Linux with X...how robust?

Linux with X...how robust?

Post by Joe Smulowi » Wed, 17 Apr 1996 04:00:00



Ok, I'm pretty well  convinced  that Linux  running X is what I want as far as
features go.

The big question is how robust is it?  I'm running OS/2 which locks up quite a
bit.  It's  better  than  Windoze  since I  usually  only  lose  control  of a
particular  application,  not the whole OS, but that does happen more than I'd
like.

I run Unix here at work, which is VERY robust.  It only goes down when there's
a hardware disk failure or the like.

How often do you see Linux crash?  How often when running X-windows?

                                        Thanks.

 
 
 

Linux with X...how robust?

Post by David Powel » Fri, 19 Apr 1996 04:00:00



> Ok, I'm pretty well  convinced  that Linux  running X is what I want as far as
> features go.

> The big question is how robust is it?  I'm running OS/2 which locks up quite a
> bit.  It's  better  than  Windoze  since I  usually  only  lose  control  of a
> particular  application,  not the whole OS, but that does happen more than I'd
> like.

> I run Unix here at work, which is VERY robust.  It only goes down when there's
> a hardware disk failure or the like.

> How often do you see Linux crash?  How often when running X-windows?

>                                         Thanks.

        I have found Linux to be _very_ stable.  I generally leave my computer running
for days/weeks at a time, and I can do so with out having to worry about crashing.
Linux has not crashed in a few months on my system.  Applications under Linux (if
well written) are also very stable.  The only application that likes to crash
(meaning: quit unexpectedly) that I use is Netscape (go figure), and that isn't
too often.  Basically, I can leave my computer running for weeks at a time, and
the only times I _ever_ have to reboot is so I can use DOS/Windows95 for a
particular application I don't yet have under Linux.  
        I am running kernel 1.2.13, XFree86 3.1.1, on a P100 with 16 Megs ram and a
#9GXE64Pro video card.

--

------------------------
David Eric Powell

------------------------

 
 
 

Linux with X...how robust?

Post by Vote4mi » Fri, 19 Apr 1996 04:00:00


Oh do I tired of managers inventing new uses for words...the latest is
HARMONY...so why not 'Linux with X.. how harmonious?'

Since you use 'robust', pick one from Webster...
adj: L robustus, oaken, hard, strong<rober, hard variety of oak, hardness,
strength, earlier robus, probably akin to ruber, RED. 1a)strong and
healthy; full of vigor; hardy. b) strongly built or based; muscular or
sturdy. 2 suited to or requiring physical strength or stamina [robust
work] 3 rough; coarse; boisterous. 4 full and rich, as in flavor [a robust
port wine].

I can't wait to see how 'robust' my next raise is, then I will afford
'robust' meals.

all in jest, .......have a great day,   Mike

 
 
 

Linux with X...how robust?

Post by William McCart » Sat, 20 Apr 1996 04:00:00



>Ok, I'm pretty well  convinced  that Linux  running X is what I want as far as
>features go.

>The big question is how robust is it?  I'm running OS/2 which locks up quite a
>bit.  It's  better  than  Windoze  since I  usually  only  lose  control  of a
>particular  application,  not the whole OS, but that does happen more than I'd
>like.

>I run Unix here at work, which is VERY robust.  It only goes down when there's
>a hardware disk failure or the like.

>How often do you see Linux crash?  How often when running X-windows?

>                                    Thanks.

I've never had a crash yet. I don't run a lot of intense X apps, but I've
had linux in X up for 7-9 days at a time with no problems. There is not
comparison w/ windows. I don't know about os/2. Linux with X is very robust.

______________________

||___INU\/            |
|____|  /\___________ |

 
 
 

Linux with X...how robust?

Post by Pete Kulupk » Sat, 20 Apr 1996 04:00:00



> I've never had a crash yet. I don't run a lot of intense X apps, but I've
> had linux in X up for 7-9 days at a time with no problems. There is not
> comparison w/ windows. I don't know about os/2. Linux with X is very robust.

        The only crash I've ever had in Linux or X was when I used up all my
main and virtual memory.  The whole system froze up and refused to do
anything.  However, I did this on purpose to see how far I could push
the O/S before it said "Enough!"  ;-)

        Just using the the system regularly I've never come close to crashing
the system.  I've never had a system error or problem that would crash
the system.  Only by exhausting system memory did I even get an irk out
of Linux.

