Stability of Linux
Jinny
Windows, but recently I have come to know from a reliable group that Linux
is not so stable. If the system hangs for some number of times, there is
high possibility of getting it corrupt. Like Windows Scandisk, it can not
fix cross link files and as such. Simply it can not repair the disk and
hence the system becomes corrupt, which then leads to fresh installation
again on the same system. So, one should avoid the use of Linux.
Anyway, personally, I feel Linux is not so. Anyway what about the copyright?
Is it Free? If so, in what sense and how far?
Who is or are the supreme authority of Linux?
Please Help.
Jinny G.
Erik de Castro Lopo
>
> I want to learn more about Linux OS. I knew that it was more stable than
> Windows, but recently I have come to know from a reliable group that Linux
> is not so stable.
This is not my experience.
> If the system hangs for some number of times, there is
> high possibility of getting it corrupt.
That depends on the file system being used. Linux now has a number of
journalled file systems which prevent this problem. I use the Ext3 file
system on all my systems including my two laptops. With the laptops, I
often run out of battery power when not connected to the mains and these
machines always come back up without any problems. Neither of these machines
has had a reinstall; one is years old and the other is 2 months old.
Other journalling file systems for Linux include XFS, RieserSF.
> Like Windows Scandisk, it can not fix cross link files and as such.
I have never seen this on Linux. On the older laptop, I was running out of
battery power 2-3 times a week for many months. Every time I powered the
machine back up again it was fine. I only ever lost data I hadn't saved to
disk before I lost power.
> Simply it can not repair the disk and
> hence the system becomes corrupt, which then leads to fresh installation
> again on the same system. So, one should avoid the use of Linux.
This is old information. Yes you may have problems like this running on the
Ext2 filesystem but not on Ext3.
> Anyway what about the copyright?
What about the copyright? What is your question?
> Is it Free?
You are allow to use Linux under the terms of the GPL
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
Have a read. It really isn't very difficult to understand.
> Who is or are the supreme authority of Linux?
There is no supreme authority. No one person or organisation owns or
controls linux. Its Free as in freedom.
Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo nos...@mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Unsolicited Broadcast Email is Forced Pay-per-view
Advertising.
Buck Turgidson
stable and predictable. I find that the application software for linux,
especially the GUI desktop stuff, is not as good as Windows commercial
stuff, but given the price, it is worth the aggravation (for the most part).
"Jinny" <dgp_sg...@sancharnet.in> wrote in message
news:alv90a$po3$1...@news.vsnl.net.in...
Ian Northeast
>
> I want to learn more about Linux OS. I knew that it was more stable than
> Windows, but recently I have come to know from a reliable group that Linux
> is not so stable. If the system hangs for some number of times, there is
> high possibility of getting it corrupt. Like Windows Scandisk, it can not
> fix cross link files and as such. Simply it can not repair the disk and
> hence the system becomes corrupt, which then leads to fresh installation
> again on the same system. So, one should avoid the use of Linux.
Linux is normally extremely stable. There are of course ways of making
it less so, but if you install a recent distribution and don't hack
about with it too much it should not crash or hang. The one thing which
will bring it down is a power cut of course, if you don't have a UPS.
The behaviour you describe of filesystems becoming corrupt after
multiple failures is only likely to happen if you don't partition
properly. High write activity areas like /var, /tmp and /home should be
made into separate filesystems distinct from the root filesystem. /usr
is normally separated too. The root filesystem should contain only what
is needed to boot. Then, if the system does fail, it is unlikely that
the root filesystem was being written to at the time and it is most
unlikely to be badly damaged. This system has been through about six
power cuts (and no other failures) without damage. And, as has been
pointed out, the newer filesystems like ext3 are more resistant to
damage than the old ext2.
Having said this, most people become unhappy with their first Linux
installation and feel they could have done it better, and decide to
delete it and start again anyway. So there is no harm in doing an
initial installation with one big filesystem, which is easier, then
redoing it properly later, when you have more experience. Without
experience it is hard to decide exactly how best to partition.
> Anyway, personally, I feel Linux is not so. Anyway what about the copyright?
Linux is published under the GNU Public License:
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/licenses.html#GPL
> Is it Free? If so, in what sense and how far?
Yes. Most distributions offer CD images for free download. If bandwidth
is limited, there are a number of retailers offering CDs for a few
dollars. I don't know of any in India I'm afraid but I'm sure they must
exist.
> Who is or are the supreme authority of Linux?
Linus Torvalds still co-ordinates kernel development. This is the
nearest to a "supreme authority" Linux has.
Regards, Ian
Robert Heller
In a message on Sat, 14 Sep 2002 17:55:15 +0530, wrote :
"> I want to learn more about Linux OS. I knew that it was more stable than
"> Windows, but recently I have come to know from a reliable group that Linux
"> is not so stable. If the system hangs for some number of times, there is
"> high possibility of getting it corrupt. Like Windows Scandisk, it can not
"> fix cross link files and as such. Simply it can not repair the disk and
"> hence the system becomes corrupt, which then leads to fresh installation
I've only seen this when the disk is dieing (eg true hardware failure).
I've *never* had to do a fresh install because of this. Even when I
have disks (start to) 'die', I've managed in every case to back up the
system to another disk and continue running. I've even run with a
totaly trashed partition (I copied the file system to the swap
partition and used a swap partition on another disk for awhile).
