Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away"

Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away"

Post by maximu » Thu, 28 Dec 2000 16:50:28



 Greetings all. I posted a question on this forum and alt.os.linux
looking for the best distro for a linux newbie. The posting was
titled "Which retail Linux distribution is best?" The responses I
received were very courteous, professional. Due to the ambuguity of my
question (my fault), the responses were quite varied but all were well
intentioned. I am a consultant, have my own consulting business and
have been in this biz since 1967 (mainframes, mini's, Pc's, dos,
windows, et. all. Began as a programmer and finished up as Director of
MIS before I started my own consulting business. Have never really done
much in Unix but witnessed the potential of it as a * OS,
particularly on the client side, clearly lose it's momentum because of
warring factions which caused such fragmentation corporations were
afraid to commit to it. Though it's capabilities exceeded anything in
the marketplace, it didn't achieve the overall success it should have.
Developers also fell in the same quandry and subsequently a lot (most)
of the commercial market went elsewhere. Unix was almost a forgotten
word (still had a good niche) until it was "resurrected" through the
net. I bring this history (forgive me) back to the future because I'm
afraid I see the same thing happening with Linux. I began looking into
Linux over a year ago (still have references to it on my website)but
for a number of reasons which I won't go into great detail here, put it
on hold. During that brief foray, I used Deja forums as a source of
questions and knowledge. People helped me (and flamed me-in a kind way-
when I asked a Windows related question) but I could sense the gentle,
wise, common goal approach that seemed to be so pervasive that it
overcame the sometimes seemingly over zealous give and take that I
found myself in and observed. My background-on the pc side-is now
decidedly microsoft. I have tried and seen all the previous contenders
fall. From Dr. Dos to OS/2. From dbase, 123, wordperfect and on. I used
all these and they were the best in their "niches" but microsoft won
out. Like it or not, that's the real world. It is frustrating that so
many good innovative companies (and their products) have fallen by the
wayside and it is our loss! Windows (for all it's problems and
agravation)has become the choice and "name" brand. The single key issue
of this result is that developers have recognized this and written
their applications for this platform. That is what it is all about.
That is the bottom line! Consumers and businesses (not all) have little
recourse when it comes to  the OS because of the overwhelming depth of
software (shrinkwrap and custom)that is available for the microsoft
platform. Then came Linus and Linux and there was hope. I had hoped
(still do but abated)that I, as many others, could join in on the
ground floor of a viable fresh competitor, offering a solid stable
growing OS for the server AND desktop with "many choices" for consumer
and business applications. Hope for a "choice" for my business so I
could offer a "choice" to my clients and differentiate my business! I
fear, however, after spending many hours looking through and reading
the various forums that it may be a waste of time learning the Linux
platform. I see bickering, distrust, name calling but worst of all I
see what appears to be fragmentation towards that common goal. Frankly,
I now have NO idea which is a "good" distribution for me to select
from. Not on the desktop NOR the server. I was looking for one
distro/vendor which would satisfy both needs for a Linux newbie who was
willing to invest the time and effort AND had a business goal in mind.
I'm sure that given the time I would actually somewhat enjoy trying out
all the distro's and knowing the nuances of each. That, realistically
speaking, is time that is ill afforded. And where are the applications?
Star Office is fine but what about the range of other consumer and
business applications? If, as seemingly indicated by the dialogue on
the forums,  the main focus is on problems with the different distro's
and still (unbelievably) resolving basic hardware compatibility
problems (like it or not, there are tons of winmodems and winprinters
out there), then I suspect there can be little time or impetus for
application development. Linux has come so far only to seem so far away
to me. I'm not here to sermonize (sorry), but I am confused as to how
to continue. Linux is one word, isn't it? Thanks and best regards.

--
"Strength and Honor"

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.veryComputer.com/

 
 
 

Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away"

Post by For » Thu, 28 Dec 2000 18:48:32



<all snipped>

I have noticed the same myself. A the end of the day, I don't think you are
looking at Linux in it's real light. The GUI interface system is *very* new
in comparison to windows and is not really ready for mass market
applications. It is in a constant state of change. It is an OS for OS fans,
not for users!

Linux is great for server applications because, in such applications, only
a few components tend to be running simultaneously. This means that the OS
is smaller and consequently more stable. Unfortunately, as with DOS,  
putting a GUI on top of it tends to reduce its stability...

Windows is for users. That is why almost all software is written for it. It
has problems, but by and large these do not prevent it from working.

Windows 2K is more like Linux than windows - in spite of its appearance.
Some people have said that it has stability problems but I am not sure
about this. So far I havn't managed to crash it fatally!

The arguments in this NG are the birthing pains of what *may* become a
truly great OS, but there is a long, long way to go...

--
Mick
Olde Nascom Computers - http://www.mixtel.co.uk

 
 
 

Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away"

Post by Ralph Miguel Hanse » Thu, 28 Dec 2000 21:01:07




> <all snipped>

> I have noticed the same myself. A the end of the day, I don't think you
> are looking at Linux in it's real light. The GUI interface system is
> *very* new in comparison to windows and is not really ready for mass
> market applications. It is in a constant state of change. It is an OS for
> OS fans, not for users!