        Once Linux gets some mainstream apps and becomes endorsed as a true
Un*x it will really take a chunk out of more popular high end O/S's like
O/S2 and Windows NT.

        Was I on a soapbox?  ;-)  Enough!

Pete

--

Criminal Justice Science         http://www.ilstu.edu/~pckulup
Applied Computer Science
Illinois State University         Illinois Army National Guard

 
 
 

Linux with X...how robust?

Post by Larry Doolitt » Sat, 20 Apr 1996 04:00:00


: Ok, I'm pretty well  convinced  that Linux  running X is what I want as far as
: features go.

: The big question is how robust is it?  I'm running OS/2 which locks up quite a
: bit.  It's  better  than  Windoze  since I  usually  only  lose  control  of a
: particular  application,  not the whole OS, but that does happen more than I'd
: like.

Careful.  OS/2 _shouldn't_ lock up ever.  If it does, you may well
have flaky hardware.  Linux is (not surprisingly) unstable on flaky
hardware as well.

When your hardware is _not_ flaky (and you don't do something
stupid as root ;-), Linux never crashes.  I am typing this
message from a Linux machine that was rebooted for an office move
on March 20.  The X server has been running since March 21.
It is now April 19.  Draw your own conclusions.


 
 
 

Linux with X...how robust?

Post by Brian P. Kaspe » Sat, 20 Apr 1996 04:00:00



> Ok, I'm pretty well  convinced  that Linux  running X is what I want as far as
> features go.

> The big question is how robust is it?  I'm running OS/2 which locks up quite a
> bit.  It's  better  than  Windoze  since I  usually  only  lose  control  of a
> particular  application,  not the whole OS, but that does happen more than I'd
> like.

> I run Unix here at work, which is VERY robust.  It only goes down when there's
> a hardware disk failure or the like.

> How often do you see Linux crash?  How often when running X-windows?

>                                         Thanks.

The only thing I've been able to lock up under Red Hat 3.0.3 with XFree86 (3.1.2
I believe) is the X server itself.  Two or three times, I've tried to double-click
on a minimized window (xterm, for example) and, by clicking too slowly, managed to
lock up the X server completely.  The behavior is this:  first click is recognized
by the icon, popping up the maximize,restore,close menu.  Second click is either
on the icon again or somewhere on the desktop by accident, *not* on the popup
menu.  All X programs cease responding to mouse input, server does not respond with
system popup when I click on the desktop.  I have to move to another terminal, kill
the X server, and restart it.

I'm not sure if this is something I'm doing wrong, or a bug in XFree86, but I'm
looking into ways to make XFree86 recognize more time twixt double-clicks.

-Brian

--
Brian Kasper              | "The only way to deal with bureaucrats is with
The Aerospace Corporation |  stealth and sudden *." - U.N Secretary

Opinions are my own    O- |

 
 
 

Linux with X...how robust?

Post by George Hame » Sat, 20 Apr 1996 04:00:00




> : Ok, I'm pretty well  convinced  that Linux  running X is what I want as far as
> : features go.

> : The big question is how robust is it?  I'm running OS/2 which locks up quite a
> : bit.  It's  better  than  Windoze  since I  usually  only  lose  control  of a
> : particular  application,  not the whole OS, but that does happen more than I'd
> : like.

> Careful.  OS/2 _shouldn't_ lock up ever.  If it does, you may well
> have flaky hardware.  Linux is (not surprisingly) unstable on flaky
> hardware as well.

> When your hardware is _not_ flaky (and you don't do something
> stupid as root ;-), Linux never crashes.  I am typing this
> message from a Linux machine that was rebooted for an office move
> on March 20.  The X server has been running since March 21.
> It is now April 19.  Draw your own conclusions.



Before I discovered Linux, I tried OS/2 (2.1 and 3.0). I also had
problems with OS/2 locking up. I installed Linux and X on the same
hardware and had no problems (except for the learning curve, but that
was fun).


 
 
 

Linux with X...how robust?

Post by The Cr » Wed, 24 Apr 1996 04:00:00




>>Ok, I'm pretty well  convinced  that Linux  running X is what I want as far as
>>features go.

>>The big question is how robust is it?  I'm running OS/2 which locks up quite a
>>bit.  It's  better  than  Windoze  since I  usually  only  lose  control  of a
>>particular  application,  not the whole OS, but that does happen more than I'd
>>like.

>>I run Unix here at work, which is VERY robust.  It only goes down when there's
>>a hardware disk failure or the like.

>>How often do you see Linux crash?  How often when running X-windows?

