 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Yog-Sothoth
|
|
Trondheim, Norway
Sep 2000
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
XWindows crashes far more often than Windows 2000 does. And, when it comes down to it, having the GUI crash is just as bad as the whole OS crashing for the vast majority of users.
|
Hmm, not my experience at all. I have had very few X crashes in the 7 months I have used linux. If it happenes very often, it's probable you have misconfigured it somehow. Or you might be using alpha or beta software that just don't play along very well with X.
If you see some regular patterns in the way it crashes, you can just search on the net about it, and you will most likely find out what's the cause.
quote:
Originally posted by Ted Striker
Oh be quiet Asher.
I just installed the 2.023 Suse kernel on my TI calculator.
Top that one, tough guy!
  |
Hehe
Just for the record, you are Derek right?
* Yog-Sothoth gets a headache of all this nameswitching 
Btw, what exactly is a win xx OEM version in comparison to the "regular" version?
Is it just that it has don't have all the extra's like a fancy box and a manual etc while the cd's are the same, or are there other differences?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Yog-Sothoth
Hmm, not my experience at all. I have had very few X crashes in the 7 months I have used linux. |
Even there, that's far more often than Win2K crashes on me. But my Xwindows crashes about once per week, if I'm lucky.
quote:
If it happenes very often, it's probable you have misconfigured it somehow. Or you might be using alpha or beta software that just don't play along very well with X.
If you see some regular patterns in the way it crashes, you can just search on the net about it, and you will most likely find out what's the cause. |
I'm using XFree 4 with Nvidia cards on both computers. They appear to be configured fine (I let the automatic thingie do it for me, then when it kept crashing so often I peaked at the config and it appears to be all correct).
My 'crash' in XWindows occurs seemingly randomly, where the screen is flooded with red and blue horiztonal lines that keep jiggling around the screen. Occasionally, I can't even go to another vterm to kill Xwin. It appears to have frozen all of Linux's IO when it does that.
Very frustrating.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Korpo
|
|
Ortenburg, Bavaria, Germany
Aug 1999
time: 06:16
|
|
Ecthelion, Vorsicht! Du bewegst Dich auf einem schmalen Grat! Bayernbashing prohibited!
Well, Asher thinks BSD to be a better OS than Linux. Well, all BSD versions, especially FreeBSD are lagging behing technically behind any Linux kernel.
The only acceptable BSD is OpenBSD for its security features, and FreeBSD would be dead, because nobody uses it, if not Apple exploited the weak BSD license and made propietary code out of it. Nothing against Mac OS X, it is a fine OS, and the first Mac OS with a fine command line alternative, but it is an open-source license disaster!
Why all the MS bashing?
Well, let´s ask what Open Source is about?
It´s about security and control of your information flow. An adept user/programmer can check a Linux program indepently of the manufacturer´s/developer´s decision, whether it contains back doors, or Trojan code, or does spy on your personal data.
The classic counter-example was Realplayer, which was spying on user data, till that came out (after that already was happening over a very long period) and they had to change that, because it conflicted with data protection laws in several European states.
And Windows XP is more efficiently than any Linux ? Laughable. You cannot install a new Windows on an old machine. You can scale even a modern Linux system down to every machine you can imagine, that´s why a lot of people use their old 486 Windows boxes as small web servers, or firewalls, and all of this under Linux.
I repeat: A correctly set up X is much more stable than a Windows box. Nvidia was my problem, too. But the Nvidia drivers included with Xfree 4 are ok now. You cannot deem the whole Xfree project responsible for a poor graphics driver. Especially since a lot of the graphics drivers on Windows dists work suboptimal or not by default when they come out. Even on Win98SE they had faulty drivers that were incompatible with DirectDraw (Rage II+ PCI for example), though this were basically Win95 drivers..... I have a perfectly running X conf now, even with Nvidia.
