Most of the linux users are blind to the many shortcomings of their favorite
OS, just as many Windows users are. This causes them to rashly make
incorrect statements, such as that Windows uses shared memory and has no
memory protection and is not multitasking (all of which have appeared in
this newsgroup). Just as ludicrous is the statement that Linux undergoes a
more thorough review process before release. How big is the Windows
development team at MS, would you say? And what exactly do you think they do
with their time during the final weeks or months prior to the release of a
new version of Windows? (Hint: MS is not know for the amount of leisure time
enjoyed by its workforce!) And how many people beta test each version of
Windows? Take your blinders off, folks! Linux is a great OS, for some
situations, but MS is not the devil and Windows is a real OS.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Jeff Silverman
Sent: Friday, December 17, 1999 1:18 AM
To: Mike Davison
Cc: Nicholas Bodley; Jacob Joseph; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SLL] Features of linux
Mike Davison wrote:
>
> <soapbox on>
>
> Hmmm... I'll disagree. Linux, and other operating systems that support
> protected memory models are more reliable than operating systems that
> use a shared memory model, like Windows and MacOS. In the latter case,
> an misbehaving program can crash the system. In the protected-memory
> case, it is almost impossible for a lousy program to crash the whole
> box. That is why Linux is more reliable than Windows.
>
> The size of the kernel and the open review process are both helpful
> in keeping Linux reliable, but the underlying memory-management
> architecture is much more critical to Linux's reliablity.
>
> <soapbox off>
Mike,
Could you spare a few ones and zeroes and explain the difference between a
"protected memory model"
and a "shared memory model"? When I went to Windows/95 and Windows/NT
school, much was made out of
the fact that all processes within the OS had their own unique memory
address space, but that the
upper half of memory was devoted to the kernel and was shared. VMS uses the
same model (Microsoft's
innovation: moving the VMS memory model from the VAX to the 80386. Big
whoop), and VMS is
considered a rock solid OS. But now you tell me that Windows is actually
sharing memory, I assume
between processes. I don't understand.
>
> In any case, Linux has proven itself to be much more reliable than the
> operating systems produced at Microsoft. (And Apple, but most folks
> don't care about Apple.) It should be interesting to see how reliable
> Windows 2000/NT ends up being as it is a protected-memory architecture
> and _should_ be as reliable as Linux. We'll see.
This is true.
>
> Mike
Many thanks,
--
Jeff Silverman, PC guy, Linux wannabe, Java wannabe, Software engineer,
husband, father etc.
See my website: http://www.commercialventvac.com/~jeffs
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-diald" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-diald" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
