Linux/UNIX=Windows

Linux/UNIX=Windows

Post by Pete » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



The reports of reliability and performance problems in this newsgroup
show one trend. The things that make Windows doze or die are the
things that make Linux and UNIX doze/die. The performance enhancements
suggested for Linux today are the performance enhancements suggested
for Windows 5 years ago and MVS 25 years ago. They also apply to OS/2,
AS/32/34/36/400 and just about every other OS out there.

New systems always work faster because new disks are faster, new disk
partitions are less congested and the small amount of data on the disk
is in the highest performance zone. 123,000,000 people have used this
phenomenon to justify spending a lot of money on an Intel processor.

88% of new computers are sold with less than half the memory they will
need for daily operation yet the speed and cleanliness of the new disk
will make the PC page so fast that the overall performance will appear
better.

6 months later the "CPU" seems to slow because the disk partitions are
full and congested. Intel sell you a new CPU that requires a different
chipset so you will buy a complete new PC and get a faster hard disk
that will make the new CPU look faster.

What would be better is a good disk cleanup program. Diskeeper and
Raxco provide tools that perform trivial cleanups on NT. Win 9.5 has
something less capable. Linux has a bunch of fanatics who claim Linux
defies the laws of physics.

As long as processors process and disks disk, OSs need cleaning up.
IDE RAID makes a disk performance doubling financial viable for
desktops at a time when files are doubling in size several times over.
Disk drive manufacturers are unlikely to implement the improvements I
recommended in 1998 because Windows 98 did not gain NTFS. That leaves
disks expanding in size at an adequate rate but not keeping up with
speed. Disk performance management is just as important now as in
1970.

What is available for Linux?

 
 
 

Linux/UNIX=Windows

Post by Erik de Castro Lop » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> The reports of reliability and performance problems in this newsgroup
> show one trend. The things that make Windows doze or die are the
> things that make Linux and UNIX doze/die.

Like virii that are autorun by the standard mail reader for the
platform? No, thats only on windows.

Like runaway user processes that bring the OS kernel to a screaming
halt? No, thats also windows?

Like kernel functions that don't check their input arguments causing
kernel data corruption? Yep, thats windows.

Quote:> The performance enhancements
> suggested for Linux today are the performance enhancements suggested
> for Windows 5 years ago and MVS 25 years ago.

You care to enunerate? What was it that windows had 5 years and
linux is only just getting.

Quote:> They also apply to OS/2,
> AS/32/34/36/400 and just about every other OS out there.

> New systems always work faster because new disks are faster, new disk
> partitions are less congested and the small amount of data on the disk
> is in the highest performance zone. 123,000,000 people have used this
> phenomenon to justify spending a lot of money on an Intel processor.

That must explain the countless number of out-dated machines which are
made into useful firewalls, web servers and mail servers running Linux.
These are the same machines that wouldn't even be able to boot win95
let alone WinNT.

Quote:> 88% of new computers are sold with less than half the memory they will
> need for daily operation yet the speed and cleanliness of the new disk
> will make the PC page so fast that the overall performance will appear
> better.

> 6 months later the "CPU" seems to slow because the disk partitions are
> full and congested. Intel sell you a new CPU that requires a different
> chipset so you will buy a complete new PC and get a faster hard disk
> that will make the new CPU look faster.

> What would be better is a good disk cleanup program. Diskeeper and
> Raxco provide tools that perform trivial cleanups on NT. Win 9.5 has
> something less capable. Linux has a bunch of fanatics who claim Linux
> defies the laws of physics.

No, Linux has a filesystem that works. It manages the spare space
on the disk so that the filesystem doesn't become fragmented unless
the disk fills to more than 90% capacity.

Fragmentation is a "feature" of FAT. FAT16 and FAT32 are braindamaged
hacks. The WinNT filesystem is a great improvement over FAT but still
not up to scratch.

Quote:> As long as processors process and disks disk, OSs need cleaning up.
> IDE RAID makes a disk performance doubling financial viable for
> desktops at a time when files are doubling in size several times over.
> Disk drive manufacturers are unlikely to implement the improvements I
> recommended in 1998 because Windows 98 did not gain NTFS. That leaves
> disks expanding in size at an adequate rate but not keeping up with
> speed. Disk performance management is just as important now as in
> 1970.

> What is available for Linux?

