Why Linux?
Corey Sklenicka
> >> I would very much appreciate a reply from a level-headed, educated,
> >> experienced, non-flaming colleague as to the advantages of Linux...
>
> Nonetheless, I found Linux to be quite practical with a data conversion
> project I had to do recently. The input was a _huge_ dBASE file and the
> output was to be a proprietary binary file. Yeah, it was DOS going in
> and DOS going out yet I chose Linux as the platform to handle the
> conversion. Why? Access to a 32-bit compiler to handle in-memory sorting
> for the input file. Also, the availability of tools like awk and sed for
> the creation of reports to validate the integrity of the data made my work
> easier for this project.
>
> So there you have an even-handed assessment of Linux from one who uses
> a variety of platforms. As the sig indicates, I use the M$ platform
> for commercial development and Linux for fun and for internal development.
>
> Good post, Chris -- you said a lot of things that are worthwhile and
> I hope that you aren't too severely flamed by some of the more extreme
> zealots.
And so did you. It seems that many of the posts here merely result in a
flamewar of "My OS is better than yours, so :P" Personally, I love
linux, live linux, and breathe linux. OTOH, I need linux for what I do.
But, for the poster of a recent article, who mentioned he used MS Win. for work,
and his primary hobby was ANSI BBSing, linux would be a poor choice, yet someone
tried to point out the advantages of him switching.
WFWG,NT,DOS,*NIX,OS/2 are all good. It depends on what a person needs from
his/her system. I think that if we were to truly want to advocate Linux,
we'd get a better response by showing it's strong points (where
appropriate), rather than blindly accusing other OS's of being 'lame.'
====
Corey Sklenicka GCS/MU-d+H--@s!gp?aua-w+@v---C++++UL++++$P+
co...@gollum.cloudnet.com L++>+++E---N+++KW---M--V--poY++t+(++)!5j
Linus is GOD! :) R++G?tv++b+++DB---eu*h+f?r*n----y++
Mark Sutton
mave...@netcom.com (Chris Shepard) writes:
>Greetings all,
Hi.
> Now before you all start to tear my sphincter into shreads,
>let me say this: I've been hacking O/S's for eighteen years, am
>functionally literate in seven programming languages, love computers
>and (some of) their software "just because", and am not a newbie to
>the Net, Web, Unix or damn near anything out here.
I think you and I may have similar backgrounds. I have been hacking and using
OS's (by in large UNIX's) for 15 years. I have programmed in (by quick count
from memory) 5 "high level" or "3gl" languages, or about 9 or 10 languages if
you count assembly codes. So, any lunatic ravings out of me come from causes
other than youth or newbe-ism :).
> But I would very much like to know why Linux is such a big deal.
> I am a faithful follower of the Stallman/FSF/GNU bunch and
>share my (pitifully lacking) knowledge quite freely in reply to any
>courteous inquiry. Yet I am also an admirer of Bill "The Beast"
>Gates.
If you are indeed a follower of the Stallman/FSF/GNU bunch, you have hit on
a portion of Linux appeal already. The idea of copylefted software, that can
be shared and developed by the community that uses it is a very appealing thing
to many people. Many programmer's, by nature, are not the type who want to
conceal their work from the world, but rather, they want to share it so that
it can expand and improve.
> I once installed the Linux (Yggdrasil) Plug-n-Play CD and
>thoroughly appreciated the oppurtunity to format my hard disk
>immediately thereafter in order to recover the use of my PC.
Yikes! If you try it again, try a Slackware distribution. With the experience
you have, you will probably find it more intuitive and flexible.
>I like the details of O/S's, and
>will (and DO) spend a goodly portion of my time administering same,
>but I must sincerely (and innocently) ask, what does Linux offer that
>Microsoft does not?
I will list some of the things that Linux provides for *me*, which no current
Microsoft product ever could:
-Honest to goodness multi-user preemptive multitasking functioning.
-A clone of UNIX that comes with the source code (IMHO, "support"
doesn't get any better than that) and costs almost nothing. A
commercial UNIX for 386/486/P costs well into four figures for
OS plus GUI (X) plus development libraries and compiler. Linux
costs nothing or next to nothing.
