If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Randy Howard wrote in
: In article , says... Actually, my XP installation, since getting it set up and configured, has never crashed. It's only been running a couple, though. There is a word missing I think, after 'couple'. Assuming it is days, weeks, or even months, consider yourself lucky. Yeah, I left out the word seconds. It did finally crash after 8 seconds. Actually, the word missing was "months". I don't really consider myself lucky since my experience with XP is that it is relatively stable. As much as I hate Windows and would love for Linux to become widely accepted by Joe User, I'm not going to delude myself. Why would you love that? Because I use an x86 desktop system and I like alternatives and competition. Right now, Windows has no competition. Maybe if the Linux community would quit deluding themselves they'd realize they aren't getting the job done when it comes to making Linux acceptable as a mainstream desktop OS. I hope they never do. Think about it. For that to happen, Linux has to become as bloated, riddled with feature-creep driven hacks, filled with resource consuming paper clips and other garbage as Windows is today. Only if that's your idea of a usable desktop OS. Mine is one which users who have little interest in how a PC works can setup and use. That doesn't mean only one simple to use distro. You can still have your hand-built-impress-my-pimply-faced-geek-friends-with-my-uber-skillz distro, too. I for one would much rather see Linux concentrate on building a stable server OS and let the lemmings run wherever they can find a mouse that they can click without a training class. They already have a stable server OS. It works great. Because a stable server OS makes a very good platform for someone serious about using a computer as a computer, rather than as the QVC channel or a gameboy. I don't really care how others use it as long as they use it. I guess my elitest sensibilities aren't as keen as yours. I'm sure all GUIs are out of the question for you since they serve no purpose other than to make it easier to use. No mice for j00! That just makes you look loony to those of us who are sane and don't base our self esteem on how hard our PC is to use. I believe Linux will only get better if it gets more popular and usable and I see no reason that has to have any negative impact on its use as a server OS. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:17:15 -0500, Carlo Razzeto wrote:
"Randy Howard" wrote in message Because a stable server OS makes a very good platform for someone serious about using a computer as a computer, rather than as the QVC channel or a gameboy. There's a serious flaw in this theory.... Operating System development takes lots and lots of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.... This means the big Linux distrabutions need to find a way to fund development... Hence all the Major Distro's now "encourage" users to pay for support (i.e. make it very difficult to find free ISOs). It's the law of economics... If you want a modern operating system that is stable and has all the features you need to get your work done, then you need lots of money... In order to get lots of money you have to make your product appealing to businesses. Hence paper clips and other "garbage" bloat ware. I think you are confusing Linux Distros like RH, suse, Mandrake, etc with linux. Mostly all these distros do is build the installation cd's/dvd from free source. They then sell their work or distro, not Linux. One person could put together a Linux distro in a short period of time since basically all you do is package progams that are already written together into an easy to install package. Why is it so hard to think that some people want an alternative to the virus and bug infested MS product? And why is it so hard to believe that people would work on the project for free with a group of other people to accomplish this. I've not once been asked to pay for support, and I've had absolutely no problem finding Linux distros you can DL for free. There's literally thousand of places. of course you have to burn your own cd's/dvd this way. If you can't do that, you can buy a basic distro either online or in a store for about $30. With that, you will not get just the OS though, you'll get office suites and everything else under the sun. And if you've ever loaded Win from scratch (not a recover cd) then you should be able to install linux easily, as it's easier to install than windows is. And if you need support, well, that's what the linux news groups are for. And it's totally free. And it will be better than any support you get from MS. There is one catch though. Don't expect all winhardware like winmodems (which aren't even modems) to work. IOW's if you need a driver for it to work with windows, you'll need one for linux. And while there are drivers for a lot of this stuff, you may have trouble finding a driver for some things. You will also need at least dsl speeds to dl a distro. A dl distro of 3 cd's will take about 6-10hrs with dsl at 768K. or, you can get them already burned on ebay for about $5 including shipping. -- Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB) http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.htm |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Randy Howard wrote:
It will not be very long before all new hardware being sold is 64-bit capable from both Intel and AMD. The Mac crowd has had access to 64-bit solutions, as well as most of the higher end workstation and server crowd for a lot longer. Oh no, I don't think so, the Mac crowd still doesn't have access to a 64-bit OS yet (unless you count Linux, just like in PCs). Yes, they have access to a 64-bit capable CPU, but MacOS is still very much a 32-bit OS still. So they are in exactly the same boat as PCs, they can either go to the less-popular alternative OS, or wait it out for the full support in their mainline OS. Yousuf Khan |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Randy Howard wrote:
It will not be very long before all new hardware being sold is 64-bit capable from both Intel and AMD. The Mac crowd has had access to 64-bit solutions, as well as most of the higher end workstation and server crowd for a lot longer. Oh no, I don't think so, the Mac crowd still doesn't have access to a 64-bit OS yet (unless you count Linux here too). Yes, they have access to a 64-bit capable CPU, but MacOS is still very much a 32-bit OS still. So they are in exactly the same boat as PCs, they can either go to the less-popular alternative OS, or wait it out for the full support in their mainline OS. Yousuf Khan |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Randy Howard wrote:
It will not be very long before all new hardware being sold is 64-bit capable from both Intel and AMD. The Mac crowd has had access to 64-bit solutions, as well as most of the higher end workstation and server crowd for a lot longer. Oh no, I don't think so, the Mac crowd still doesn't have access to a 64-bit OS yet (unless you count Linux, just like in PCs). Yes, they have access to a 64-bit capable CPU, but MacOS is still very much a 32-bit OS still. So they are in exactly the same boat as PCs, they can either go to the less-popular alternative OS, or wait it out for the full support in their mainline OS. Yousuf Khan |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Wes Newell got up from the bar and shouted: :
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:03:10 +0000, Black Shuck wrote: Already run Linux on my home server (a Gentoo box), but as a workstation OS, Linux sucks badly. Perhaps in a few years it would be ready for mainstream... Sorry, I just don't believe you run linux. Because if you did, you wouldn't make such statements. I've been running Linux for about 3 or more years now and it is much better than Win every thought about being. And if you like Win so much why aren't you running a windows server instead of linux? So tell me what sucks so badly about Linux. Is it that it's free? Is it that you get almost every application you will ever need when you get a distro? Is it that you don't have to have tons of driver disks for all your hardware? Is it that you don't have to worry about all the viruses you get free with Win? What is it? No, Linux makes a fantastic server, but a lousy workstation. If you REALLY disbelieve my statement about not running a Linux server, you can find it he http://mgillespie.plus.com Now who looks like a total **** now.... |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:57:16 +0000, Black Shuck wrote:
No, Linux makes a fantastic server, but a lousy workstation. If you REALLY disbelieve my statement about not running a Linux server, you can find it he http://mgillespie.plus.com Now who looks like a total **** now.... Well, I don't keep my server info on a web page or even use webmin, but I also run http and ftp out of my little box (yeah, that's it in the sig line). I also run samba every now and then, and I've got a news server set up that I did for just the heck of it. So we can agree on that. What I won't agree with is the workstaion part and here's why. You already said it makes a fantastic server. The underlying part of all servers is what, the OS. So the only thing left to make it a workstation is what? Software. GUI? Take your pick. I use IceWM simply because it's fast and doesn't clutter the desktop with tons of icons. And there are literally thousands of workstation apps, which brings me to another point. Just how do you define the generic word workstation. It could be nothing more than some moron sitting there punching in data all day to a datbase, so you'l need to be specificand tell me why you think it makes a lousy workstation. I's worked better than any OS I've ever used for me for the last 3 years. Besides, I've got nothing against ****s at this time, darn. Twits are another story. And to keep on the subject line, I see little advantage going to 64 bit at this time unless you are running a high volume server. Then It's worth it with a lot more performance. Anandtech has shown the differences between 32 and 64 bit some time back if one is interested. -- Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB) http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.htm |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Wes Newell got up from the bar and shouted: :