> Linux is great for server applications because, in such applications, only
> a few components tend to be running simultaneously. This means that the OS
> is smaller and consequently more stable. Unfortunately, as with DOS,
> putting a GUI on top of it tends to reduce its stability...

> Windows is for users. That is why almost all software is written for it.
> It has problems, but by and large these do not prevent it from working.

> Windows 2K is more like Linux than windows - in spite of its appearance.
> Some people have said that it has stability problems but I am not sure
> about this. So far I havn't managed to crash it fatally!

> The arguments in this NG are the birthing pains of what *may* become a
> truly great OS, but there is a long, long way to go...

You are much more experienced in Computers than I am; maybe this makes you
feel pessimistic. I bought my first PC at the age of 39. Of course with W98
OEM. I tried to get it running, and I tried hard, but it worked not the way
I always thought Software should work, there were crashes, lost files and
other funny things. I read about Linux in a magazine and tried it -without
any background because at that time I was a sailor in the Baltics- and
Hurrah! this was I looked for. I gave away the W98, installed Linux (now
SuSE, but this is a matter of taste, I think) and started real working with
the PC. I learned a lot of computing, went back to school and in two years
I will have a nice Job. This surely would not have happened without Linux
and the *BSDs I am playing around with.

I see the decline of Windows as a "Standard-OS", it is beginning just now,
but you are right, it will take his time.

Ralph Miguel Hansen
Auf der Donau 29
45139 Essen

 
 
 

Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away"

Post by pip » Thu, 28 Dec 2000 23:07:40


[snip]

Quote:> Linux is great for server applications because, in such applications, only
> a few components tend to be running simultaneously. This means that the OS
> is smaller and consequently more stable. Unfortunately, as with DOS,
> putting a GUI on top of it tends to reduce its stability...

1. Servers tend to run more processes than in user machines
(mail, web, ftp, nis, nfs, time, backup, smb, ip routing etc, etc, etc:
name your service!)
2. A GUI does not reduce system stability in a well designed OS
(I have never been able to regain control of a crashed windows GUI, yet
in Linux I can telnet in and restart it AND my other processes are NOT
effected!)

Your arguments here are just factually incorrect and could be called FUD
:-(

Linux is _NOT_ DOS. DOS is just not comparable in *any* aspect!

Quote:> The arguments in this NG are the birthing pains of what *may* become a
> truly great OS, but there is a long, long way to go...

Linux is already a truly great OS!  It just depends who you
are and what you want to do with it...
 
 
 

Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away"

Post by matt newel » Thu, 28 Dec 2000 20:33:40




> <all snipped>

> I have noticed the same myself. A the end of the day, I don't think you are
> looking at Linux in it's real light. The GUI interface system is *very* new
> in comparison to windows and is not really ready for mass market
> applications. It is in a constant state of change. It is an OS for OS fans,
> not for users!

The X windowing system is actually fairly old and hasn't changed(besides
extensions) for years.  If you are refferring to KDE or gnome, they are
toolkits and desktop applications.  Saying that it is not an OS for users is
ridiculous.  Currently, linux can satisfy any user except the hard-core office
user, but that is comming along quickly.

Quote:> Linux is great for server applications because, in such applications, only
> a few components tend to be running simultaneously. This means that the OS
> is smaller and consequently more stable. Unfortunately, as with DOS,
> putting a GUI on top of it tends to reduce its stability...

You must not know anything about Operating Systems to come to that conclusion.
 Take Linux 2.2.18 + KDE 1.1.2 and you have a great desktop that will *never*
crash.  You could use it for years and it would not crash.  KDE 2.0 had a few
bugs, but they will be fixed in 2.1 which will be out in a couple of weeks.  
This is getting off the point though, you say that the gui makes the OS less
stable, this is far from true.  You can take the buggiest piece of *gui in
the world and it would not cause the system to crash.  The gui might crash,
but all you would have to do is restart it.  With Linux the gui is not part of
the kernel and can't trash the system like windows.

Quote:> Windows is for users. That is why almost all software is written for it. It
> has problems, but by and large these do not prevent it from working.

Software is written for windows because that is where the money is at, that is
the only reason.  People write software for linux because they want to and
Linux will continue to improve until people stop wanting to write new software.

Quote:> Windows 2K is more like Linux than windows - in spite of its appearance.
> Some people have said that it has stability problems but I am not sure
> about this. So far I havn't managed to crash it fatally!

You are measuring stability in comparison to Windows 9x, this is absolutly
foolish.  Try keeping Windows 2000 up for a year or so, I bet you can't.  Now
install a bunch of software, the system gets less stable, linux doesn't have
this problem.  I have never crashed my Linux box and have been using it for
over two years.