-Efficiency and speed that kicks the butt of NT, or most commercial
UNIXes. My Linux machine at home is a 486DLC40 with 8 megs. It
runs a dozen or so fairly heavy X applications simultaneously
quickly and without complaint. My SCO box at work needs at least
24 megs (it actually has 32) and a 486DX2/66 just to appear to be
as fast as my much more modest Linux machine.
-The pleasure of knowing that the friendly community of programming
enthusiasts can develop something for free that rivals anything
the mega-buck corporations can come up with.
>I know how powerful Unix is, but I also know it's a real
>beach to master. And I know how often Unix crashes (I've administered
>Unix systems), yet NT *NEVER* crashes.
In my experience, a properly configured UNIX system, running on solid hardware,
will run forever with minimal attention. If a UNIX machine is crashing "often",
either it has something tweaked really improperly in its kernel parameters,
or contains a defective hardware component. Linux, when configured properly,
is as stable as any UNIX I have used.
[some deletia]
>I am resently
>a senior systems programmer on Tandem/Guardian multiprocessing,
>multitasking, multiprogramming, multi-threaded fault-tolerant
>platforms, an environment which puts Unix to shame.
I grant you that. Puts NT a bit to shame too, doesn't it?
>I would very much
>appreciate a reply from a level-headed, educated, experienced,
>non-flaming colleague as to the advantages of Linux over NT as regards
>a desktop O/S. I may well be wrong in my preference...if so, PLEASE
>enlighten me.
I was familiar with the UNIX environment long before Linux came out. I could
not pass up a *free* version of it with the source code included. It gives
me what I am looking for in an OS with the bonus of the fact that its use
doesn't make Bill Gates any wealthier. If you feel that my dislike of the
way Microsoft does business makes me a flaming zealot, well then I'm guilty
as charged. :)
I am not in the habit, however, of flaming people for using whatever OS
they choose. If NT is doing for you what you want it to do to your
satisfaction, I say "great".
Factual and level headed enough? :)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Mark Sutton | Internet: mark....@laitram.com |
| The Laitram Corporation | http://web.page?/I-don't-need-no/ |
| New Orleans, Louisiana | +STEENKING/web.page! |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hugh Salamon
: Greetings all,
: Now before you all start to tear my sphincter into shreads,
: let me say this: I've been hacking O/S's for eighteen years, am
: functionally literate in seven programming languages, love computers
: and (some of) their software "just because", and am not a newbie to
: the Net, Web, Unix or damn near anything out here.
Uh. Alright.
: But I would very much like to know why Linux is such a big deal.
: I am a faithful follower of the Stallman/FSF/GNU bunch and
: share my (pitifully lacking) knowledge quite freely in reply to any
: courteous inquiry. Yet I am also an admirer of Bill "The Beast"
: Gates.
Whatever.
: I once installed the Linux (Yggdrasil) Plug-n-Play CD and
: thoroughly appreciated the oppurtunity to format my hard disk
: immediately thereafter in order to recover the use of my PC. I have
: since installed NT with no problems. I like the details of O/S's, and
: will (and DO) spend a goodly portion of my time administering same,
: but I must sincerely (and innocently) ask, what does Linux offer that
: Microsoft does not?
There are so many rude individuals out here who cannot answer a question
politely, that you have buried your question way down here.
I am a Linux user. With a little help, and some patience, it works
out just fine. I used to use MS DOS/Windows, but every major
application added caused problems with configuration files and
stability. I became tired of constant configuration problems and
hated having to reboot to use a different app. Linux gave me
a far more stable environment to do (scientific) programming at the same time
as running apps. Linux hardly ever crashes for me, as most apps
that crash do so without crashing the system. The X11 GUI is much
more appealing to me than Windows and Xfree is, well, free. It even
runs cutesy things like avi and quicktime movies (using Xanim) faster
than Windows 3.1 running on the same machine, all for FREE.