Raid. What more would you want?

really, whats the point of coming to this newsgroup and posting *
like this. If you like windows stick with it. I really couldn't care
less.

Erik
--
+-------------------------------------------------+

+-------------------------------------------------+
The National Multiple Sclerosis Society of America recently started an
advertising campaign with the slogan "MS: It's not a software company".

Seasoned IT professionals will have no trouble telling the two MS's apart.  
One is a debilitating and surprisingly widespread affliction that renders
the sufferer barely able to perform the simplest task. The other is a
disease.

 
 
 

Linux/UNIX=Windows

Post by Peter T. Breue » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


: As long as processors process and disks disk, OSs need cleaning up.

Nonsense. Uninstall what you don't want or need.

My /usr partition has been at 256MB for the past five years ...

Filesystem         1024-blocks  Used Available Capacity Mounted on
/dev/ide/disk/a/hda5   31077   30683       74    100%   /
/dev/ide/disk/a/hda6   31077   29372      101    100%   /home
/dev/ide/disk/a/hda8  248847  209186    26811     89%   /var
/dev/ide/disk/a/hda11
                      248847  239223     7054     97%   /usr
/dev/ide/disk/a/hda9   62187   59669        0    100%   /usr/X11R6
/dev/ide/disk/a/hda1 1018298  989094    18682     98%   /usr/local
/dev/ide/disk/a/hda10
                      248847  219573    16424     93%   /opt
/dev/ide/disk/a/hda12
                       31046   30683       32    100%   /spare

 ... blah blah. Yeah, /tmp on /var needs expanding. My machine works
fine, has ump* versions of netscape ad staroffice, and nexs, and ..
I counted something like 110000 files on the system partitions last
time I looked (this is an o/c'ed celeron 300, by the way, on a BX
board). It compiles for libc5 and runs libc6 as compatible.

Admittedly, /usr/local IS compressed, but well ..

Peter

 
 
 

Linux/UNIX=Windows

Post by Steve Wolf » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


Quote:> > The reports of reliability and performance problems in this newsgroup
> > show one trend. The things that make Windows doze or die are the
> > things that make Linux and UNIX doze/die.

> Like virii that are autorun by the standard mail reader for the
> platform? No, thats only on windows.

  Recently on Bugtraq, there has been discussion of a bug in sendmail that
can allow code to be executed, if I remember correctly.  On Microsoft, it
was intended.  In sendmail, it was an accident.  I'm not sure which is
worse.

Quote:> Like runaway user processes that bring the OS kernel to a screaming
> halt? No, thats also windows?

  I dunno, Netscape for linux can bring the machine to a halt that can only
be solved by the power switch.  I'm not bashing Linux, just being realistic.

Quote:> > The performance enhancements
> > suggested for Linux today are the performance enhancements suggested
> > for Windows 5 years ago and MVS 25 years ago.

> You care to enunerate? What was it that windows had 5 years and
> linux is only just getting.

   Hardware detection for one.  Yes, in newer RedHat distros (and perhaps
others), you have kudzu that will configure hardware for you at boot.
Windows had it 5 years ago.  Another example would be the DMA transfer
rates.  Under windows, the OS finds which mode it can run in, and does it.
Under Linux, you have to run hdparm.  Is that bad?  It depends on the point
of view.  But it is a useful feature that Windows has that Linux doesn't.

  Again, I'm not saying that Linux sucks, or that Windows rules.  I'd never
use Windows for a server.  Despite the many shortcomings of Microsoft, there
have been a few things they've done that aren't so bad.  And despite the
superiority of Linux, there are a few things that could be better.  If we
ignore them, we are doomed to mediocrity.

Quote:> No, Linux has a filesystem that works. It manages the spare space
> on the disk so that the filesystem doesn't become fragmented unless
> the disk fills to more than 90% capacity.

  It also has it's downsides.  Pull the plug on a Windows machine twnety
times while it's running, and do the same on a Linux machine.  From my
experience, you're much more likely to lose a partition on a Linux machine.
Again, I'm not saying that Linux or Ext2 are horrible - just that they're
not perfect.  Again, to ignore that would doom us to eternal mediocrity.

steve

 
 
 

Linux/UNIX=Windows

Post by Erik de Castro Lop » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> > > The reports of reliability and performance problems in this newsgroup
> > > show one trend. The things that make Windows doze or die are the
> > > things that make Linux and UNIX doze/die.