Quote:> The arguments in this NG are the birthing pains of what *may* become a
> truly great OS, but there is a long, long way to go...

First of all, A truly great OS is just an opinion. Linux has been a truly
great OS for sysadmins or programmers for years.  Are you implying that
Windows is a truly great OS, it isn't.  I will admit that Linux needs a few
things before it will become perfect, but it is getting there quickly.

Matt Newell

My Desktop uses fully anti-aliased fonts, does yours?(Window font smoothing
doesn't count)

 
 
 

Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away"

Post by matt newel » Thu, 28 Dec 2000 20:40:15



>  Greetings all. I posted a question on this forum and alt.os.linux
> looking for the best distro for a linux newbie. The posting was
> titled "Which retail Linux distribution is best?" The responses I
> received were very courteous, professional. Due to the ambuguity of my
> question (my fault), the responses were quite varied but all were well
> intentioned. I am a consultant, have my own consulting business and
> have been in this biz since 1967 (mainframes, mini's, Pc's, dos,
> windows, et. all. Began as a programmer and finished up as Director of
> MIS before I started my own consulting business. Have never really done
> much in Unix but witnessed the potential of it as a * OS,
> particularly on the client side, clearly lose it's momentum because of
> warring factions which caused such fragmentation corporations were
> afraid to commit to it. Though it's capabilities exceeded anything in
> the marketplace, it didn't achieve the overall success it should have.
> Developers also fell in the same quandry and subsequently a lot (most)
> of the commercial market went elsewhere. Unix was almost a forgotten
> word (still had a good niche) until it was "resurrected" through the
> net. I bring this history (forgive me) back to the future because I'm
> afraid I see the same thing happening with Linux. I began looking into
> Linux over a year ago (still have references to it on my website)but
> for a number of reasons which I won't go into great detail here, put it
> on hold. During that brief foray, I used Deja forums as a source of
> questions and knowledge. People helped me (and flamed me-in a kind way-
> when I asked a Windows related question) but I could sense the gentle,
> wise, common goal approach that seemed to be so pervasive that it
> overcame the sometimes seemingly over zealous give and take that I
> found myself in and observed. My background-on the pc side-is now
> decidedly microsoft. I have tried and seen all the previous contenders
> fall. From Dr. Dos to OS/2. From dbase, 123, wordperfect and on. I used
> all these and they were the best in their "niches" but microsoft won
> out. Like it or not, that's the real world. It is frustrating that so
> many good innovative companies (and their products) have fallen by the
> wayside and it is our loss! Windows (for all it's problems and
> agravation)has become the choice and "name" brand. The single key issue
> of this result is that developers have recognized this and written
> their applications for this platform. That is what it is all about.
> That is the bottom line! Consumers and businesses (not all) have little
> recourse when it comes to  the OS because of the overwhelming depth of
> software (shrinkwrap and custom)that is available for the microsoft
> platform. Then came Linus and Linux and there was hope. I had hoped
> (still do but abated)that I, as many others, could join in on the
> ground floor of a viable fresh competitor, offering a solid stable
> growing OS for the server AND desktop with "many choices" for consumer
> and business applications. Hope for a "choice" for my business so I
> could offer a "choice" to my clients and differentiate my business! I
> fear, however, after spending many hours looking through and reading
> the various forums that it may be a waste of time learning the Linux
> platform. I see bickering, distrust, name calling but worst of all I
> see what appears to be fragmentation towards that common goal. Frankly,
> I now have NO idea which is a "good" distribution for me to select
> from. Not on the desktop NOR the server. I was looking for one
> distro/vendor which would satisfy both needs for a Linux newbie who was
> willing to invest the time and effort AND had a business goal in mind.
> I'm sure that given the time I would actually somewhat enjoy trying out
> all the distro's and knowing the nuances of each. That, realistically
> speaking, is time that is ill afforded. And where are the applications?
> Star Office is fine but what about the range of other consumer and
> business applications? If, as seemingly indicated by the dialogue on
> the forums,  the main focus is on problems with the different distro's
> and still (unbelievably) resolving basic hardware compatibility
> problems (like it or not, there are tons of winmodems and winprinters
> out there), then I suspect there can be little time or impetus for
> application development. Linux has come so far only to seem so far away
> to me. I'm not here to sermonize (sorry), but I am confused as to how
> to continue. Linux is one word, isn't it? Thanks and best regards.

> --
> "Strength and Honor"

> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.veryComputer.com/

I couldn't really find your point?

Linux is not fragmenting, any linux developer knows that.

Linux has many good applications, sure it is a bit behind with word
proccessing, but in other areas it is even or ahead of windows.

Many people have problems installing linux and getting the hardware working
good, but how many of those people have installed windows?  Most computers
ship with windows so they never have to go through the hell of Installing,
downloading drivers, restarting, downloading different drivers
restarting....This happens all the time and can be a real pain even for the
most advanced user, because they have to follow the same mindless dialoges as
the newbie.