I spend less on disappointing software, and more on hardware. I am
prepared to buy software that runs under Linux. Windows is not
a multiuser OS. From what I hear NT is not either, and is SLOW.
Linux really makes my 486-33Mhz much more responsive. I can really
use my machine to multitask (run projects in the background, read
my mail over SLIP, browse the net, run an app on another machine
and display here, leave a memory hog graphic in virtual window, and
still have a responsive interface). Try that in Windows, and you'll
have time to go to lunch before the operating system gives you
control back. If X-windows gives you hard time at any point,
you can always switch out to a console in Linux!
As for UNIX in general, I have found HUGE benefits for my research
(genetic sequence data analysis) in UNIX. DOS just doesn't come
with all the tools (thanks to GNU and others, some of the great things
in UNIX can be brought to DOS as add ons).
: This IS an advocacy group, correct? I am seeking information,
: not flames. I know how powerful Unix is, but I also know it's a real
: beach to master. And I know how often Unix crashes (I've administered
: Unix systems), yet NT *NEVER* crashes.
Well if you are happy with NT, stay with it.
: So what is the appeal/drive/thrust about Linux? Just because
: kids learn it in college? Just because it's "free"? Just because
: it's cryptic enough to elevate its users above the common masses?
No. I really USE it. Not play with. It is my platform of choice
(within a limited budget) for my dissertaion work.
: I am, I guess, challenging a sacred cow. The Unix cow. Those
I don't recommend UNIX because others do, but because I find it
to be more flexible than any other OS I have ever used. A little
too cryptic, but the man pages are great (when they are written).
: who would choose to flame me with bigoted rhetoric are welcome to do
: so, but (understandably, I hope) will receive no reply. I am resently
: a senior systems programmer on Tandem/Guardian multiprocessing,
: multitasking, multiprogramming, multi-threaded fault-tolerant
: platforms, an environment which puts Unix to shame. I would very much
: appreciate a reply from a level-headed, educated, experienced,
: non-flaming colleague as to the advantages of Linux over NT as regards
: a desktop O/S. I may well be wrong in my preference...if so, PLEASE
: enlighten me.
: I seek information, not diatribes.
: TIA.
:
: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
: >>>>>| {8-D) |>>>>>>>>>>> mave...@netcom.com <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://www.webcom.com/~maverick >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Blah Blah Blah. 2.01 - 2 = ??????
- Hugh
( )
\/
/)
( ( Hugh Salamon
\ )
X sal...@allele5.berkeley.edu
( \
\ )
X
( \
\ )
/
( \
A T
G C
Rajat Datta
Chris Shepard <mave...@netcom.com> wrote:
Well, the NT stable/Linux not argument seems to come down to anecdotal
evidence. In my case, in order to broaden my horizons I uninstalled Linux
and installed Windows, NT and OS/2 for 6 months. NT was the least stable
of the three, with OS/2 being the best, in my experience.
> I am, I guess, challenging a sacred cow. The Unix cow. Those
>who would choose to flame me with bigoted rhetoric are welcome to do
>so, but (understandably, I hope) will receive no reply. I am resently
>a senior systems programmer on Tandem/Guardian multiprocessing,
>multitasking, multiprogramming, multi-threaded fault-tolerant
>platforms, an environment which puts Unix to shame. I would very much
>appreciate a reply from a level-headed, educated, experienced,
>non-flaming colleague as to the advantages of Linux over NT as regards
>a desktop O/S. I may well be wrong in my preference...if so, PLEASE
>enlighten me.
> I seek information, not diatribes.
Well, I know of people who work on switches that control phone systems
that run under Unix that calls the Tandem machines yo-yos. One friend
hooked up his logic analyzer into the guts of one of these machines once
and started working, then realized that he hadn't shut it down. The
main console was full of messages going hiccup! recovering... hiccup!
recovering... And this with the central bus having wierd signals being
pumped into it.
rajat
Chris Shepard
Now before you all start to tear my sphincter into shreads,
let me say this: I've been hacking O/S's for eighteen years, am
functionally literate in seven programming languages, love computers
and (some of) their software "just because", and am not a newbie to
the Net, Web, Unix or damn near anything out here.
