just wondering..

just wondering..

Post by sylvain hutchiso » Sat, 22 Jul 2000 04:00:00



I've been using linux for a couple of weeks now, I really like it, why,
well the best thing about it is that it is so fast in executing stuff,
and practically never freezes or crashes.

I though that linux would be faster because it doesn't have all this GUI
for deleting/copying.. files for example, but I'm sure there must be
other reasons why Linux is a much faster OS than windows. Anybody knwos
why????

Sly.

 
 
 

just wondering..

Post by David . » Sat, 22 Jul 2000 04:00:00



> I've been using linux for a couple of weeks now, I really like it, why,
> well the best thing about it is that it is so fast in executing stuff,
> and practically never freezes or crashes.

> I though that linux would be faster because it doesn't have all this GUI
> for deleting/copying.. files for example, but I'm sure there must be
> other reasons why Linux is a much faster OS than windows. Anybody knwos
> why????

It doesn't take 4 million lines of code to make it work.

--
Confucius say: He who play in root, eventually kill tree.
Registered with the Linux Counter.  http://counter.li.org
ID # 123538

 
 
 

just wondering..

Post by Dances With Cro » Sat, 22 Jul 2000 04:00:00


On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:40:01 -0700, sylvain hutchison


>I've been using linux for a couple of weeks now, I really like it, why,
>well the best thing about it is that it is so fast in executing stuff,
>and practically never freezes or crashes.

>I though that linux would be faster because it doesn't have all this GUI
>for deleting/copying.. files for example, but I'm sure there must be
>other reasons why Linux is a much faster OS than windows. Anybody knwos
>why????

Another thing that makes it faster (on Intel processors, anyway) is that
Linux uses the 32-bit protected mode of the processor all the time.
Win9x shifts back and forth between 16-bit real mode and protected mode
many times a second, since DOS uses a lot of real-mode code and Win9x
still runs on top of DOS.  These context switches consume processor
time.

Win9x is also rather bad at multitasking.  Try running WinAmp and
Word97 at the same time, and Word97 has visible lag on a 1-page
document.  No such problem with StarOffice+xmms on Linux, even though
StarOffice is more bloated than Word97.  (Again, Win9x is based on DOS
and DOS is single-tasking.)

However, a single-tasking single-user OS like Win9x has certain
advantages if you're only going to be running one thing, and that thing
does fancy 3D graphics.  With this in mind, MS may be counting on the
X-Box to save them from ruin if their OS empire crumbles....

--
Matt G|There is no Darkness in eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see
When we get to that bridge, we'll burn it behind us, then jump.

 
 
 

just wondering..

Post by Dirk Reckma » Sat, 22 Jul 2000 04:00:00


Quote:>> I though that linux would be faster because it doesn't have all this GUI
>> for deleting/copying.. files for example, but I'm sure there must be
>> other reasons why Linux is a much faster OS than windows. Anybody knwos
>> why????

>It doesn't take 4 million lines of code to make it work.

Well, I'm a little bit surprised, but you're right. The kernel contains
only about one and a half million lines:

DeepThought:[linux]> find \( -name \*.c -o -name \*.h -o -name \*.S \)  \

Quote:> -exec cat {} \; | wc --lines

1562922

:-))

Ciao,
  Dirk

 
 
 

just wondering..

Post by David . » Sat, 22 Jul 2000 04:00:00



> Well, I'm a little bit surprised, but you're right. The kernel contains
> only about one and a half million lines:

> DeepThought:[linux]> find \( -name \*.c -o -name \*.h -o -name \*.S \)  \
> > -exec cat {} \; | wc --lines
> 1562922

That's kind of big isn't it?? Mine only has 92499 lines in it with a
custom built kernel.

--
Confucius say: He who play in root, eventually kill tree.
Registered with the Linux Counter.  http://counter.li.org
ID # 123538

 
 
 

just wondering..

Post by Dirk Reckma » Sun, 23 Jul 2000 04:00:00




>> Well, I'm a little bit surprised, but you're right. The kernel contains
>> only about one and a half million lines:

>> DeepThought:[linux]> find \( -name \*.c -o -name \*.h -o -name \*.S \)  \
>> > -exec cat {} \; | wc --lines
>> 1562922

>That's kind of big isn't it?? Mine only has 92499 lines in it with a
>custom built kernel.

Did you count the lines in the compiled kernel??? I've built varius
custom kernels from my sources, but this does'nt change them,
i.e. there should be no disapearing lines...

Or your find invokation could have been wrong, I first forgot the \(
and \), so I got only the line count of the .S files.

Or you have only installed the Kernel header files. (Forget it, if you
built your own kernel, you have of course installed the sources... :-)

Last try: My kernel is 2.2.9-2, is yours pre-1.3 ??? :-))

Ciao,
  Dirk

 
 
 

just wondering..