But, what did I make up the thread for? For the discussion of MS business practices. I guess we have a bit of evidence there with the browser lockout, the poor Outlook and MS IIS security allowing worms to spread, the new licenses (which were extended to Win2000 after massive consumer protest), or the hacker board "scheme"... I may have not mentioned it, but here it comes: MS took lead of a board about security issues. MS agenda: "Publishing the way you can harm a system is enabling hackers to copy successful attacks". So they changed that. And not only that. It came out, that they did hide several security alerts concerning their products entirely.
My point is: You simply cannot trust those guys. You can only anti-trust them!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Korpo
Well, Asher thinks BSD to be a better OS than Linux. Well, all BSD versions, especially FreeBSD are lagging behing technically behind any Linux kernel. |
Yes, Linux has many more root exploits being patched in kernel revisions than the BSD alternatives.
quote:
And Windows XP is more efficiently than any Linux ? Laughable. You cannot install a new Windows on an old machine. You can scale even a modern Linux system down to every machine you can imagine, that´s why a lot of people use their old 486 Windows boxes as small web servers, or firewalls, and all of this under Linux. |
Efficiently does not equal low system requirements.
No one will argue that you can put Linux on obsolete computers and make a better computer out of it.
However, Windows does a LOT of things more efficiently. Multimedia is the big one. Especially with the mods in the XP kernel.
The other major thing Windows does better is threading. Sure, there is a clash of design ideology here, but Window's threading performance is MUCH faster than Linux's. That's why Mozilla for Windows seems to be much faster than Mozilla for Linux (Mozilla relies heavily on threading). There was a big discussion on this on Slashdot.org the other day.
quote:
I repeat: A correctly set up X is much more stable than a Windows box. Nvidia was my problem, too. But the Nvidia drivers included with Xfree 4 are ok now. You cannot deem the whole Xfree project responsible for a poor graphics driver. |
Stop right there.
Do you know what causes the VAST majority of Windows NT crashes? Bad drivers.
So now I'm going to use your excuse to get out of all of the Windows NT crashes I've ever had (2 total, 1 on 2K and one on XP Beta 1 -- both due to drivers).
quote:
MS took lead of a board about security issues. MS agenda: "Publishing the way you can harm a system is enabling hackers to copy successful attacks". So they changed that. And not only that. It came out, that they did hide several security alerts concerning their products entirely. |
This is a MAJOR pet peve of mine.
Linux has been doing this for as long as I can remember.
Did you hear about the 4 major root exploits fixed in the 2.4.13 kernel? Chances are you haven't.
They don't release that stuff publically.
So about a week after this, MS announces they're not going to tell hackers how to exploit patched bugs. This makes perfect sense to me. Prior to this, they explained in detail what the bug was and what was fixed. Weeks later, Worms/Virii come out exploiting it (Code Red, anyone?). So MS announces they're just going to announce that a bugfix/sec fix is available, so people can patch, without detailing all of the specifics. The zealot community is up in arms: "How dare they?! Anti-trust the bastards!" when they're doing the EXACT same thing. It only makes sense, security wise.
quote:
My point is: You simply cannot trust those guys. You can only anti-trust them! |
Hey, they tried that.
Didn't go as planned.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Korpo
|
|
Ortenburg, Bavaria, Germany
Aug 1999
time: 06:16
|
|
Well, about the driver problem: A lot of Windows driver work not and a lot of Linux drivers work shipping with the dist.
And you don´t value scalability, but a multimedia solution?
Throw away Windows or Linux and get BeOS! It is the only available OS written especially to effieciently handle multimedia.
Why didn´t make it to the mass market?
MS OEM (comp manufacturer) license forbids to preinstall another OS on a box shipping with Windows (and if I remember right, to modify the boot loader as well).
So you are forced to ship Windows-only machines...
You can read that in a lot of convincing articles, but you cannot read the OEM license the manufacturer gets: it´s the non-disclosure /trade secret type. If you talk about, the license is void.
And partly the anti-trust action mentioned OEM issues, too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:16
|
|
Drake Tungsten! I will be your nemisis, but only on the condition that you send me a box of Runzas (plain, freeze them and overnight 'em in a cooler).