> > Like virii that are autorun by the standard mail reader for the
> > platform? No, thats only on windows.

>   Recently on Bugtraq, there has been discussion of a bug in sendmail that
> can allow code to be executed, if I remember correctly.

You mean a buffer overflow that overwrites the stack and causes the
CPU to just to some malicious code?

Yes that has been a problem in the past (pre version 8) but it
has been fixed for ages. The Microsoft problem still exists.

Erik
--
+-------------------------------------------------+

+-------------------------------------------------+
"The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the
day they start making vacuum cleaners." -- Ernst Jan Plugge

 
 
 

Linux/UNIX=Windows

Post by Pete » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00





>: As long as processors process and disks disk, OSs need cleaning up.

>Nonsense. Uninstall what you don't want or need.

>My /usr partition has been at 256MB for the past five years ...

.
.

Quote:

> ... blah blah. Yeah, /tmp on /var needs expanding. My machine works
>fine, has ump* versions of netscape ad staroffice, and nexs, and ..
>I counted something like 110000 files on the system partitions last
>time I looked (this is an o/c'ed celeron 300, by the way, on a BX
>board). It compiles for libc5 and runs libc6 as compatible.

>Admittedly, /usr/local IS compressed, but well ..

>Peter

My previous project required installing 12 browsers next to each other
to test a web site. The browsers collided during the install. The
uninstalls did not know what to take out. Some of the testers tried
multiple Netscape installs on Mac and a variety of Unix. Same problem.
The install scripts replaced common files. The uninstalls came undone.

I note entries in this newsgroup reporting the same problem with
Linux. Poor installation scripts seem common to all operating systems.

Your user partition of 256 Mb sounds good. I used to work on projects
where I could backup all the files to a 100Mb zip disk. I replaced the
100Mb zip drive with a 250Mb drive the day 250Mb drives became
available so I would have room for expansion. The next project I
worked on did not fit 250Mb. It ended up filling 3 CDs.

My reference partition, the one containing help files, blew 6Gb early
this year and now has filled half of a 40Gb drive. This partition
saves me installing 30 CD drives. Suppliers send me 1 - 2 new CDs per
week. Luckily there are now 80Gb drives available.

The number of files on my PC has not jumped much. The main difference
is the increase in file size, like the replacement of 30K text files
with 30Mb graphic rich files.

The fragmentation of a 30K file is not important as that file size is
handled by just about every operating system. What does Linux do to
prevent fragmentation of 30Mb files?

 
 
 

Linux/UNIX=Windows

Post by Mats Pettersso » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




Quote:> > > The performance enhancements
> > > suggested for Linux today are the performance enhancements suggested
> > > for Windows 5 years ago and MVS 25 years ago.

> > You care to enunerate? What was it that windows had 5 years and
> > linux is only just getting.

>    Hardware detection for one.  Yes, in newer RedHat distros (and perhaps
> others), you have kudzu that will configure hardware for you at boot.
> Windows had it 5 years ago.

<nostalgy trip on>

As an old amiga-freak i just got to say that the Amiga had a
hardware-autoconfiguration
system that worked better 85 than Windows has now(or at least  had 95). :)

During the mid 80s and early 90s there where a couple of systems that where
better designed and had better performance than the Windows/Intel systems of
that
time. Amiga, BeBox, Archimedes, Next... to mention some. However IBM PC
and Microsoft DOS where already too big and widespread and when Microsoft
finally made their OS usable with Windows 95, most of the competition died
away.

<nostalgy trip off>

Quote:> Again, I'm not saying that Linux or Ext2 are horrible - just that they're
> not perfect.  Again, to ignore that would doom us to eternal mediocrity.

I agree, but aren't they working on somekind of new filesystem for Linux?

Quote:

> steve

Mats
 
 
 

Linux/UNIX=Windows

Post by Pete » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


On Mon, 6 Nov 2000 12:30:10 -0700, "Steve Wolfe"


>> > The reports of reliability and performance problems in this newsgroup
>> > show one trend. The things that make Windows doze or die are the
>> > things that make Linux and UNIX doze/die.

>> Like virii that are autorun by the standard mail reader for the
>> platform? No, thats only on windows.

>  Recently on Bugtraq, there has been discussion of a bug in sendmail that
>can allow code to be executed, if I remember correctly.  On Microsoft, it
>was intended.  In sendmail, it was an accident.  I'm not sure which is
>worse.

