Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:56:11 12/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 20, 2000 at 02:26:52, David Rasmussen wrote: >On December 20, 2000 at 00:24:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>>> >>>>I find Windows 2000 to be a tad MORE reliable than NT 4, actually. >>>>The stability of the Linux kernel is good, but as much as I like Linux, I really >>>>have to say that I think it is useless for anything else than server OS and >>>>development OS. It has louse harwaresupport and lacks standards in various areas >>>>that are extremely important, if you're not only using development tools and >>>>server software. I'm looking forward to the day when the rest of Linux is as >>>>good as the kernel. >> >> >>I would disagree with the "lousy hardware support". I haven't found anything >>it doesn't support in years. The most common problems are the various video >>accelerator cards, but most of those are well-supported today. Sound? works >>fine. SCSI? the same. RAID cards? Ditto. USB? there. >> > >Winprinters? REAL printers? Native 3D support with proprietary chipsets? >Soundcards ? etc. ? 3d isn't a problem with any chipsets I know of. Winprinters? who cares. Same for winmodems. Both are _stupid_ ideas that should never have been introduced to the market. >I'm not saying that all these are great products (winprinters certainly isn't), >but still, you have a greater chance of getting things to work without problems >on windows as opposed to linux. That's just a fact. The problem is you don't specify "greater". I would say that with linux you have a 98.5% probability of getting any hardware to work. With windows that goes all the way up to 99%. So greater? yes. But not by much. The "without problems" might be debatable. I just rebooted my quad xeon to update the linux kernel. It had been up for 97 days when I did this. Our firewall machine has been up for 244 days and counting. Our news server/ftp server has been up for 74 days since a reboot to replace a tape drive. My beowulf cluster of quad xeons has been up for 290 days and counting. I would say that says that Linux will run without a "lot of problems". Our NT machines don't stay up that long without losing touch with reality and having to be rebooted. > >>As far as following standards goes, I can't imagine a POSIX-compliant system >>being called "non-standard". TCP/IP works perfectly, for example. The >>X-windows system has been around for years and is certainly a stickler for >>standards support. >> > >Yeah, so the basic network system and window system works. So it does in >windows. X windows is overkill in many cases, IMO, and also, it lacks or chooses >not to implement several important features that COULD be standardized by a >windowing system, such as drag and drop, clipboard etc. Drag and Drop? That is part of xwindows already. Clipboard? Been there forever (called cut and paste). > I know that this can be >done in the window manager, but that only leads to standard rot. There is >nothing wrong with X windows supporting these modern and not so modern notions >that make the GUI of even Windows much better in practice. I'm not sure why you say they aren't there... > >As I've said, I know that linux is good for development and server applications, >but if I was stuck somewhere with a computer and a net connection, and had to >solve 1000 different tasks (not only development and server stuff), I'd sure >hope it was a windows machine. I have numerous times been in a situation where I >said "Damn, I have to do this or that, and I only have a linux machine at my >disposal. Now I have to download and install and configure all sorts of really >basic stuff, to get this problem solved. But first, I have to find it. And make >sure that the individual software parts work together". Of course, I have had >the same problem with windows, but then it's much less of a problem to find and >download the stuff I need. That is pretty funny. I have been solving all kinds of problems for 30+ years. For 25+ of those years, I have been solving _all_ my problems using Unix. The facilities are so much better. From I/O facilities, to process control, to you-name-it. I feel just the opposite. I would be severely handicapped if I could _not_ use unix (linux) for program development. > >What I'm saying is, that in practice, windows is more complete for the very >different things that I use my computer for. I have a linux system installed, >and I work with linux all the time at my work and at university, and I too get >the feeling, "wow, this system is cool and the multitasking is great, and it >doesn't require very much memory, and the GUI is all different and fancy", but >then when I've sat there for a while and actually have to solve some real >problems, then I get in trouble. Sure, I solve the problem usually, but it takes >thinking and downloading and configuring etc. etc. to do what is usually just a >minor detail to do in windows. Maybe it isn't a linux issue. It might simply be an 'experience' issue for you. > >>I have zero problems taking programs from linux to Solaris, for example... > >Sure you don't. That's not what I was talking about. That's a developer feature. Remember that we are talking about _developing_ software...
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.