Matt Newell

You shouldn't go to a newsgoup and make a prediction about something that you
know nothing about.

 
 
 

Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away"

Post by For » Fri, 29 Dec 2000 02:53:47




<snip>

Quote:>1. Servers tend to run more processes than in user machines
>(mail, web, ftp, nis, nfs, time, backup, smb, ip routing etc, etc, etc:
>name your service!)

yep, but the users arn't affecting which processes are running i.e. they
can't mess things up. The system won't let them. Also, *any* system *must*
become less stable as you increase the number of processes. All processes
must be assumed to have bugs. Therefore, as the number of progs increases
so does the number of bugs. My point is that, for many basic file servers,
there are *less* processes running and the system is, therefore, more
stable. Your average server runs processes in turn or via cron. Not
simultaneously. They may also be running in virtual machines on the
processor, using their own memory areas. This allows them to crash
independently!

Quote:>2. A GUI does not reduce system stability in a well designed OS
>(I have never been able to regain control of a crashed windows GUI, yet
>in Linux I can telnet in and restart it AND my other processes are NOT
>effected!)

>Your arguments here are just factually incorrect and could be called FUD
>:-(

following on from my comments above, any GUI *must* reduce stability of the
system because it adds more simultaneous processes. This is *not* factually
incorrect - it is a matter of mathematics. I think you will also find,
although I may be mistaken on this point, that the majority of GUIs do not
run on virtual machines themselves - although they give access to processes
that do. If I am wrong on this then I apologise in advance!

Quote:>Linux is _NOT_ DOS. DOS is just not comparable in *any* aspect!

Sorry, it *is* comparable - just not favourably, that's all! I completely
agree, Linux is *not* DOS. I would never attempt to substitute one for the
other, they are too dissimilar. I couldn't run Linux on a 2M RAM 286 for a
start and DOS doesn't have any file serving built in!  :-)

Quote:>> The arguments in this NG are the birthing pains of what *may* become a
>> truly great OS, but there is a long, long way to go...

>Linux is already a truly great OS!  It just depends who you
>are and what you want to do with it...

Exactly my point. If you want a server, run a server OS. If you want a
desktop, run a desktop OS. If you want to run games, run a games OS. None
of the current crop of OSs are fully capable of all tasks. IMHO a "truly
great" OS *would* be capable ao all these and more! It would also be easy
to configure, unconditionally stable and intuitive in use. At least Linux
is on the way there...

--
Mick
Olde Nascom Computers - http://www.mixtel.co.uk

 
 
 

Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away"

Post by For » Fri, 29 Dec 2000 03:25:01




<snip>

Quote:>The X windowing system is actually fairly old and hasn't changed(besides
>extensions) for years.  If you are refferring to KDE or gnome, they are
>toolkits and desktop applications.  Saying that it is not an OS for
>users is ridiculous.  Currently, linux can satisfy any user except the
>hard-core office user, but that is comming along quickly.

Don't get me wrong on this, Linux is an excellent operating system.
Unfortunately it isn't really suitable for average home computer users
because of its lack of hardware support and rather arcane command line-
based structure. Office users really need fast,cheap support even more than
individual computer stability.

Quote:>> Linux is great for server applications because, in such applications,
>> only a few components tend to be running simultaneously. This means
>> that the OS is smaller and consequently more stable. Unfortunately, as
>> with DOS, putting a GUI on top of it tends to reduce its stability...

see my comments in my reply to pip's post above.

Quote:

>> Windows is for users. That is why almost all software is written for
>> it. It has problems, but by and large these do not prevent it from
>> working.

>Software is written for windows because that is where the money is at,
>that is the only reason.  People write software for linux because they
>want to and Linux will continue to improve until people stop wanting to
>write new software.

very, very true.

Quote:

>> Windows 2K is more like Linux than windows - in spite of its
>> appearance. Some people have said that it has stability problems but I
>> am not sure about this. So far I havn't managed to crash it fatally!

>You are measuring stability in comparison to Windows 9x, this is
>absolutly foolish.  Try keeping Windows 2000 up for a year or so, I bet
>you can't.  Now install a bunch of software, the system gets less
>stable, linux doesn't have this problem.  I have never crashed my Linux
>box and have been using it for over two years.

uh? My comment above is about W2K, not Linux. IMHO Linux is *very* stable
*in server applications*. W2K *may* approach it in stability but it is way
too early to tell.

Quote:>> The arguments in this NG are the birthing pains of what *may* become a
>> truly great OS, but there is a long, long way to go...

>First of all, A truly great OS is just an opinion. Linux has been a
>truly great OS for sysadmins or programmers for years.  Are you implying
>that Windows is a truly great OS, it isn't.  I will admit that Linux
>needs a few things before it will become perfect, but it is getting
>there quickly.

NOPE! Windows is definitely *not* in the truly great OS field! Once again,
see my comments in my reply to pip's post above.

