On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, you wrote:
| OS wrote:
| >
| > Hello,
| >
| > I have to work with a crowd who's basic attitude seems to be 'take me now
| > Bill'. They cannot understand why I like to try / use Mozilla despite its
| > problems, they cannot understand why I have a colourful screen background and
| > the worst sin of all - not using Windows Explorer and opening a seperate window
| > for every directory.
| >
| > So now you know what I'm up against !
| >
| > The latest 'Linux is crap because' are :
| >
| > 1) 'Linux is only capable of blocking'. I thought Unix became non blocking about
| > 1980, but I'm not sure. If it did I assume Linux is as well.
|
| i don't understant you here. non Blocking IO ?
I believe that he's claiming that under Linux any kernel call blocks
all other kernel calls. This is completely untrue, as it happens.
| > 2) NT / 2000 are completely object oriented from the ground up. Linux / Unix
| > are 'monolithoc monstrosities that wouldn't know an object it it bit them'. I
| > really don't know if the Linux kernel is OO or not.
|
| NT OOP ? :-)
| Zin 95/98/NT is monolitic. Zin2000 use 730 to 750 Mb following the
| install options. Very modular indeed...
| Linux is a set of packages. You can install whatever you want from 20 to
| 1500 Mb (but then you have thousands of applcations). => really modular.
|
No, the Linux *kernel* is monolithic in its basic design. AFAIK, this
is true of essentially all O/Ss in production use today; it's a
superior, proven design.
Linux adds modules to it, and is capable of dynamically swapping
modules easily. Thus you don't need to reboot every time you change or
install something.
As for OO, it tells you nothing about how well it will work; the term
isn't even very meaningful, frankly. I't's used to mean so many
things. The best meaning I could assign OO at this point is "trendy",
and Linux qualifies there.
| >
| > 3) 'Linux / Unix is only capable of non pre-emptive scheduling, which is crap
| > compared to the vastly superior MS models'. Again, I have no answer to this.
|
This is of course unmitigated nonsense.
| Unix, and Lonix, have always used preemtive multitasking whereas zin3.1
| use cooperative multitasking (ie apps decide whether they let other apps
| running ...). Win95/98 is a little better but any DOS apps can freeze
| the system (in asm, cli will kill zindoz but not Linux). So do win32
| apps despite MS said ZIn9x run in protected mode and is a progress from
| zin3.1. However, they said NT is really protected from it applications
| (so Win95/98 is not ...). But they publically advise to reboot NT each
| week else it eats all memory. As for Win95/98, they take 3years to find
| out it reboot after 49days ... However, there are Unix boxes that are up
| since years (there are several running for 4+ years under FreeBSD and
| Linux). Uptime are a indicator on the stability of the system
| (protection between apps, scheduling policy, ...)
|
| > Please give me some info. so I can answer these neanderthals correctly,
| >
| > Thanks,
| >
| > Owen
--
"Brian, the man from babbleon-on" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian T. Schellenberger http://www.babbleon.org
Support http://www.eff.org. Boycott amazon.com.
Support http://www.programming-freedom.org. Support decss defendents.