I am a faithful follower of the Stallman/FSF/GNU bunch and
share my (pitifully lacking) knowledge quite freely in reply to any
courteous inquiry. Yet I am also an admirer of Bill "The Beast"
Gates.
thoroughly appreciated the oppurtunity to format my hard disk
immediately thereafter in order to recover the use of my PC. I have
since installed NT with no problems. I like the details of O/S's, and
will (and DO) spend a goodly portion of my time administering same,
but I must sincerely (and innocently) ask, what does Linux offer that
Microsoft does not?
not flames. I know how powerful Unix is, but I also know it's a real
beach to master. And I know how often Unix crashes (I've administered
Unix systems), yet NT *NEVER* crashes.
kids learn it in college? Just because it's "free"? Just because
it's cryptic enough to elevate its users above the common masses?
who would choose to flame me with bigoted rhetoric are welcome to do
so, but (understandably, I hope) will receive no reply. I am resently
a senior systems programmer on Tandem/Guardian multiprocessing,
multitasking, multiprogramming, multi-threaded fault-tolerant
platforms, an environment which puts Unix to shame. I would very much
appreciate a reply from a level-headed, educated, experienced,
non-flaming colleague as to the advantages of Linux over NT as regards
a desktop O/S. I may well be wrong in my preference...if so, PLEASE
enlighten me.
I seek information, not diatribes.
TIA.
Software Developers
>Greetings all,
> Now before you all start to tear my sphincter into shreads,
>let me say this: I've been hacking O/S's for eighteen years, am
>functionally literate in seven programming languages, love computers
>and (some of) their software "just because", and am not a newbie to
>the Net, Web, Unix or damn near anything out here.
> But I would very much like to know why Linux is such a big deal.
It isn't just an operating system... its an experience... :-)
> I am a faithful follower of the Stallman/FSF/GNU bunch and
>share my (pitifully lacking) knowledge quite freely in reply to any
>courteous inquiry. Yet I am also an admirer of Bill "The Beast"
>Gates.
What is there to admire about Bill Gates? I've never met the guy in
person... but from all of the interviews of him I've seen and/or read,
and perhaps most importantly, from what I've seen Microsoft _do_, I must
say that I have not one bit of respect for him. I guess whatever it is
that makes you admire Bill Gates might be what makes you miss what makes
Linux a big deal...
At any rate, much of what makes Linux work is the FSF/GNU stuff, so if
you like it, you should like Linux, as it is one of the best platforms
on which to take advantage of FSF/GNU's stuff...
> I once installed the Linux (Yggdrasil) Plug-n-Play CD and
FWIW, I've never been overly fond of Yggdrasil's distribution, although
it is workable. I've found Slackware to be more to my liking... To
really get a feel for what Linux is and can do, you need to spend more
time with it than installing and de-installing it.
>thoroughly appreciated the oppurtunity to format my hard disk
>immediately thereafter in order to recover the use of my PC.
Well, provided that you have sufficient disk space, Linux has no problems
co-existing with other OS's. Using UMSDOS, you can even install onto an
MS-DOS partition (although there is a slight performance penalty for this).
>I have
>since installed NT with no problems.
Wish I could say that. :-( I've installed NT several times with numerous
problems.
>I like the details of O/S's, and
>will (and DO) spend a goodly portion of my time administering same,
>but I must sincerely (and innocently) ask, what does Linux offer that
>Microsoft does not?
The opportunity to take everything apart and look at how it works
inside? Basically, NT has, or can have added to it, most of the same
functionality that Linux provides (although not without noticeable
expendatures of time, effort and usually $$$). On the other hand,
there is very little that NT offers that Linux doesn't already have,
or won't have in the near future... The only major thing that NT has
over Linux for most people is a convenient way to run a wide range of
canned MS-Windoze applications... and that issue is being worked on.
> This IS an advocacy group, correct? I am seeking information,
>not flames. I know how powerful Unix is, but I also know it's a real
>beach to master. And I know how often Unix crashes (I've administered
>Unix systems), yet NT *NEVER* crashes.