<snip>

Quote:>My Desktop uses fully anti-aliased fonts, does yours?(Window font
>smoothing doesn't count)

Nice one Matt! As a matter of interest, do the Apple machines use fully
ant-aliased fonts?

--
Mick
Olde Nascom Computers - http://www.mixtel.co.uk

 
 
 

Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away"

Post by pip » Fri, 29 Dec 2000 07:18:49





> <snip>
> >1. Servers tend to run more processes than in user machines
> >(mail, web, ftp, nis, nfs, time, backup, smb, ip routing etc, etc, etc:
> >name your service!)

> yep, but the users arn't affecting which processes are running i.e. they
> can't mess things up. The system won't let them. Also, *any* system *must*
> become less stable as you increase the number of processes. All processes
> must be assumed to have bugs. Therefore, as the number of progs increases
> so does the number of bugs.

accepted

Quote:> My point is that, for many basic file servers,
> there are *less* processes running and the system is, therefore, more
> stable. Your average server runs processes in turn or via cron. Not
> simultaneously.

this is not the case - Linux is truly multi-tasking in an smp
environment.
Average Linux servers are busy web-based e-commerce animals.

Quote:>They may also be running in virtual machines on the
> processor, using their own memory areas.
>This allows them to crash
> independently!

While I don't at all agree with this, you must now be aware that
Linux uses a very strict model of memory management, so even if
independent
processes crash, they will not effect others (unless they happen to
* up
while in kernel space). So does winNT, except that the GUI appears to
run as privileged code. I am not sure if this is what you mean by VM, if
it is
then you must be aware of this memory separation.

Quote:> >2. A GUI does not reduce system stability in a well designed OS
> >(I have never been able to regain control of a crashed windows GUI, yet
> >in Linux I can telnet in and restart it AND my other processes are NOT
> >effected!)

> >Your arguments here are just factually incorrect and could be called FUD
> >:-(

> following on from my comments above, any GUI *must* reduce stability of the
> system because it adds more simultaneous processes. This is *not* factually
> incorrect - it is a matter of mathematics.

A GUI is a process. It has only it's own memory area to soil.

Quote:>I think you will also find,
> although I may be mistaken on this point, that the majority of GUIs do not
> run on virtual machines themselves - although they give access to processes
> that do. If I am wrong on this then I apologise in advance!

What is this virtual machine lark? Is this a Java thread now :-) ?
If you mean the separation of kernel space and user space then for
the most part you are incorrect if you are talking about Linux. This is
why when X crashes, I can normally restart it without bringing down my
other
processes who are happily chugging along in their own protected memory
space.

Quote:> >Linux is _NOT_ DOS. DOS is just not comparable in *any* aspect!

> Sorry, it *is* comparable - just not favourably, that's all!

Linux is a modern scalable 32-64 bit smp multitasking multi-user
multi-platform posix like os.
I am sorry you can't see the difference. In fact it is REALLY insulting
to most of us Linux types that people use this comparison. DOS, the
16-bit cp/m rip off is not in the same ball-park. DOS has no security
and no memory protection. It is the relic of a past generation and
serves
no useful purpose other than for disk target practice on my darts board.

Quote:> Exactly my point. If you want a server, run a server OS. If you want a
> desktop, run a desktop OS. If you want to run games, run a games OS. None
> of the current crop of OSs are fully capable of all tasks. IMHO a "truly
> great" OS *would* be capable ao all these and more! It would also be easy
> to configure, unconditionally stable and intuitive in use. At least Linux
> is on the way there...

Well this I can agree with!
 
 
 

Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away"

Post by matt newel » Fri, 29 Dec 2000 08:44:29





> <snip>
>>The X windowing system is actually fairly old and hasn't changed(besides
>>extensions) for years.  If you are refferring to KDE or gnome, they are
>>toolkits and desktop applications.  Saying that it is not an OS for
>>users is ridiculous.  Currently, linux can satisfy any user except the
>>hard-core office user, but that is comming along quickly.

> Don't get me wrong on this, Linux is an excellent operating system.
> Unfortunately it isn't really suitable for average home computer users
> because of its lack of hardware support and rather arcane command line-
> based structure. Office users really need fast,cheap support even more than
> individual computer stability.

>>> Linux is great for server applications because, in such applications,
>>> only a few components tend to be running simultaneously. This means
>>> that the OS is smaller and consequently more stable. Unfortunately, as
>>> with DOS, putting a GUI on top of it tends to reduce its stability...

> see my comments in my reply to pip's post above.

>>> Windows is for users. That is why almost all software is written for
>>> it. It has problems, but by and large these do not prevent it from
>>> working.

>>Software is written for windows because that is where the money is at,
>>that is the only reason.  People write software for linux because they
>>want to and Linux will continue to improve until people stop wanting to
>>write new software.

> very, very true.

>>> Windows 2K is more like Linux than windows - in spite of its
>>> appearance. Some people have said that it has stability problems but I
>>> am not sure about this. So far I havn't managed to crash it fatally!

