Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:26:46 12/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 20, 2000 at 14:27:10, David Rasmussen wrote: >On December 20, 2000 at 10:56:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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. >> > >What about the other things I mentioned? They're very important IMO. >And 3D IS a problem. Ask in any linux forum. Then I suppose you have to define "problem". I have two 3D machines running here with no problems, using xfree. I don't pay a lot of attention to the latest graphics gizzywhigs, but I do go for advanced things like the latest SCSI or IDE devices, or latest MP motherboards, etc... They work with flying colors. > >> >> >>>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. > >You might get 98.5% of all hardware to work under linux, but it usually takes >more effort, configuring etc. All this is usually very easy under windows, >without losing any flexibility. Of course, this (and most of the other things >I've mentioned) is not a problem of linux itself. Linux could easily have a very >easy and flexible and coherent hardware frontend, but it doesnt. I don't see the "much effort". I run linux on old machines, on brand new machines, on esoteric (dual/quad processor machines). I haven't had a hardware problem in several years. Since I went to redhat in fact. Every SCSI card, ethernet controller, graphics card, tape drive, cd writer, etc, have been recognized by the install program and set up perfectly. That is one main advantage of the redhat release. > >>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. >> >> > > >You're talking about server capabilities again. Linux is superior here, I think, >although I have only good experiences with Windows 2000 in a server environment. It doesn't matter whether linux is used in a server facility or as a workstation, the reliability is very good. > >>> >>>>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). >> > >Well, it isnt used at all, compared to windows. That's a rash statement. Maybe not used by you or people you know. Used all the time by me and the people I know. > >>> 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... >> >> > >Because they're not used. They are used by everyone I know here at UAB. We have hundreds of linux machines and users. And even the ones that are not on linux are using unix (SGI, IBM, etc) and are using x-windows which is 100% compatible.. > >>> >>>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. >> >> > >You're talking about developer stuff. I'm not. And also, I doubt that you would >have any problems doing anything under windows, if you had the experience. Name >me one thing that couldn't be done in windows, that is done in unix, that you >would miss. > Several come to mind. The "symbolic link" that two guys at microsoft claim to have spent three years developing from scratch. Been in unix forever. select() to be able to watch for I/O possible on several descriptors at one time. The ability to access NFS file systems transparently. The ability to trivially set up a network to use static IP, or DHCP, or in the case of my notebook, whichever I want, and instantly. The ability to use UDP for networking, in a way that is portable to all flavors of unix. Development is what I _do_. I'm not a brain-dead end user that wants to keep the computer at arm's length. I want it to do what I need, as fast as possible, with as few problems as possible. >>> >>>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. >> > >And maybe it isnt. Many people have more experience with Unix and Linux, than I. >But I've been using it for 5 years now on the user level and the developer >level, in all kinds of settings, with all kinds of problems. If 5 years isnt >enough, then that is a problem in itself. > >> >> >>> >>>>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... > >No. I said very clearly in my first post, that Linux was good for development, >and then I mentioned its shortcommings in other areas. > >And I don't think linux is necesarily better than windows for development. I can >get everything from linux on my windows box.
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.