>>                                       Thanks.

>I've never had a crash yet. I don't run a lot of intense X apps, but I've
>had linux in X up for 7-9 days at a time with no problems. There is not
>comparison w/ windows. I don't know about os/2. Linux with X is very robust.

Linux and Xwindows are just fine, but there are a lot of crappy apps out there that wont act
right.  However when they*up, you can just close em real easy. Everything else will keep
working.  Just last night I had the following all running

Two copies of FracInt with color pallete rotating on two different fractals
DOOM was running at full speed in the demo
EMACS was open with a C program in there
Xterm was open compiling the C program
GNU Chess was thinking away

This was all on a P90 with 32megs ram, and I can tell you that DOOM never slowed down, and
nothing crashed.  
--

"It can't rain all the time"
RSA ENCRYPTION IN 3 LINES OF PERL
---------------------------------------------------------
#!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)

 
 
 

Linux with X...how robust?

Post by Paul M Sargen » Thu, 25 Apr 1996 04:00:00




> > Ok, I'm pretty well  convinced  that Linux  running X is what I want as far as
> > features go.

> > The big question is how robust is it?  I'm running OS/2 which locks up quite a
> > bit.  It's  better  than  Windoze  since I  usually  only  lose  control  of a
> > particular  application,  not the whole OS, but that does happen more than I'd
> > like.

> The only thing I've been able to lock up under Red Hat 3.0.3 with XFree86 (3.1.2
> I believe) is the X server itself.  Two or three times, I've tried to double-click
> on a minimized window (xterm, for example) and, by clicking too slowly, managed to
> lock up the X server completely.  The behavior is this:  first click is recognized
> by the icon, popping up the maximize,restore,close menu.  Second click is either
> on the icon again or somewhere on the desktop by accident, *not* on the popup
> menu.  All X programs cease responding to mouse input, server does not respond with
> system popup when I click on the desktop.  I have to move to another terminal, kill
> the X server, and restart it.

I'm no expert but it sounds to me like its not the X-Server*, but the window
manager. I believe I'm right in saying the the WM deals with maxmizing and minimizing
windows. I'd try a different WM. If you're using FVWM that comes with Redhat 3.0.3
then I'd suggest going to FVWM 2. It's beta (and therefore not in Redhat), but I've
never had any problems with it.

There's a RPM for it in contrib on the Redhat site.

Paul  

Stupid newshost won't accept files with more included text than more.
So Here are a few blank lines

--
*******************************************************************************

Microelectronics,
Brunel University, London U.K.
*******************************************************************************

 
 
 

Linux with X...how robust?

Post by Harry R Mas » Fri, 26 Apr 1996 04:00:00



: >Ok, I'm pretty well  convinced  that Linux  running X is what I want as far as
: >features go.
: >
: >The big question is how robust is it?  I'm running OS/2 which locks up quite a
: >bit.  It's  better  than  Windoze  since I  usually  only  lose  control  of a
: >particular  application,  not the whole OS, but that does happen more than I'd
: >like.
: >
: >I run Unix here at work, which is VERY robust.  It only goes down when there's
: >a hardware disk failure or the like.
: >
: >
: >How often do you see Linux crash?  How often when running X-windows?
: >
: >
: >                                        
: >                                  Thanks.

: I've never had a crash yet. I don't run a lot of intense X apps, but I've
: had linux in X up for 7-9 days at a time with no problems. There is not
: comparison w/ windows. I don't know about os/2. Linux with X is very robust.

: ______________________

: ||___INU\/            |
: |____|  /\___________ |

I shut my system down frequently because my wife likes a few Windows apps
that are not available for Linux--one of them is Quicken.  If it weren't
for that, I'm sure my system would never go down.  This might surprise
many because I only have a lowly AMD386/40/8 with svga/1mb running on
an ISA bus.  It couldn't be more underpowered, and yet it never complains
and actually out performs Windows 95 in speed and reliability.  I have
NEVER crashed Linux and I usually like to experiment first, then if that
fails I read the man pages.  You can imagine that I occationally do stupid
things, but Linux just says "ahem--excuse me--you can't do that."  I think
Linux's strength is its robustness.  I just wish a few more mainstream
software companies would take Linux seriously and release their programs
for it.  Netscape and Mathematica are two that have and I commend them.
Now I'd like to see more follow their lead.

Harry
--
/***************************************
   Harry Mason

   http://www.cs.usm.maine.edu/~mason
 ***************************************/