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:57:16 +0000, Black Shuck wrote: No, Linux makes a fantastic server, but a lousy workstation. If you REALLY disbelieve my statement about not running a Linux server, you can find it he http://mgillespie.plus.com Now who looks like a total **** now.... Well, I don't keep my server info on a web page or even use webmin, but I also run http and ftp out of my little box (yeah, that's it in the sig line). I also run samba every now and then, and I've got a news server set up that I did for just the heck of it. So we can agree on that. What I won't agree with is the workstaion part and here's why. You already said it makes a fantastic server. The underlying part of all servers is what, the OS. So the only thing left to make it a workstation is what? Software. GUI? Take your pick. I use IceWM simply because it's fast and doesn't clutter the desktop with tons of icons. And there are literally thousands of workstation apps, which brings me to another point. Just how do you define the generic word workstation. It could be nothing more than some moron sitting there punching in data all day to a datbase, so you'l need to be specificand tell me why you think it makes a lousy workstation. I's worked better than any OS I've ever used for me for the last 3 years. Besides, I've got nothing against ****s at this time, darn. Twits are another story. And to keep on the subject line, I see little advantage going to 64 bit at this time unless you are running a high volume server. Then It's worth it with a lot more performance. Anandtech has shown the differences between 32 and 64 bit some time back if one is interested. Various reasons why Desktop linux sucks, from sluggish performance even on decent hardware, too much choice meaning no standard desktop environment, complex administration (for end users anyway), lack of application compatability, and just lousy applications. KDevelop is a very poor Visual Studio for example. The whole Linux Desktop affair is a very "disjointed" feel, which while a techy person may love, I prefer to simply have something standard that works (XP). -- Lite-On DVD Recorder User Forums http://www.liteonusers.org.uk |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Black Shuck wrote:
Various reasons why Desktop linux sucks, from sluggish performance even HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm running a 333MHz. Dare to do that with m$? on decent hardware, too much choice meaning no standard desktop environment, complex administration (for end users anyway), Adm...what? Touched once. Never again. Unlike your self-modifying crapware of m$ lack of application compatability, and just lousy applications. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The day m$ will have something vaguely resembling quality of TeX for writing, I will consider that. Before that day - somewhere around 3954 I suppose - there's no question at all. Let me twist the dagger in the wound: No decent video player, unlike mplayer and xine No decent editor No compiler No mail app (what? Lookout xpress? It's a virus-spreader...) No decent web browser. We have mozilla, galeon, firefox, dillo, lynx, netscape, opera, epiphany, skipstone, konqueror.... No postcript No decent graphical file manager. Our list is way too long. Apart from the usual one from kde/gnome, one name is enough. Rox. I've been quite cavalier. Let's humiliate them further now. No process control No kill -9 No ssh No multiple users No choice of mounting partitions in a desired place No mounting at all No choice of filesystem No package installation control. A wrong dll will make your box belly up. No console No secure remote video export No gui choice Poor apps choice KDevelop is a very poor Visual Studio for example. The whole Linux Desktop affair is a very "disjointed" feel, which while a techy person may love, I prefer to simply have something standard that works (XP). Yes, like your word files. That are incompatible from 95 to 97 yo 2000 to xpee. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Problem installing XP64 to IDE disk | JasonB | AMD x86-64 Processors | 10 | February 3rd 05 11:47 PM |
Anyone using a K8NNXP /w Xp64? | Blaedmon | AMD x86-64 Processors | 1 | December 1st 04 09:25 PM |
LCD Advantages? | Mike245 | General | 6 | August 22nd 04 09:00 PM |
XP64 help | Jim Baird | AMD x86-64 Processors | 6 | April 20th 04 02:48 AM |
question xp64 | DougH | AMD x86-64 Processors | 0 | March 17th 04 03:42 AM |