Otto Goencz wrote:
> There isn't anything what can not be red in any advocacy group, just can't
> resist joining in......
>
> Your mileage seems to be different from mine, I have NT servers with
> applications running a lot longer than 2 weeks. From my perspective your
> claim is totally false. Not to mention the fact that using the minimum
> amount of required memory for NT isn't a wise decision to start with. On
> 16MB memory even Linux has hard time running, under the same circumstances
> as NT. That is, start up and X-Windows on the Linux box and you'll know what
> I mean.
That depends on what version of X you're running, and how much
background crap you're running, and which bloated linux kernel you're
running. Back in the kernel 1.1.47 days you could run X fairly
comfortably in 8MB of ram, though when you loaded Navigator 2.0 you
began to swap a bit.
Linux will do dramatically better in 16MB than Windows NT 3.51 or higher
(including 5.0 and 5.1) will do. We already all know that it handles
memory protection and allocation better than NT does. When things get
cramped, linux chokes less.
Of course, the linux kernel has gotten pretty big lately. :)
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
