
> MESSAGE ON? HELLO? IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY MEMORY LEAKS, YOU KNOW, THOSE
> THINGS MOTIF HATERS ALL ALWAYS BITCHING ABOUT? AND YES, LESSTIF IS
> FREE, AND IT IS MOTIF (practically)! AND YES, I WANT TO HAVE A CHOICE
> IN WIDGET SETS, YOU KNOW, CHOICE, THAT THING YOU'RE ALWAYS CRYIN'
> ABOUT? NO, I DON'T WANT TO BE FORCED TO RUN KDE OR GNOME BECAUSE A
> UNIX CRYBABY HATES MOTIF!!!
a) Noone is forcing you to use anything. Except, of course in the weak
sense: if you want to run something I write, you are going to run
something that is not Motif.
b) Disliking motif is not a sign of being a crybaby, it is a sign of
knowing Motif and knowing something else (at least for the vast
majority of people who know motif AND something else).
c) Stop yelling, you look like a whiner.
> Lesstif is an alternative, you know, lesstif? Ever hear of that?
> HELLO?????@!!!
Sure, it's an alternative. You go and use it. Alternatives are also
there to be discarded. I discarded all motif-like things 15 minutes
after knowing Qt.
> I don't run Windows, but I was just trying to make a point here.
I fail to see it. Must be that I am not smart enough to like motif.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Reverse thinking
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 15:03:38 +0000
Me wrote:
>
> Why has had VMware such a boom ? Just because each of the workstation
> GNU/Linux user NEED Windows applications (I should dare to say that Windows
> OS too). People think that Linux is a good base OS to run Windows (even when
> in fact, games run slow), but have you ever thought that Windows 2000 is
> perfectly suited to run "Linux in a box" ?
No it isn't. Linux is more stable. therefore, if you run linux under
Win2000, then the overall stability of linux under that is only the
stability if W2K, because a BSOD kills everything.
If you run W2K under linux, the stability of w2k is that of w2k, and the
stability o linux is that of linux. So it makes sense to run w2k under
linux.
Sure, if you want to play games, then have a dual boot computer and run
the games under windows. But if you're hell bent on switcking between
linux and windows games, and you want the games to run fast, then it
would make sense to run linux under windows.
>This is another approach of
> having the two platforms, but using as base the better one and having the
> toys inside the VMware virtual machines; besides, are there so many X11 end
> user good applications ?
Yes, there are.
Then, why not to run console tools (Linux have
> little more to offer) under VMware ? Sure the run faster than Windows
> applications under Linux or under X11 (not to talk about X11 tech).
--
Did you know that the highest point in the world is only eight foot?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