>> Like runaway user processes that bring the OS kernel to a screaming
>> halt? No, thats also windows?

>  I dunno, Netscape for linux can bring the machine to a halt that can only
>be solved by the power switch.  I'm not bashing Linux, just being realistic.

.
.
.
Hello Steve,
I agree with your comments.

The fanatics add grand new features while basic problems remain.
(Sounds like a certain Seattle based software company.)

The realistic help make the next release a useful amount better by
fixing existing problems and adding achievable improvements.

I tried RH 6.2 and it blew up trying to handle a wheel mouse. The
mouse is over a year old so there was plenty of time to get the code
right. Even though the wheeled mouse is in direct competition with
Microsoft's own mouse (and better designed and 1/3 the price),
Microsoft's operating systems support the mouse.

I tried Mandrake 7.0. The installation was easier but still blew up on
the same mouse. I am talking about locking up the screen type blowing
up. The keyboard became unusable so I could not invoke any magic
fixes. Only the power off switch remained functional.

I am about to try RH 7. Of all the distros, I found RH the most obtuse
to install and Mandrake the most helpful. Some of the other distros,
like Debian, have definite advantages but are not up to date. I would
have to complete the installation by updating just about every piece
of software I use.

This is the same as MS. By the time a compilation CD arrives, like the
SBS CD, all the components are out of date.

I have 6 of the latest Linux distros on the shelf behind me. 5 have
PHP3 instead of PHP4. Can you completely uninstall PHP3 without losing
custom settings? Can you then install PHP4 and pick up the custom
settings? I know it works with some Linux software but not with all.
That is the same as Windows. Some software suppliers make their
software updatable. Some do not.

I download to this machine then update on this machine. If the
installation does not work, I recover on this machine then download
the next update. It works with some software and fails with others.
Anything associated with Internet Explorer seems to require a recovery
of the operating system. Software from more reputable suppliers is
safe. I see people reporting in this newsgroup the same type of
problem under Linux.

If you build a fool proof operating system, some software company will
hire a better fool.

 
 
 

Linux/UNIX=Windows

Post by Pete » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


On Mon, 06 Nov 2000 09:21:54 GMT, Erik de Castro Lopo



>Like runaway user processes that bring the OS kernel to a screaming
>halt? No, thats also windows?

Like liking up the operating system because of a faulty mouse driver
for a mouse on the market for over a year? That is RedHat 6.1, Windows
95 and RedHat 6.2 but not Windows 98 or NT 4.0.

Quote:

>Like kernel functions that don't check their input arguments causing
>kernel data corruption? Yep, thats windows.

>> The performance enhancements
>> suggested for Linux today are the performance enhancements suggested
>> for Windows 5 years ago and MVS 25 years ago.

>You care to enunerate? What was it that windows had 5 years and
>linux is only just getting.

Useful help panels during the installation process. Mandrake 7 is the
first that I would call useful.

Easy workstation setup. NT 3.5 had it. Mandrake 7 is the closest. Some
of the other distros claimed to have it around the same time as
Mandrake 7. I tried some of them but they would not boot from CD.

Easy application server setup. If I wanted to run up a simple Intranet
server today with an off the shelf CD, I would have to use RedHat 7 to
get an up to date MySQL, Apache and other products. I do not yet know
how the RedHat 7 installation compares to RedHat 6.2 or Mandrake 7. If
it is not as good as Mandrake 7 then we are looking at an installation
process comparable to NT prior to 3.5.

 
 
 

Linux/UNIX=Windows

Post by Mats Pettersso » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




Quote:> My previous project required installing 12 browsers next to each other
> to test a web site. The browsers collided during the install. The
> uninstalls did not know what to take out. Some of the testers tried
> multiple Netscape installs on Mac and a variety of Unix. Same problem.
> The install scripts replaced common files. The uninstalls came undone.

I may be missunderstanding you completely, but aren't there specialized
applications
out there for testing web-sites?

Are you trying to install several browsers on the same computer? Why don't
you just
open a new (or 12) window(s) in your current browser?

Quote:> I note entries in this newsgroup reporting the same problem with
> Linux. Poor installation scripts seem common to all operating systems.