>>You are measuring stability in comparison to Windows 9x, this is
>>absolutly foolish.  Try keeping Windows 2000 up for a year or so, I bet
>>you can't.  Now install a bunch of software, the system gets less
>>stable, linux doesn't have this problem.  I have never crashed my Linux
>>box and have been using it for over two years.

> uh? My comment above is about W2K, not Linux. IMHO Linux is *very* stable
> *in server applications*. W2K *may* approach it in stability but it is way
> too early to tell.

My point was that people consider W2K to be stable only because they have used
Win 9x in the past.  If you were to switch from Linux or any other Unix, W2K
would seem very unstable.  

Quote:

>>> The arguments in this NG are the birthing pains of what *may* become a
>>> truly great OS, but there is a long, long way to go...

>>First of all, A truly great OS is just an opinion. Linux has been a
>>truly great OS for sysadmins or programmers for years.  Are you implying
>>that Windows is a truly great OS, it isn't.  I will admit that Linux
>>needs a few things before it will become perfect, but it is getting
>>there quickly.

> NOPE! Windows is definitely *not* in the truly great OS field! Once again,
> see my comments in my reply to pip's post above.

Again my point is that there really aren't any really good OSs out there, but
Linux is getting there much more quickly than anything else.

Quote:

> <snip>
>>My Desktop uses fully anti-aliased fonts, does yours?(Window font
>>smoothing doesn't count)

> Nice one Matt! As a matter of interest, do the Apple machines use fully
> ant-aliased fonts?

I believe so.
 
 
 

Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away"

Post by matt newel » Fri, 29 Dec 2000 08:57:21





> <snip>
>>1. Servers tend to run more processes than in user machines
>>(mail, web, ftp, nis, nfs, time, backup, smb, ip routing etc, etc, etc:
>>name your service!)

> yep, but the users arn't affecting which processes are running i.e. they
> can't mess things up. The system won't let them. Also, *any* system *must*
> become less stable as you increase the number of processes. All processes
> must be assumed to have bugs. Therefore, as the number of progs increases
> so does the number of bugs. My point is that, for many basic file servers,
> there are *less* processes running and the system is, therefore, more
> stable. Your average server runs processes in turn or via cron. Not
> simultaneously. They may also be running in virtual machines on the
> processor, using their own memory areas. This allows them to crash
> independently!

This is completely false,  in a real multitasking OS that has protected memory
and seperate address spaces for each process, Any number of buggy processes
does not effect system stability.  If program A crashes, it does not effect
any other program, nor the kernel.  A buggy program only affects itself.  Many
people believe that an application can make a system less stable because of
their experience with windows. Windows leaves certain parts of the OS mapped
into the applications address space and this is why buggy programs crash
windows, this is not the case for linux.  I can crash programs all day long on
my linux box and it will never affect the stability of my system.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

>>2. A GUI does not reduce system stability in a well designed OS
>>(I have never been able to regain control of a crashed windows GUI, yet
>>in Linux I can telnet in and restart it AND my other processes are NOT
>>effected!)

>>Your arguments here are just factually incorrect and could be called FUD
>>:-(

> following on from my comments above, any GUI *must* reduce stability of the
> system because it adds more simultaneous processes. This is *not* factually
> incorrect - it is a matter of mathematics. I think you will also find,
> although I may be mistaken on this point, that the majority of GUIs do not
> run on virtual machines themselves - although they give access to processes
> that do. If I am wrong on this then I apologise in advance!

*ALL* processes in linux run in their own protected address space, none of
them have direct access to kernel memory or the memory of another
process(unless that process has permission to mmap the memory).  In windows,
the gui is part of the kernel and this is part of what causes so many
stability problems. This is not the case with linux.

Quote:

>>Linux is _NOT_ DOS. DOS is just not comparable in *any* aspect!

> Sorry, it *is* comparable - just not favourably, that's all! I completely
> agree, Linux is *not* DOS. I would never attempt to substitute one for the
> other, they are too dissimilar. I couldn't run Linux on a 2M RAM 286 for a
> start and DOS doesn't have any file serving built in!  :-)

DOS is not even a true operating system in todays sense.  It did not have
protected memory, it did not have multitasking, it is just a bunch of routines
that are set up as interrupts for programs to use, and of course a shell.
Linux and W2K on the other hand are real OS and they cannot be compared to DOS.

Quote:

>>> The arguments in this NG are the birthing pains of what *may* become a
>>> truly great OS, but there is a long, long way to go...

>>Linux is already a truly great OS!  It just depends who you
>>are and what you want to do with it...

> Exactly my point. If you want a server, run a server OS. If you want a
> desktop, run a desktop OS. If you want to run games, run a games OS. None
> of the current crop of OSs are fully capable of all tasks. IMHO a "truly
> great" OS *would* be capable ao all these and more! It would also be easy
> to configure, unconditionally stable and intuitive in use. At least Linux
> is on the way there...