I used to live in Lincoln, NE from 1973-77 when I was a wee bit. Was a wonderful place to be a kid. I still fondly remember Pioneer Park and Colonel Lee's Fried Chicken (best fried chicken livers in the USA) and the RUNZA!!!!!
Don't suppose you know a guy by the name of Chris Anderson? He and I were best friends as kids when we lived on Woodbine Ave., '73-'76. (In '77 we moved over to 39th St.) Went to school at Maude Rousseau.
o/`
There is no place like Nebraska!
Good old Nebraska U!
Where the boys are the squarest
the girls are the fairest
o/~
etc. . . .
Asher, I've got concerns about XP. I'm concerned about the massive overhead that it puts on the system. I do a lotta graphics work, as well as gaming, and I don't want all that OS running in the background, taking up resources. I've got a quad boot system, Win2K/Win98/BeOS/Linux (later two aren't working p[erfectly since I haven't bothered to tweak them). Win98's been freezing up on me lately or failing to load (either or, everytime) and I'm considering giving up on it all together and upgrading 2K to XP.
BTW, why do you leave your PC on 24/7? Haven't you heard about energy conservation? I do, but that's because my CMOS battery died and the local computer stores don't carry any. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Asher, I've got concerns about XP. I'm concerned about the massive overhead that it puts on the system. I do a lotta graphics work, as well as gaming, and I don't want all that OS running in the background, taking up resources. I've got a quad boot system, Win2K/Win98/BeOS/Linux (later two aren't working p[erfectly since I haven't bothered to tweak them). Win98's been freezing up on me lately or failing to load (either or, everytime) and I'm considering giving up on it all together and upgrading 2K to XP. |
XP doesn't actually use much more resources at all from 2K. Just keep your RAM count high: It's cheap and makes a world of difference.
quote:
BTW, why do you leave your PC on 24/7? Haven't you heard about energy conservation? I do, but that's because my CMOS battery died and the local computer stores don't carry any. |
I don't run an Athlon or something, my computer doesn't suck too much power.
I use it quite a lot, so why bother shutting it down and booting it up constantly?
It's also less health to be constantly booted up and shut down because that forces the hardware to expand and contract with heat change.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Korpo
|
|
Ortenburg, Bavaria, Germany
Aug 1999
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
BTW, why do you leave your PC on 24/7? Haven't you heard about energy
conservation? I do, but that's because my CMOS battery died and the local computer stores don't carry any. |
Modern computer systems are actually more energy conservative when run 24/7 as if started up once or twice a day for work.
This is thanks to power management in most components, and because components as the monitor tend to suck a lot of power
when turned on. Actually components live longer when run continously . For example SCSI hard disks can be only shut
down and restarted a certain (though high enough..) amount of times.
Friend of mine tested this with a computer he had half a year running continously and half a year with shutdown
after use. He had a power counter, and running continously was a lot more energy conservative.
Shouldn´ t these batteries recharge when run anyway? I thought them to be accumulators anyway, that die after about
5 years. There are only 2 reasons to shut the computer when not used: the danger of every complex electrical device
to malfunction and catch fire (a lot of houses burning down because of computer, TV etc. catched fire).
And the noise of ventilation etc. this PC hardware produces.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Korpo
|
|
Ortenburg, Bavaria, Germany
Aug 1999
time: 06:16
|
|
Back with a vengeance!
If I remember right, Asher mentioned something about Windows XP being able to efficiently support Multithreading, which thread-enabled apps like Mozilla do greatly take advantage of....
Over at apache.org I ran over an article about when multithreading is needed: if system´s do not support light-weight processes. Repeat: Multi-threading means creating light-weight "processes" in a "real" process, a well known feature of the Java VM for example. So, Asher, we do not exactly know if there´s a significant performance increase generally, or if only optimized apps do take advantage, and which are?
