Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:04:48 05/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 12, 2001 at 06:39:55, Graham Laight wrote: >On May 12, 2001 at 05:33:16, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On May 12, 2001 at 03:59:34, Graham Laight wrote: >> >>>The trouble is, Windows is a "single user, multi-tasking" OS, wheras Unix is a >>>"multi-user, multi-tasking" OS. What's the point of having all that multi-user >>>capability overhead, unless you're setting up a business application which many >>>people are going to use via an X-Windows screen? >> >>a) That 'overhead' only exists in your head. > >In my head, I see unix as an OS which is architected from the bottom up to be >multi-user, and the overhead is massive - both in terms of all the disk space >this uses (for programs, directories, etc) and processing time (even if there's >only 1 user active, the multi-user code is almost certainly still working). This is wrong. There is no "multi-user" code in linux. Linux supports multiple "processes". It can't tell the difference between multiple processes started by a single user and multiple processes started by multiple users. They are simply processes to run, period. > >>b) Multi-user capability has real practical value > >In all of the examples you give of the usefulness, you're talking about giving >computer power to groups of people. I'm sure the original poster was talking >about using the computer just for himself. My Sony notebook is used _only_ by me. It runs linux. My office quad xeon is used only by me. Linux also. My 9-node quad xeon cluster is used by many people at the same time. Linux.. All our file servers are used to run nothing but NFS, not allowing users to log in at all. Linux. Our ftp server for the tablebases and crafty stuff. Linux. Linux is just as efficient as any windows system ever written. It is better than any of them excepting perhaps NT and its descendents, although it is no worse for certain. Linux also works on multiple-cpu machines. In the windows world you had better be running NT or 2000. > >>Two of the most notable practical examples: >> >>1) I can use any (Unix) machine on our university, log in >>and find myself in my own shell/windowmanager, with all my >>files conveniently in my homedir, regardless of who else >>uses the system. The Windows NT machines on the other hand >>have the notorious reputation of allowing you to read other >>peoples mail, because the OS and apps will fail to hide the >>users from each other. At home I have no problem with letting >>other people use my computer if they log in via Linux. If I >>would let them log in via Windows ME, I _know_ they will be >>able to sniff in all my files. > >Agreed. I can also go to any web browser anywhere, and get to my Yahoo home >page, with my personal calendar etc. I don't need to have a multi-user OS on >whatever device I use to access this on-line application. > >>2) _Remote_ X-windows access is also wonderfull, provided >>you have a reasonable connection. When I was still stuck >>with a Cyrix120 I would run heavy applications or compuations >>on friends systems via remote-X. Nowadays I have an Athlon >>and it is the other way around. No concers over privacy etc... >>Unix has real user security in place. When we need computing >>power it's always there, either locally or remote. > >Fine - but again, you don't need a multi-user OS on whatever device you're >running x-windows on. Even Windows can run X-Window terminal emulators! > >>>Creating X-Windows applications is not something I see many people doing any >>>more >> >>Then you must not have been looking. I see more and more and more. > >Our company (QAD) is selling fewer and fewer x-windows apps, and more browser + >Windows apps. I think this is a general trend. As for home users - I think I can >say with confidence that they won't be using X-Terminals! Not a problem. Run web based applications from Linux too. I do it all the time myself. Our network switches are browser-enabled. Etc. > >>>- the trend is towards browser-based applications. >> >>God no! This is an illusion produced by some software companies which >>are now pushing things like .NET. > >Sad but true. But browser apps don't have to be .Net - they could be based on a >Unix server (although this then wastes Unix's multi-user capability, since most >apps do their own user security). > >>There are things to say for and against licensing instead of buying >>software, but there should be no doubt that this is a movement that >>would hold more advantages for the 'licenser' of the software rather >>than the 'licensee'. > >I have to disagree. The TCO (total cost of ownership) of an application is >likely to be lower if you don't have to install and support it on "personal >computers" (be they PCs or Unix boxes) - though I'm sure there are exceptions to >this rule. > >>>I think it's a tragedy that the world's great shareware OS is one >>>which I think is inappropriate for personal computing. >> >>Which shareware OS are you referring to? GNU/Linux is Free Software. >>Windows is proprietary commercial software. > >Sorry - if Linux is "Free Software" rather than "Shareware", then clearly I've >chosen the wrong word. > >>Neither of those is shareware. >> >>>I think the future of personal OSs lies in the browser. When first invented, >the browser was a really "thin" client. With the passage of time, browsers are >>>becoming larger and fatter applications, as more and more capability is built >>>into them. >> >>Whether this is a good or bad advancement is a matter or presonal preference, >>so I leave that in the middle. >> >>But why would this make Windows better than Linux? It's not as if there >>are no browsers for Linux you know... > >True. I just think that Windows is more appropriate for "personal" computing >than Linux for most people. For reasons, see above. The main objection to linux (in the past) was "it is hard to set up". This is no longer true. It is far easier to install than windows 2000 for example, if you use RedHat. Others may be as good but since I use redhat exclusively, I can only speak to that distribution. It is easy point and click to install, far unlike it was 5 years ago or more. > >>>Also, I think that to properly manage Windows or Unix is requiring increasing >>>amounts of what used to be called "Computer Operator" skills. Most people have >>>never had any ambition to be a computer operator, so it makes sense to select >>>systems that allow most of the OS operating to be done collectively for large >>>numbers of people - and just give people a browser to use these systems. >> >>That would be Unix then. You don't have to use your browser though, that is >>limiting your capability too much. We have something better. >> >>Here at the Univ. we leave the OS operating up to our sysadmin. The rest >>of us (23 000 people) can log in via X-windows terminals. We only have >>to type our password and our login. We have immediate access to all >>commonly used software via menus, nicely preconfigured. But if we >>_want_ something extra, we can install it. If we _want_ to change >>something, we can change it. We aren't limited to what our browser can. >> >>Funnily enough, the only 'explaining' I have ever had to do to use this >>system was that to get the menus you did not have to click the 'Start' >>button but that you could just click _anywhere_. >> >>Now, where do you want to go today? :) >> >>-- >>GCP > >Whether or not X-Windows is better than a browser (I would regard them both as >"thin clients"), I think that the reality is that more people are going to >choose to use browsers. > >-g I think you are right for the network. Browsers require significantly lower bandwidth than a good high-resolution X application. But that doesn't change the discussion since I run Netscape all the time here (I am right now, in fact, on my Sony notebook).
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.