-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Most of the linux users are blind to the many shortcomings of their favorite
> OS, just as many Windows users are. This causes them to rashly make
> incorrect statements, such as that Windows uses shared memory and has no
> memory protection and is not multitasking (all of which have appeared in
> this newsgroup). Just as ludicrous is the statement that Linux undergoes a
This is true, excepting that while windows is multitasking it is only
partially a preemptive multi-tasking (16 bit programs remain cooperative
tasking). And while all win 9x do run programs in a protected VM the
task switch is bad at booting programs that have hung (which usually
turns out to be fatal soon after). This is primarily due to a really
poor preemptive (hacked in) architecture that wasn't 'from the ground up'.
> more thorough review process before release. How big is the Windows
Now here you seem to be speculating that coders at MS are *also* testers,
this I doubt very much. The coders are continuing to work on windows and trying
to get their holy-grail of 9x merged with NT, while at the same time each
sub section continues to try and enhance their area (most esp w/DirectX). Also
all the incomplete features that were scaled back to make release continue to
try to finish so they can have a stable patch.
> development team at MS, would you say? And what exactly do you think they do
> with their time during the final weeks or months prior to the release of a
> new version of Windows? (Hint: MS is not know for the amount of leisure time
> enjoyed by its workforce!) And how many people beta test each version of
It's also not known for it's programmers with years of industry experience
outside of Redmond. Smarter not Harder isn't a Microsoft-ism. At MS 'We work
alot' is more important than 'We know what we're doing'.
> Windows? Take your blinders off, folks! Linux is a great OS, for some
> situations, but MS is not the devil and Windows is a real OS.
Some situations to include everything but DVD Movies and Games.
MS is now working on 2 fronts, rescue NT as the small to medium business
server and WinCE those set-top-boxes! MS Needs WinCE w/DirectX to be the
gaming platform because the *mass* market doesn't want a home PC, they
want games, WebTV, and a minimal amount of word processing (for school).
Incidentally with XFree86 v4.0 having OpenGL and DRI Linux will
hopefully be able to get some (commercial) game-dev. Also if Linux
grows to become the embedded OS of the future (As it appears that
transmeta seeks) Then Linux will join the race to the 'set-top-box'
with MS.
Hey, we already have TIVO, MP3's etc, we're getting a new X, and mozilla,
just add some games and this will KICK in the Multimedia center!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Jeff Silverman
> Sent: Friday, December 17, 1999 1:18 AM
> To: Mike Davison
> Cc: Nicholas Bodley; Jacob Joseph; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SLL] Features of linux
>
>
>
> Mike Davison wrote:
> >
> > <soapbox on>
> >
> > Hmmm... I'll disagree. Linux, and other operating systems that support
> > protected memory models are more reliable than operating systems that
> > use a shared memory model, like Windows and MacOS. In the latter case,
> > an misbehaving program can crash the system. In the protected-memory
> > case, it is almost impossible for a lousy program to crash the whole
> > box. That is why Linux is more reliable than Windows.
> >
> > The size of the kernel and the open review process are both helpful
> > in keeping Linux reliable, but the underlying memory-management
> > architecture is much more critical to Linux's reliablity.
> >
> > <soapbox off>
>
> Mike,
>
> Could you spare a few ones and zeroes and explain the difference between a
> "protected memory model"
> and a "shared memory model"? When I went to Windows/95 and Windows/NT
> school, much was made out of
> the fact that all processes within the OS had their own unique memory
> address space, but that the
> upper half of memory was devoted to the kernel and was shared. VMS uses the
> same model (Microsoft's
> innovation: moving the VMS memory model from the VAX to the 80386. Big
> whoop), and VMS is
> considered a rock solid OS. But now you tell me that Windows is actually
> sharing memory, I assume
> between processes. I don't understand.
>
> >
> > In any case, Linux has proven itself to be much more reliable than the
> > operating systems produced at Microsoft. (And Apple, but most folks
> > don't care about Apple.) It should be interesting to see how reliable
> > Windows 2000/NT ends up being as it is a protected-memory architecture
> > and _should_ be as reliable as Linux. We'll see.
> This is true.
> >
> > Mike
>
> Many thanks,
>
>
> --
> Jeff Silverman, PC guy, Linux wannabe, Java wannabe, Software engineer,
> husband, father etc.
> See my website: http://www.commercialventvac.com/~jeffs
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-diald" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-diald" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- --
http://shaun.tancheff.com/ /?/ -_- /
:-) shaun ;-] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shaun Tancheff) .sigs freed
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOGjyI3p8xH1R2fPpEQLxWACfY2nb9c7b5PaVvKwqh1BWZY22bmoAoPTK
7W57WL5yyUEvWnVW7SPWNzjg
=7i08
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-diald" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