Yes, this is an advocacy group. You will probably get information _and_
flames... but that is the way of .advocacy groups... :-( I never found
UNIX to be any more of a pain to master than other systems... there is
just a whole lot more there... And once you've mastered one version of
UNIX, its not generally too difficult to transfer that knowledge to
others.
Your experience is the opposite of mine as far as reliability goes. My
Suns (SunOS 4.1.3) at work and Linux boxes at home are rock stable, while
NT at work has crashed several times and lost data. One of the guys at
work found a new way to reliably lock up NT 3.51 beta yesterday (there
appears to be a bug in the print manager). I've been running NT at work
for over a year now and Linux at home for around two years. The more I
use NT, the less impressed I am by it. The more I use Linux, the more
impressed I am by it. Its a lot to do with personal preference, to be
sure...
> So what is the appeal/drive/thrust about Linux? Just because
>kids learn it in college? Just because it's "free"? Just because
>it's cryptic enough to elevate its users above the common masses?
All of the above isn't enough??? :-)
> I am, I guess, challenging a sacred cow. The Unix cow. Those
>who would choose to flame me with bigoted rhetoric are welcome to do
>so, but (understandably, I hope) will receive no reply. I am resently
^^^^^^^^
Is this a freudian slip? :-)
>a senior systems programmer on Tandem/Guardian multiprocessing,
>multitasking, multiprogramming, multi-threaded fault-tolerant
>platforms, an environment which puts Unix to shame.
Maybe for some purposes. But it sure won't run on a machine I could
afford to buy in this lifetime. In fact, its a proprietary operating
system which only runs on specialized hardware. There are UNIXes for
just about every platform known to man.
>I would very much
>appreciate a reply from a level-headed, educated, experienced,
>non-flaming colleague as to the advantages of Linux over NT as regards
>a desktop O/S.
One thing that I like is that "out of the box" Linux includes all of the
stuff that I need, whereas with NT, I still have to buy a lot of 3rd
party products and add a lot of extra free software (which is usually
less functional than the UNIX versions). YMMV, depending on what you
are looking for. If what you want is mainly a more robust platform to
run Windows apps, NT may very well be the right choice for you.
I personally never liked the "look and feel" of MS-Windows, and since NT
carries that over, it already has one strike against it. I never cared
for the MS-DOS command line, and since NT carries that over as well, it
has another strike against it... (yea, I know you can replace the command
interpreter -- but with Linux I didn't have to, as it came with both tcsh
and bash, which are my two favorites).
Another Linux advantage is much better resource efficiency... I've found
that NT really needs a Pentium 90 with 32M of RAM to run at all adequately.
I've used Linux on 386's with 8M and found them to be useable. My 486DLC-40
with 16M at home is very snappy... at least as responsive as the Pentium 90
I run NT on at work... and Linux is nothing short of breathtakingly fast on
that machine...
>I may well be wrong in my preference...if so, PLEASE
>enlighten me.
Like I said, depending on what you are looking for, NT may be the right
choice for you. For me, NT is not. For a lot of people, the best choice
may be to run _both_.
> I seek information, not diatribes.
"I speak only for myself, Lee Heins
not for my employers." sw...@worf.netins.net or le...@cadalyst.com
My Linux box is: Microsoft Free, Intel Free & IBM Free...
Bob Nelson
>> But I would very much like to know why Linux is such a big deal.
In this group, at least, I think that *many* (not necessarily most) of the
partisans are attracted to it simply because it is NOT mainstream and
popular with "the masses"...kinda like being a defiant vegetarian in
Ft. Worth or Omaha. (Cities in the U.S. noted for beef products for our
non-U.S. friends).
Also...I think *maybe* some of the young people (18-24) are attracted to
Linux in a retro sort of way...preferring its spartan CLI to the glitz
and hype of the GUI intrinsic to Windows and OS/2.
>> I am a faithful follower of the Stallman/FSF/GNU bunch and
>> share my (pitifully lacking) knowledge quite freely in reply to any
>> courteous inquiry. Yet I am also an admirer of Bill "The Beast"
>> Gates.