I know of Mozilla (where it is greatly waste of time... the program is sluggish, everybody knows.. and it´s not your standard browser on Wintel neither I bet). Apache does take advantage, or some versions do, because every session needs its own process/thread to be handled.
Besides, though Win XP did nicely in reviews of features, it was criticized for incorporating some security/stability measures as well. And of course a lot of apps were incorporated into the system, that needn´ t be direct part of the OS. Again this is part of a new settlement between 9 states and MS. MS should unbundle this apps...
Security: "Feature" raw sockets allows to completely bypass any protocol, and therefore any security measures, and intrude into a Win XP system. Therefore the internal firewall is useless (to a certain degree). DirectX "breaches" HAL. HAL is what made NT stable by preventing direct driver access. DirectX is allowed direct access for performance gain. No solution in sight, since MS programmers that originally wrote HAL nearly all left. And a friend of mine monitored, that on every time he went online a message was set off to MS. Did only prevent this by his own firewall. Could be illegal by German laws to do this!
Well, the sockets were by far the worst. By default, the system is REALLY insecure because of this useless (!!!) feature.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Korpo
|
|
Ortenburg, Bavaria, Germany
Aug 1999
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Another approach is to serve each request in a separate thread: this is the model used by most NT-based web servers. Although this approach eliminates most of the protection between tasks, it allows the module programmer more flexibility and it can be faster on systems where threads are cheaper than processes, such as Windows NT and AIX. |
from http://www.apache.org
Multithreading is useful, but not a requirement for performance gains. They just can give performance gains on systems with heavy-weight processes (which Linux isn´t):
quote:
Traditionally TCP/IP servers fork a new child to handle incoming requests from clients. However, in the situation of a busy web site, the overhead of forking a huge number of children will simply suffocate the server. As a consequence, Apache uses a different technique. It forks a fixed number of children right from the beginning. The children service incoming requests independently, using different address spaces. Apache can dynamically control the number of children it forks based on current load. This design has worked well and proved to be both reliable and efficient; one of its best features is that the server can survive the death of children and is also reliable. It is also more efficient than the canonical UNIX model of forking a new child for every request. This traditional Apache design works well up to quite high loads on modern UNIX systems. On Linux in particular, context switches and forking new processes are cheap, and accordingly this simple design is nearly optimal. One drawback, however, of the isolation between processes is that they cannot easily share data, and consequently sharing session data across the server takes a little work. |
from http://www.apache.org
This is one possible example for comparison. Everybody should know Apache (the "2/3 standard of the web") and its reliability, so this should be valid.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Korpo
If I remember right, Asher mentioned something about Windows XP being able to efficiently support Multithreading, which thread-enabled apps like Mozilla do greatly take advantage of....
Over at apache.org I ran over an article about when multithreading is needed: if system´s do not support light-weight processes. Repeat: Multi-threading means creating light-weight "processes" in a "real" process, a well known feature of the Java VM for example. So, Asher, we do not exactly know if there´s a significant performance increase generally, or if only optimized apps do take advantage, and which are?
I know of Mozilla (where it is greatly waste of time... the program is sluggish, everybody knows.. and it´s not your standard browser on Wintel neither I bet). Apache does take advantage, or some versions do, because every session needs its own process/thread to be handled. |
I don't recall saying that it gave a performance boost, but rather the design of NT supports multi-threading far better than Linux does. Theoretically, Linux supports multiple processes better. They're just different designs in the OS, is all. Mozilla relies heavily on threads, and that's why it's a great deal faster on Windows XP than Linux.
quote:
Besides, though Win XP did nicely in reviews of features, it was criticized for incorporating some security/stability measures as well. And of course a lot of apps were incorporated into the system, that needn´ t be direct part of the OS. Again this is part of a new settlement between 9 states and MS. MS should unbundle this apps... |
Like what?
quote:
Fecurity: "Feature" raw sockets allows to completely bypass any protocol, and therefore any security measures, and intrude into a Win XP system. Therefore the internal firewall is useless (to a certain degree). DirectX "breaches" HAL. HAL is what made NT stable by preventing direct driver access. DirectX is allowed direct access for performance gain. No solution in sight, since MS programmers that originally wrote HAL nearly all left. And a friend of mine monitored, that on every time he went online a message was set off to MS. Did only prevent this by his own firewall. Could be illegal by German laws to do this!