Linux a great server OS, a great desktop OS and a great * OS.  I will
admit however, that configuring a system for hardware accelerated * is
still not easy to do and that there is a few things that are lacking from a
desktop users point of view, but these things are getting fixed very quickly.

Matt Newell

 
 
 

Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away"

Post by For » Fri, 29 Dec 2000 09:13:48




<snip>

Quote:>> >Linux is _NOT_ DOS. DOS is just not comparable in *any* aspect!

>> Sorry, it *is* comparable - just not favourably, that's all!

>Linux is a modern scalable 32-64 bit smp multitasking multi-user
>multi-platform posix like os.
>I am sorry you can't see the difference. In fact it is REALLY insulting
>to most of us Linux types that people use this comparison. DOS, the
>16-bit cp/m rip off is not in the same ball-park. DOS has no security
>and no memory protection. It is the relic of a past generation and
>serves
>no useful purpose other than for disk target practice on my darts board.

<mick dives for cover behind teletype>
WOAH! don't shoot me! The following bit of my reply was the important bit
and you agreed with that!

_On operating systems (much shrunk to fit in a reasonable post)_
DOS, CP/M, unix and Linux are/were all operating systems. All were
originally designed to be run from a command line. That is where the
similarity ends. I already know that. They are all from different periods
in the tangled history of operating systems. The first two share a common
heritage as do the second two. (Just to wind you up, IIRC DOS and unix are
also distantly related!). For goodness sake, don't feel insulted if Linux
is even slightly compared to "old fogey" OSs! I fully acknowledge the
superiority of Linux over DOS. I also realise that Linux is only possible
with the memory management systems built into microprocesors from the 386
onward. Before then the restricted address space made it completely
impossible (ok, somebody bring up bank switching now...). Only mainframes,
where unix was born, had big enough memories to *load* multiple processes,
never mind *run* them. Once the miroprocessor appeared CP/M came into being
(Control Program for Microprocessors). Much later there was an attempt to
get multi-user DOS accepted. It failed, and rightfully so. Early attempts
at multi-user operation relied on task-switching with varying degrees of
success to make it appear that several users were running at once. This
carried on for many years.

_On multi-tasking (once again, much shrunk...)_
Since the 386 came along we have had the capability of true multi-tasking
by allocating each task its own protected memory area with (what appears to
the program to be) its own processor. Each of these is a virtual machine.
They do not interfere with each other as they cannot see each other. This
is why I suspect that a GUI does not run on a virtual machine - if it did
it couldn't see the other processes. Therefore I suspect that the processor
is switched out of vm mode while the GUI program has access and back into
it at other times. OK, if I'm wrong I hope someone will correct me - in a
reasonable manner. It is only in vm mode that processes are truly
independent so as soon as a GUI is added the system must become less
stable. (sorry pip, no java!)

Quote:

>> Exactly my point. If you want a server, run a server OS. If you want a
>> desktop, run a desktop OS. If you want to run games, run a games OS.
>> None of the current crop of OSs are fully capable of all tasks. IMHO a
>> "truly great" OS *would* be capable ao all these and more! It would
>> also be easy to configure, unconditionally stable and intuitive in
>> use. At least Linux is on the way there...

>Well this I can agree with!

--
Mick
Olde Nascom Computers - http://www.mixtel.co.uk
 
 
 

Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away"

Post by pip » Fri, 29 Dec 2000 10:04:20



> <mick dives for cover behind teletype>

and well you might :-)

Quote:> _On operating systems (much shrunk to fit in a reasonable post)_
> DOS, CP/M, unix and Linux are/were all operating systems. All were
> originally designed to be run from a command line. That is where the
> similarity ends. I already know that. They are all from different periods
> in the tangled history of operating systems. The first two share a common
> heritage as do the second two. (Just to wind you up, IIRC DOS and unix are
> also distantly related!).

Just out of my curiosity - how is this? Was the cp/m guy an ex Unix guy
or something of that sort?

Quote:>For goodness sake, don't feel insulted if Linux
> is even slightly compared to "old fogey" OSs! I fully acknowledge the
> superiority of Linux over DOS. I also realise that Linux is only possible
> with the memory management systems built into microprocesors from the 386
> onward. Before then the restricted address space made it completely
> impossible (ok, somebody bring up bank switching now...). Only mainframes,
> where unix was born, had big enough memories to *load* multiple processes,
> never mind *run* them.

Yes true. In fact Linux (I think) does not use all the all the options
available on modern processors (ix86 I think has 4-5 rings of processor
protection and I am sure Alpha and powerpc are similar).

Quote:>Once the miroprocessor appeared CP/M came into being
> (Control Program for Microprocessors).

I used cp/m on my Amstrad cpc6128 - now that was a while ago!

Quote:>Much later there was an attempt to
> get multi-user DOS accepted. It failed, and rightfully so. Early attempts
> at multi-user operation relied on task-switching with varying degrees of
> success to make it appear that several users were running at once. This
> carried on for many years.
> _On multi-tasking (once again, much shrunk...)_
> Since the 386 came along we have had the capability of true multi-tasking
> by allocating each task its own protected memory area with (what appears to
> the program to be) its own processor. Each of these is a virtual machine.