It is also the case that Linux has less tolerance for marginal
hardware. Hardware that is in fact failing or has already failed.
MS-Windows will tolerate broken hardware and will run. MS-Windows will
tolerate things like improper BIOS settings (like improper DRAM refresh
rates). Linux will crash and burn under these conditions. As it
should and as MS-Windows ought to (but doesn't).
Oh, there are ways to improperly re-partition disks that cause problems.
MS-DOS/MS-Windows for example does not check the partition table for
size if it sees what appears to be a proper FAT file system. Merely
reseting the sizes with fdisk is not good enough, you *might* zero the
FAT and reformat (failing to zero the FAT can result in
MS-DOS/MS-Windows ignoring the changes to the partition table). This is
a common cause of Linux file system corruption on dual-boot systems.
"> again on the same system. So, one should avoid the use of Linux.
FUD...
"> Anyway, personally, I feel Linux is not so. Anyway what about the copyright?
"> Is it Free? If so, in what sense and how far?
In English the word 'Free' is ambigious. It has two meanings:
'Free' as in no cost (buy one get one free). This is what most people
associate with the word free.
'Free' as in free to do as you like ("Free at last!" -- MLK).
The 'Free' that Linux's GPL license is more on the order of freedom.
You are free to use Linux, you are free to copy Linux (provided you copy
*all* of it, binaries, sources, documentation, and copyright notice).
Note: often there is a bit of crossover of the two meanings. You can
download Linux at no charge. Or get a CD copy for just the cost of the
CD + shipping and handling. Or you can spend $50-$100 for a (colorful)
box with a batch of CDs and a book.
"> Who is or are the supreme authority of Linux?
There really isn't one. Linus Torvalis (SP?) is the original author of
the core of the *kernel*. Alan Cox is one of the people who oversees
overal kernel revisions and updates. Beyond that there is no one
supreme authority. Linux's development is a truly cooperative effort.
Feel 'free' to make your own additions to this effort. Linux is not
like Microsoft Windows, which in fact does have a supreme authority
("... One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to
bring them all and in the darkness to bind them..." -- JRR Tolkin).
"> Please Help.
"> Jinny G.
">
">
">
">
Fester
> I want to learn more about Linux OS. I knew that it was more stable than
> Windows, but recently I have come to know from a reliable group that Linux
> is not so stable.
Only things I've found that will cause Linux to hang/crash:
1. Hardware failure / Power Failure
2. My stupid ass programming a giant memory leak / fork bomb by accident
3. Kernel misconfiguration after I've been hacking with it
4. WINE, sometimes. But it hasn't happened with the most recent versions
So generally, it has to be something serious, or your fault, for Linux to
crash.
> If the system hangs for some number of times, there is
> high possibility of getting it corrupt. Like Windows Scandisk, it can not
> fix cross link files and as such. Simply it can not repair the disk and
> hence the system becomes corrupt,
People are referring to the old ext2 filesystem here. The new ext3 is very
resistant to this issue. Even with the old ext2, generally a manual fsck
(scandisk) would fix almost everything.
> which then leads to fresh installation
Very, very few issues require a complete reinstall.
> again on the same system. So, one should avoid the use of Linux.
> Anyway, personally, I feel Linux is not so. Anyway what about the
> copyright? Is it Free? If so, in what sense and how far?
Linux (and the GNU programs that form the base of a Linux installation) are
free as in speech. That means that the code must remain open source and
accessable. Most distributions allow you to download them free (as in
beer), as well. The copyright generally remains with the original author,
or the Free Software Foundation. I suggest you read the GNU General Public
License: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
> Who is or are the supreme authority of Linux?
The official Linux kernel remains under the control of the original author
Linus Torvalds. He makes the final decision on what goes into the
'cannonical' kernel (See: www.kernel.org). Note that the kernel is only the
most basic (but essential) part of the OS, not the whole distribution. Also
note that since the kernel is under the GPL, people can (and quite
regularly do) make non-standard versions of the kernel.
--
-- Fester
Over 2 Billion Defenestrated.
unknown
In my experience, a working Linux is very reliable. It may take some work
to make it work right, however. Unlike Windows, for example, that will
fail for no clear reason.
Once you work the kinks out of your hardware/Linux combo (sound drivers,
nic drivers, display settings, mousewheels, webcams, CD burner, etc) I am
sure Linux will serve you very reliably.
I have not lost any files on Linux since I started out 4 years ago, but I
have been known to have a whole lot of FOUNDXXX files on Windows
machines. Of course, I do backups, then again, I'm a whimp.
Cheers,
dmz17
mjt
> I want to learn more about Linux OS. I knew that it was more stable than
> Windows, but recently I have come to know from a reliable group that Linux
> is not so stable.
.... my friggin troll-o-meter's needle is twitchin on this one!
i want to know who the 'reliable group" is?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael J. Tobler: motorcyclist, surfer, # Black holes result
skydiver, and author: "Inside Linux", # when God divides the
"C++ HowTo", "C++ Unleashed" # universe by zero
John Thompson
> Jinny wrote:
>
>> I want to learn more about Linux OS. I knew that it was more stable than
>> Windows, but recently I have come to know from a reliable group that Linux
>> is not so stable.
> .... my friggin troll-o-meter's needle is twitchin on this one!
>
> i want to know who the 'reliable group" is?
Chances are it starts with "MCSE" ...
--
-John (John.T...@attglobal.net)