Heathen!
Actually, the self-proclaimed advocates here who insist on terms like
"MicroSloft, MicroSh*t, Windoze" mildly amuse me. (OTOH, I don't recall
seeing terms like "LinSux" over in the advocacy groups for windows, os2
and the like).
>> I would very much appreciate a reply from a level-headed, educated,
>> experienced, non-flaming colleague as to the advantages of Linux...
Since I too challenge the sacred cow of *nix, I think that I've perhaps
lost the right to refer to myself as level-headed, educated,
experienced... No doubt I'm just another Minion of Satan and an
M$ luser. :) Even worse...I do a lot of my commercial development using
Borland products under MS-DOS...and I enjoy it!
Nonetheless, I found Linux to be quite practical with a data conversion
project I had to do recently. The input was a _huge_ dBASE file and the
output was to be a proprietary binary file. Yeah, it was DOS going in
and DOS going out yet I chose Linux as the platform to handle the
conversion. Why? Access to a 32-bit compiler to handle in-memory sorting
for the input file. Also, the availability of tools like awk and sed for
the creation of reports to validate the integrity of the data made my work
easier for this project.
So there you have an even-handed assessment of Linux from one who uses
a variety of platforms. As the sig indicates, I use the M$ platform
for commercial development and Linux for fun and for internal development.
Good post, Chris -- you said a lot of things that are worthwhile and
I hope that you aren't too severely flamed by some of the more extreme
zealots.
--
=============================================================================
Bob Nelson: Dallas, Texas, U.S.A. - Linux for fun, M$ for $$$
bne...@netcom.com
=============================================================================
Keith Smith
Lack of knowledge I think.
>since installed NT with no problems. I like the details of O/S's, and
>will (and DO) spend a goodly portion of my time administering same,
>but I must sincerely (and innocently) ask, what does Linux offer that
>Microsoft does not?
More money in your pocket for one. Better internet connectivity, and
more easily ported free software, binary compatability with SCO and
other SVR3 based software.
> This IS an advocacy group, correct? I am seeking information,
>not flames. I know how powerful Unix is, but I also know it's a real
>beach to master. And I know how often Unix crashes (I've administered
>Unix systems), yet NT *NEVER* crashes.
A friend of mine doing network development with NT (who as done same
under Solaris, Linux, and SCO) would beg to differ with you.
Nonetheless he likes NT ok and I trust his judgement.
*NEVER* is a long time. I had an SCO box up for over 300 days straight
before taking it down for maintenance.
ksmith up 39+00:40, 1 user, load 1.00, 1.00, 1.03
ksmith2 up 10+09:28, 0 users, load 1.05, 0.63, 0.48
ksmith is SCO Unix, ksmith2 is Linux. I shut down the latter to replace
an I/O board 10 days ago.
> So what is the appeal/drive/thrust about Linux? Just because
>kids learn it in college? Just because it's "free"? Just because
>it's cryptic enough to elevate its users above the common masses?
Compatability with Unix mostly. It's not really any more cryptic than
TOPS-10 or CP/M or MS-DOS. MacOS maybe :). People just like what they
are used to. ls instead of dir, cat or more instead of type. I was
lost my first time on an apple II. I've got a copy of HDOS (Heath) here
also which is aamazingly Unix like with some DECishness thrown in.
Linux is also a factor faster and smaller than NT, according to my
development buddy in NY. Oh, and personally I don't care too much for
GUI's. Too slow.
--
Keith Smith <ke...@ksmith.com> Free Usenet News/Newsfeeds
Digital Designs (910) 423-4216/7389/7391
PO Box 85 V.34/V.34/V.32
Hope Mills, NC 28348-0085 ... Somewhere in the Styx of North Carolina ...
Nathan Hand
: But I would very much like to know why Linux is such a big deal.
I dont care too much about linux. Its just unix I want.
Linux happens to be the most widely supported free unix
I know of. Thats all there is to it. If this Hurd thing
lives up to its claims Im not going to get sentimental;
Id join the Hurd with the rest of the cattle.