Ok, I see where you are coming from...

Quote:> They do not interfere with each other as they cannot see each other. This
> is why I suspect that a GUI does not run on a virtual machine - if it did
> it couldn't see the other processes. Therefore I suspect that the processor
> is switched out of vm mode while the GUI program has access and back into
> it at other times. OK, if I'm wrong I hope someone will correct me - in a
> reasonable manner. It is only in vm mode that processes are truly
> independent so as soon as a GUI is added the system must become less
> stable.

Process can communicate with each other via various means such as
signals
and pipes or sockets (as in Gnome which uses CORBA). I feel that it is
_very_ unlikely that x would run in kernel space as it is a user-space
program. I think that the only kernel space operations are through the
video drivers (which can cause the whole system to crash). I would
not bet a fortune on this, but I believe it to be correct. Otherwise,
as I stated before, if x were to crash, you would not be able to end
the process as it would be in kernel space - i.e. your system would
be cream cheese and you couldn't find the knife.

Quote:>(sorry pip, no java!)

and I love Java! :-p
 
 
 

Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away"

Post by maximu » Fri, 29 Dec 2000 11:52:48




<snip all>

Quote:> I couldn't really find your point?

Not only have I been in the business since 1967, I have a Business
degree which included many hours of studying Management and
Communications. So I will try again to clarify it for you. Nothing
personal. Judging from what you in particular wrote in response to my
initial post, YOU proved my point. Your type of comments, probably
unknowingly, represent what is wrong with the Linux community-this is
not to reflect on all the honest serious people who want to see Linux
be successful while not blowing their own horn. I am looking for help,
want to contribute and am distressed at what I observe happening. You
chose to ignore that and begin the Linux ranting and raving while
completely oblivious that someone is concerned (objectively) and is
asking for advice. I am willing to eat humble pie, so to speak, to
listen and learn from serious honest informed people in the Linux
community. I am not a microsoft zealot nor a linux zealot, just looking
for the best business solutions for my clients. I have seen this happen
before as I stated in my original post and my point is, PLEASE *don't*
let it happen again. I was also hoping, perhaps too optimistically,
that someone from the Linux community could help me-a newbie to Linux-
chose the *best* distro that I could learn, use and ultimately use in my
consulting business. You will see all of this IF you read the initial
post in it's entirety.

Quote:

> Linux is not fragmenting, any linux developer knows that.

Objectively, I disagree. My wish is that I am to be proved wrong.

Quote:

> Linux has many good applications, sure it is a bit behind with word
> proccessing, but in other areas it is even or ahead of windows.

Again, I am not trying to make this a windows vs. Linux issue. My
concern is that application development (not OS distro's) could be
much further along than it seems to be.

Quote:> Many people have problems installing linux and getting the hardware
> working
> good, but how many of those people have installed windows?  Most
>computers
> ship with windows so they never have to go through the hell of
> Installing,
> downloading drivers, restarting, downloading different drivers
> restarting....This happens all the time and can be a real pain even
> for the most advanced user, because they have to follow the same
> mindless dialoges as the newbie.

Again, YOUR comments substantiate my concern. Linux vs. Windows,
Windows vs. Linux, Linux distro's vs. Linux distro's. People this,
People that. To be frank, life's a * on both sides of the fence but
this type of dialogue is absolutely a dead end and the most
unproductive waste of time there is.

Quote:

> Matt Newell

> You shouldn't go to a newsgoup and make a prediction about something
> that you know nothing about.

The Great Karnak made predictions, not I. Once you have been in this
business for a while, you will be be able to ascertain the difference
between a prediction and a request for help. I make this one comment
directly to you Matt Newell, thank God for all the good Linux people.

--
"Strength and Honor"

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.veryComputer.com/

 
 
 

1. webhosting.com - stay away... far far away

i made a big mistake hosting with webhosting.com

they do not respond to support and don't know what they are doing. i've
tried everything with them. i havn't heard anything from them in over a
week (they claim 48 hour response). i've even escalated to the
president, three times, and still heard nothing. their 'live support'
feature is a fraud. it is NEVER staffed.

stay away from webhosting.com

i'd love to hear from others with similar experience. they've cost me a
lot of time and money and i intend to get it back.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

2. shared SAN between AIX/HP-UX

3. GUIFFY 5.0 compare/merge released

4. Long ago, in a partition far, far away...

5. Automated ftp fails

6. Mac "find" performs far better than Unix O(n^2) "find"

7. a1 a2 a3 file sizes

8. What determines how far back "last" goes?

9. Gone too far (was "Re: Help with sed and a script")

10. ISSG down far, far more than BCSG

11. GETSERVBYNAME()????????????????????"""""""""""""

12. """"""""My SoundBlast 16 pnp isn't up yet""""""""""""