I agree here, and you should be glad you only tried to install a netscape
browser on Linux. :)

If you get to something like compiling and installing sendmail, mysql,
apache... you preferable
have to be a C/C++ programmer, like to read FAQs RFCs and spend a month
learning
protocolls and security systems (i might stretch it a bit, but you get the
picture).

Don't get me wrong, i admire the people doing all those free applications
and i understand
they don't have all the time in the world to write big comprehencive
manuals, especially
for free, but nevertheless it's a problem.

Mats

 
 
 

Linux/UNIX=Windows

Post by Pete » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


<nostalgia>Hello Mats,
I am happy to see you have experience with other operating systems.

<brag>I used to work on IBM systems when IBM used to distribute the
source code and let users diagnose/fix problems or just generally
snoop around.</brag> The operating system was provided free with the
hardware. The whole setup sounds similar to Linux now.

Most users complained about having to compile source code instead of
getting 100% error free binaries in the first place.

Most people fixing errors, both in the field and at IBM, used to hard
code fixes for specific situations. Few could write code to think the
right path through problem situations. From what I see of today's
code, the same happens.

The fact that someone produces hardware without a reliable driver,
proves people are still planning products backwards and trying to
patch up their mistakes in rushed drivers. The poor sod volunteering
to write a driver for Linux has to battle the combined stupidity of
the sales, marketing and financial management at the company producing
the hardware.

By comparison, the 14 year old at Microsoft handling the Windows 98
distro,just says to the hardware supplier "if your driver does not
work, I do not include it and you miss out on 105,000,000 customers".
</nostalgia>
On Mon, 06 Nov 2000 20:56:33 GMT, "Mats Pettersson"




>> > > The performance enhancements
>> > > suggested for Linux today are the performance enhancements suggested
>> > > for Windows 5 years ago and MVS 25 years ago.

>> > You care to enunerate? What was it that windows had 5 years and
>> > linux is only just getting.

>>    Hardware detection for one.  Yes, in newer RedHat distros (and perhaps
>> others), you have kudzu that will configure hardware for you at boot.
>> Windows had it 5 years ago.

><nostalgy trip on>

>As an old amiga-freak i just got to say that the Amiga had a
>hardware-autoconfiguration
>system that worked better 85 than Windows has now(or at least  had 95). :)

>During the mid 80s and early 90s there where a couple of systems that where
>better designed and had better performance than the Windows/Intel systems of
>that
>time. Amiga, BeBox, Archimedes, Next... to mention some. However IBM PC
>and Microsoft DOS where already too big and widespread and when Microsoft
>finally made their OS usable with Windows 95, most of the competition died
>away.

><nostalgy trip off>

>> Again, I'm not saying that Linux or Ext2 are horrible - just that they're
>> not perfect.  Again, to ignore that would doom us to eternal mediocrity.

>I agree, but aren't they working on somekind of new filesystem for Linux?

>> steve

>Mats

 
 
 

Linux/UNIX=Windows

Post by Jason from The Worksho » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


Just my .02

Lets remember.  Hardware works with Windows for one reason. It's not because
windows is so robust that it can just handle it and know what to do. Unlike
the wheel mouse example later in this thread, Windows has nothing to do with
that mouse's extra features.  It's the hardware manufacturer that is making
the layer that can talk to the OS. In the case of a wheel mouse, the driver
is basically overlaying a keystroke. Nothing more.  Linux shouldnt be bashed
simply because it doesnt have a driver built in to handle that mouse,
neither does windows without a some help.  I would call it a testament to
Linux in fact that it has all the hardware support that it does. To me, that
speaks to the ease of coding that linux provides. A stable, open API that
you can pick and bang on is much easier to work with then a few public API
calls on a closed system (what, you think logitech gets Windows source code
so they can make their scroll wheel work?)
It's not the fault of linux that certain pieces of hardware dont work.
Reverse engineering isnt easy, remember that as you foam at the mouth
because the driver for XF86 for that latest whizz bang video card didnt come
out at the same time the hardware did.
I challenge you to compare any version of windows right out of the box to
any linux distro right out of the box on the number and type of hardware
that is supported.  I would bet dollars to dimes that Linux will win out.

--

                    Jason
    www.cyborgworkshop.com
...and the geek shall inherit the earth...

 
 
 

Linux/UNIX=Windows

Post by Timothy J. L » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




>Some of the testers tried
>multiple Netscape installs on Mac and a variety of Unix. Same problem.
>The install scripts replaced common files. The uninstalls came undone.