: I once installed the Linux (Yggdrasil) Plug-n-Play CD and
: thoroughly appreciated the oppurtunity to format my hard disk
: immediately thereafter in order to recover the use of my PC. I have
: since installed NT with no problems. I like the details of O/S's, and
: will (and DO) spend a goodly portion of my time administering same,
: but I must sincerely (and innocently) ask, what does Linux offer that
: Microsoft does not?
Unix?
Source code?
Free?
Less hardware requirements?
: [snip]
I use linux cos its unix. I use unix cos thats what my
course-work uses. Having my own home unix system makes
my life a helluva lot easier.
I also like to program - tcl/tk, c, c++, perl - and I
think unix is best suited to these sorts of languages.
I know they exist for other platforms, but they were
"spawned" on unix systems and I feel more comfortable
using them on a unix system.
Add to that the fact that my prior OS was slow, unr-
esponsive and prone to bugs/crashes/meltdowns, linux
was just the way to go. I dont care about GUIs, may-
be thats immature, Im not sure. I just want a stable
OS where I can get my work done.
Unix is that OS.
Linux is my preferred unix.
--
When I use a word it means just what I choose it +------------------
to mean - neither more nor less +----------------+ ... logic is only
--------------------------------+ a way of being ignorant by numbers
Jim A. Fetters
is this a troll?
Juha Laiho
> But I would very much like to know why Linux is such a big deal.
Well, how much did you pay for your NT? (AFAIK, MS has not released it
to free distribution yet.)
I appreciate the opportunity to share my machine with other users
(coming in via modems/serial terminals and via network). Whatever
machine is at the other end of the connection, these people can use my
machine and the software on it. As I understand, NT used over a modem
line from a charater terminal (paper TTY? :-) wouldn't look much like
NT any more? How much of NT software even is remotely usable (assuming
arbitary ASCII I/O device at the other end of the connection)?
Of course, if graphical frontend is desired, X works nicely in a networked
environment, and can be used over a serial line, too (of course this
imposes some reuirements on the software and hardware - paper TTY won't
do any more..).
Hardware utilization/limits: No 640kB RAM barrier (I assume this is true
for NT as well). No problems with >1024 cylinder hard disks.
Protected environment: Giving access to other users doesn't mean I
trust them enough to let them do anything on the machine. Also it's
nice to know that process X can't garble the memory of process Y
(where process Y could be the OS kernel, f.ex..). I assume these are
taken care of in the NT as well?
No ridiculous hardware requirements. 386dx33 with 8M RAM will do.
Monochrome monitor with Hercules adapter will do. I think I might
try running NT, if I just had the hardware: monitor that is usable at
1024x768; display adapter faster than a snail; 16M/32M RAM; lotsa
hard disk space. (I think my CPU -486dx2/66- could handle the load;
if not, I'd need a Pentium, I suppose.)
> I once installed the Linux (Yggdrasil) Plug-n-Play CD and
>thoroughly appreciated the oppurtunity to format my hard disk
>immediately thereafter in order to recover the use of my PC.
Well, yes. I run some DOS/Win apps, mostly textproc, as I've been too
lazy to learn TeX. But no DOS/Win combination gives me the degree of
remote usability and multitasking I seem to need.
>This IS an advocacy group, correct?
Yes.
>I am seeking information, not flames.
Nice to hear that one.
>And I know how often Unix crashes (I've administered Unix systems), yet
>NT *NEVER* crashes.
So far the best uptime of ichaos has been >100 days. Usually it's lower
as I like to run the latest (experimental) versions of kernels. No, this
machine doesn't crash very often, but needs frequent reboots due to
kernel updates. About that never, how long has your NT machine been up
in a single run?
--
Wolf a.k.a. Juha Laiho Helsinki, Finland
(Geek Code 1.0.1) GCS d? p c++ l++ u(-) e+ m+ s+/- n- h(*) f(?) !g w+ t- r y+
"...cancel my subscription to the resurrection!" (Jim Morrison)
Franklin Daniel
>
> is this a troll?