Post by David . » Sun, 23 Jul 2000 04:00:00





> >> Well, I'm a little bit surprised, but you're right. The kernel contains
> >> only about one and a half million lines:

> >> DeepThought:[linux]> find \( -name \*.c -o -name \*.h -o -name \*.S \)  \
> >> > -exec cat {} \; | wc --lines
> >> 1562922

> >That's kind of big isn't it?? Mine only has 92499 lines in it with a
> >custom built kernel.

> Did you count the lines in the compiled kernel??? I've built varius
> custom kernels from my sources, but this does'nt change them,
> i.e. there should be no disapearing lines...

> Or your find invokation could have been wrong, I first forgot the \(
> and \), so I got only the line count of the .S files.

> Or you have only installed the Kernel header files. (Forget it, if you
> built your own kernel, you have of course installed the sources... :-)

> Last try: My kernel is 2.2.9-2, is yours pre-1.3 ??? :-))

 2.2.16 But as I said it is a custom built kernel, stripped down to only
what my system needs. After being compiled there is a lot of the code
that can be removed from the system. About the only thing left on my
system is .h files for the kernel.

You do know about the bug in all kernels prior to 2.2.16 don't you?
--
Confucius say: He who play in root, eventually kill tree.
Registered with the Linux Counter.  http://counter.li.org
ID # 123538

 
 
 

just wondering..

Post by spi.. » Mon, 24 Jul 2000 04:00:00



Quote:> You do know about the bug in all kernels prior to 2.2.16 don't you?

What's that then? (If it's something serious, I might bother to upgrade...
But I'm reluctant to because I use OSS and recompiling the kernel tends to
f*&k it up).

--
______________________________________________________________________________

|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|                                                 |
|            in            | "I think so brain, but this time, you control   |
|     Computer Science     |  the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..."  |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

just wondering..

Post by David . » Mon, 24 Jul 2000 04:00:00




> > You do know about the bug in all kernels prior to 2.2.16 don't you?

> What's that then? (If it's something serious, I might bother to upgrade...
> But I'm reluctant to because I use OSS and recompiling the kernel tends to
> f*&k it up).

Here is the link to the News article about it.

http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-06-14-018-04-SC-KN

--
Confucius say: He who play in root, eventually kill tree.
Registered with the Linux Counter.  http://counter.li.org
ID # 123538

 
 
 

just wondering..

Post by Dirk Reckma » Mon, 24 Jul 2000 04:00:00


Quote:

>> Or you have only installed the Kernel header files. (Forget it, if you
>> built your own kernel, you have of course installed the sources... :-)

>> Last try: My kernel is 2.2.9-2, is yours pre-1.3 ??? :-))

> 2.2.16 But as I said it is a custom built kernel, stripped down to only
>what my system needs. After being compiled there is a lot of the code
>that can be removed from the system. About the only thing left on my
>system is .h files for the kernel.

OK, i've counted the original source tree, without removing unneeded
files.

Quote:>You do know about the bug in all kernels prior to 2.2.16 don't you?

Errm, no... what is it? Very  serious???

Ciao,
  Dirk

 
 
 

just wondering..

Post by spi.. » Tue, 25 Jul 2000 04:00:00



Quote:>> What's that then? (If it's something serious, I might bother to upgrade...
>> But I'm reluctant to because I use OSS and recompiling the kernel tends to
>> f*&k it up).
> Here is the link to the News article about it.
> http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-06-14-018-04-SC-KN

It was a little vague, but it implied that it was a local exploit only...
Is that true? If so, it's not worth upgrading because of it, because I'm the
sole user anyway.

And I don't have Kerberos, so that's no reason either.
:)
--
______________________________________________________________________________

|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|                                                 |
|            in            | "I think so brain, but this time, you control   |
|     Computer Science     |  the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..."  |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

1. ati wonder pro or ati wonder radeon video card

Hi,

I was wondering which agp video card would be better with linux and my
computer.

1. ALL-IN-WONDER 128 pro 32mb, agp, rage chipset
2. all-in-wonder radeon 32mb, agp, radeon chipset

Right now (2) is my top choice because it appears to have newer
hardware and more functionality.  My other hardware is abit bp6 dual
celeron mbd (has 2x agp), 2 - 433mhz celerons, 756mb dimm memory.

Thanks

2. Any Editors Like UltraEdit (windoze) For Linux?

3. Wonder: ATI All-In-Wonder Config

4. Notebook Compaq Armada E700

5. Hercules 3D Prophet All in Wonder 8500DV = ATI ALL-IN-WONDER RADEON 8500DV ???

6. GNU libgmp on Windows NT

7. ati wonder pro or ati wonder radeon video card

8. Linux network problem (randomly dies)... can anyone help?

9. Setting up Gnome with an ATI All In Wonder

10. Radeon All in Wonder vs. Matrox G450 TV

11. ATI All-in-Wonder Pro setup woes

12. Analysis of the one-hit wonder trolls...

13. ATI's All In Wonder 128