On Unix and Unix-like OSes, installing multiple versions of Netscape
produces no conflict, if you simply choose different installation
directories for each version.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

 
 
 

Linux/UNIX=Windows

Post by Pete » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


On Mon, 06 Nov 2000 21:37:56 GMT, "Mats Pettersson"




>I may be missunderstanding you completely, but aren't there specialized
>applications
>out there for testing web-sites?

Yes but not for browser compatibility. The only way to check a web
site against all the faults in all the versions of all the browsers is
to fire up all the versions of all the browsers.

I doubt we will see much improvement until things like JavaScript
become an open International standard where one open source plug in is
used by every browser. The closest equivalent I can think of is the
Photoshop plug in. Just about all of Photoshop's competitors accept
the same plug ins automatically.

.
.

Quote:>If you get to something like compiling and installing sendmail, mysql,
>apache... you preferable
>have to be a C/C++ programmer, like to read FAQs RFCs and spend a month
>learning
>protocolls and security systems (i might stretch it a bit, but you get the
>picture).

>Don't get me wrong, i admire the people doing all those free applications
>and i understand
>they don't have all the time in the world to write big comprehencive
>manuals, especially
>for free, but nevertheless it's a problem.

>Mats

I find the Windows NT binaries of PHP etc work well. The installation
is simple for most. Apache is a little tricky because few people
understand services. The problem is setting up a workstation to run a
departmental Intranet or a test web site. Installing all the bits by
hand requires a different knowledge set for each. There is not
equivalent to a Microsoft Office CD.

If the user switches to Mandrake 7 and clicks on Workstation, they get
the GUI but not server apps like Apache. If they click Server, they
miss out on the GUI. That is where the Mandrake help panels come in. I
can work out what is missing and just run the installation process
from scratch using the help panels to find out about custom
installation. Just like NT and other operating systems.

With NT, I can then alter the NT installation script to pre answer
questions and burn a new CD. That new CD will automatically install on
100s of PCs with no problems. To do the same with Linux, you have to
start with far more knowledge of Linux and people with that knowledge
are in short supply.

People like to show me their favorite distro of Linux install in 10
minutes with only 3 questions. Great. Then something goes wrong. The
fix up time is as long as with NT and there are fewer people with the
knowledge.

The take up time for new technology in the computer industry is the
same as in the car industry. 20 years.

XML is a refinement of the 25 year old GML. Hard disks remain
unchanged after 30 years.

The American car industry waited 80 years before admitting disk brakes
are better than drum brakes. They waited another 10 years before
admitting disk brakes are also cheaper to make. The closest equivalent
in the computer industry is the serial port. USB's predecessor worked
on HP calculators 20 years ago but no one took up the idea because it
was too new.

Linux will start winning the big race when a company can take one CD
and roll out 1,000 workstations complete with GUI, StarOffice, a
database, PHP, something equivalent to MS's Personal Webserver and
something compatible with Powerpoint.

I am hoping RedHat 7 has taken on all the good features of Mandrake 7
and will combine that with regular updates. Once every 3 months would
suit my needs.

I use Solaris and Linux for web servers. Considering each server is
serving around 80,000 workstations, the workstation market is far
larger and more influential.

The mass market, the user of the future, works at about the level of
PHP/Visual Basic/Excel macros so will not be able to resort to reading
C code. They need the GUI apps to warn them disk space is running out
and show them where the space went. That was where I started this
discussion. What is the Linux equivalent of Diskeeper or Raxco?

I do not need the GUI apps but find them many times faster so will
stick with NT Workstation until the right set of apps are Gnomed.

 
 
 

Linux/UNIX=Windows

Post by Peter T. Breue » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


: On Mon, 6 Nov 2000 12:30:10 -0700, "Steve Wolfe"
: I am about to try RH 7. Of all the distros, I found RH the most obtuse
: to install and Mandrake the most helpful. Some of the other distros,
: like Debian, have definite advantages but are not up to date. I would

The latter statement is absolute nonsense, and in any case, not a good
thing! Being "up to date" means being used as a beta test and having
all the worlds bugs heaped on you. No responsible admin would think
of taking the last version of anything unless they were actively
participating in its development or trying to be fired.

(your stance is understandable - horses for courses).

Peter