>
>
>
Nay
It just that some of us newbies start to look one 'til we get the kernel right!
Bart Vanhauwaert
: but I must sincerely (and innocently) ask, what does Linux offer that
: Microsoft does not?
Source code? Networking (that works) ? (Partly) Posix compliance ?
xpilots ? Multi-user ?
: This IS an advocacy group, correct? I am seeking information,
: not flames. I know how powerful Unix is, but I also know it's a real
: beach to master. And I know how often Unix crashes (I've administered
: Unix systems), yet NT *NEVER* crashes.
This is the ruptime from our local dorm-network.
alesis up 10:31, 1 user, load 0.00, 0.06, 0.06
arakis up 6:04, 2 users, load 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
babbage up 7+09:52, 2 users, load 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
floyd down 4:17
( running MS WINDOWS :-( )
jafshome up 6+12:28, 3 users, load 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
spaceball down 21+08:07
( owner moved to another room and has not yet had to time to rewire )
Who is talking about crashing? Linux crashed ONCE on my system last
2 months, because I had SCSI termination problems. Al other reboots
where normal shutdowns.
Last computer I saw crashing was alesis, when we tried to create a
form in CorelDraw for Windows... (Windows for Workgroups crashed
tree times within 1 hour). OK, it is NOT NT, but NT simply won't boot
on our systems, so it's even worse.
: So what is the appeal/drive/thrust about Linux? Just because
: kids learn it in college? Just because it's "free"? Just because
: it's cryptic enough to elevate its users above the common masses?
Hehe. You tempt me to say yes :)
: I am, I guess, challenging a sacred cow. The Unix cow. Those
: who would choose to flame me with bigoted rhetoric are welcome to do
: so, but (understandably, I hope) will receive no reply. I am resently
: a senior systems programmer on Tandem/Guardian multiprocessing,
: multitasking, multiprogramming, multi-threaded fault-tolerant
: platforms, an environment which puts Unix to shame. I would very much
Too bad. I don't have the money to buy me such a system. And if I had,
I wouldn't waste system resources to make it fault tolerant, because
I don't care if some server goes down core dumping, so that I occasionally
have to restart it by hand. As long as it doesn't take the system down,
I would rather have a 32 minus 2 meg kernel system not so whatever then
a 32 minus 20 meg kernel system that has it problems too.
cu bart
--
_____
|
| Bart Vanhauwaert aka vhau...@cs.kuleuven.ac.be
|
| KotNet @ Groenveld ! Linux ! OOP ! And proud of it !
|_____
Richard Demanowski
>Chris Shepard (mave...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: but I must sincerely (and innocently) ask, what does Linux offer that
>: Microsoft does not?
>
>Source code? Networking (that works) ? (Partly) Posix compliance ?
>xpilots ? Multi-user ?
>
>: This IS an advocacy group, correct? I am seeking information,
>: not flames. I know how powerful Unix is, but I also know it's a real
>: beach to master. And I know how often Unix crashes (I've administered
_ANY_ OS, including Mac, is a b*&^h to _MASTER_. I had a heck of a time
mastering my Apple 2 when I first got it. The Mac was easier to learn to
use for the first time, but it took a long time to learn the ins and outs.
When I learned Unix at the University, it took just as long. DOS was not
any easier. Face it, computers are NOT intuitive. They do not "think"
like we do. I prefer to use Unix because, after having learned it well,
it gives me more of the kind of computing power I want.
>: Unix systems), yet NT *NEVER* crashes.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Tell that to the people here at my company who are using it in conjunction
with our Novell based LAN. Quite frankly, I have never seen a General
Protection Fault on any Unix box I have ever run. Happens to me all the
time in Windows.
>: So what is the appeal/drive/thrust about Linux? Just because
>: kids learn it in college? Just because it's "free"? Just because
>: it's cryptic enough to elevate its users above the common masses?
>
>Hehe. You tempt me to say yes :)
Hear, hear.
---------------------------
Press any key to continue...
Press any other key to quit...