Well, the sockets were by far the worst. By default, the system is REALLY insecure because of this useless (!!!) feature. |
I see you've been reading Gibson's stuff.
You've been reading some pretty bad hype about raw sockets. Linux/BSD/etc have had those since their very beginning, Winsock did not. In the sake of having complying with the standards of all of the other OSes, Windows 2000 and XP added "raw sockets", which allow the OS complete control over its outgoing transmissions. I'm wondering why you're saying it makes the internal firewall useless, because the internal firewall doesn't deal with outbound transmissions at all, it only blocks incoming when applied to certain rules.
And you are right, DirectX bypasses the HAL. That's it's purpose. You wouldn't get decent game performance running the DirectX through the HAL also, gamers would not switch from Windows 98. If you really need the absolute stability (in servers), you don't use DirectX. I think that's a good way to do things, myself.
But if you think the raw sockets make XP/2000 more insecure, you should do some research. The only "threat" they really pose is it allows worms to spoof IPs when doing DDoS attacks (Gibson told us the release of XP would spell the end of the internet, because no one would know who was doing the DDoS attacks). The Register ran an article a while back strongly criticizing Gibson, because once the Internal Firewall is enabled in XP, there's essentially no way for hackers to exploit the raw sockets (which, again, exist in all of your *nixes)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Zealot
|
 |
Lisboa, Portugal
Jun 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Microsoft is a company, of course they're after money.
ALL companies are. DUH.
But changing their name abbreviation to M$ is just really stupid. It's not funny, it's not creative, and it's frickin' annoying. The same people call Netscape "Nutscrape", IE "Internet Exploiter", etc. At least be creative and/or funny with them, and don't rehash them in every single debate.  |
Hey Asher, chill, ok?
Well I think using M$, Nutscrape and Internet Exploiter are funnier than their day-to-day ordinary and boring names. And I think a forum is the right place to express those words. I don't think they're childish or stupid.
But I do think that you should ponder more often before attacking (directly or indirectly) people that use a sarcastic type of humour, and people who like to read things written that way.
Because I find Avatars saying "INFOGREED" amusing doesn't make me a stupid person, nor the people who modified its original picture saying Infogrames.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zealot
Hey Asher, chill, ok?
Well I think using M$, Nutscrape and Internet Exploiter are funnier than their day-to-day ordinary and boring names. And I think a forum is the right place to express those words. I don't think they're childish or stupid.
But I do think that you should ponder more often before attacking (directly or indirectly) people that use a sarcastic type of humour, and people who like to read things written that way.
Because I find Avatars saying "INFOGREED" amusing doesn't make me a stupid person, nor the people who modified its original picture saying Infogrames. |
*sneer*
It's just that it reminds me of elementary school, where kids names are mutilated because it's fun and funny and cool. This is just an extension of that, but with corporation names. And like most jokes, they get old, and seeing them rehashed constantly just annoys the hell out of me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zealot
|
|
Lisboa, Portugal
Jun 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
*sneer*
It's just that it reminds me of elementary school, where kids names are mutilated because it's fun and funny and cool. This is just an extension of that, but with corporation names. And like most jokes, they get old, and seeing them rehashed constantly just annoys the hell out of me. |
Hum, interesting point of view.
It's just that kids do have feelings, and that isn't any way cool. But huge multinational corporations like Microsoft?!? Ahh, come on! You know MS will always be M$ until it declares bankrupcy! (like it'll ever happen  ).
But ok, I got your point of view. Thanks anyway.
One more thing:
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
It's just that it reminds me of elementary school, where kids names are mutilated because it's fun and funny and cool. |
Traumas from childhood, Asher? 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-11-2001 15:29
|