On Saturday 08 June 2002 10:13 am, you wrote:
> Something doesn't have to be "just like" something else to work the same
> way. What I mean by "work the same way" is, to be an environment within
> which I can run the applications I need to run to fulfill my reasons for
> using the computer in the first place.
>
> If my intent is to spend time playing with, tweaking, patching, exploring,
> experimenting, etc., then fine, a CLI based OS is probably fine. If on the
> other hand, I want - or need boxes which set there ready and host the
> applications I need, and allow me to do so without having to type in a long
> string of commands and parameters and whatever each time I want to run one
> of the apps, or worse yet, to upgrade a driver or app, I've got to download
> some code and go through a compilation process, which may or may not work.
>
> My interest IS looking for a Windows replacement. Windows (NT, 2000) work
> just fine and do everything I want and need them to do. However, I, like
> most if not all of you all have had it up to our ears with MS and their
> bull. I am dead serious in that I think MS needs real competition. Not
> only in the server world but on the desktop as well. No OS will ever be
> serious competition for Windows unless it can be a viable "replacement" for
> Windows. And no, you can't use Linux "instead" of Windows unless you can
> do with it what you can with Windows. I've got a well functioning domain
> network here at my house running 2000 Server and previously NT Server
> hosting several other computers, running 24/7 with none of the claimed MS
> crashes. So, my expectations for a replacement OS are very high.
>
> Sorry for the rant, folks but this has been a sore point for me for a long
> time.
>
>
> Dan W. Dooley WB5TKA Bedford, Texas
> e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Web address: http://www.qsl.net/wb9tka
> May Goddes love blest ye alle
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jon Doe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 9:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [newbie] Speed differences between OSs
>
> > I am sure I'll get flamed for this, but I don't think Linux is a
> > "replacement" for Windows. Linux is a robust *nix clone. I think you can
> > "use" Linux instead of Windows.
> > But I personally hope that Linux is never a "replacement" for Windows. I
> > don't like Windows and don't want Linux to be just like Windows.
I agree with you on all your points, but am not sure what is causing your
problem. I have a home LAN setup with 5 computers and a stand alone
firewall/router, with two still on windows and the rest Mandrake-linux. The
fire wall is SNF with all updates and one of the computers is acting as my
web host server using Apache. The workstations range from intel 166 mhz to an
AMD Duron 1ghz powered computer. All run very well and all linux boxes run
KDE. Speed differences are barely perceptable to me. Locally the 1ghz
machine is noticebly faster than the others but for internet surfing etc, the
differences don't seem to be huge. Maybe if you try "drakopt" which should
be on 8.2 download discs. Or if you are using 8.1, which if I recall had
some speed issues with some machines due to the kernel version, upgrade to
8.2. For me, and this is just my situation, Mandrake-Linux is a replacement
intotal for Windows. Oh, I don't have games on my list of needs so I
don't use wine or any of those programs.
Just to close, I have watch Mandrakesoft bring their distribution along for
nearly three years now and I believe that within the next 1 to 2 years you
and a lot of other people will find no reason to have MS installed on your
computers. Assuming MS does not change their ways.
Just my $.02,
--
Dennis M. linux user #180842
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
