Mail from ILUG-BOM list (Non-Digest Mode)
_______________________________________________
Kiran Jonnalagadda said:
jace> > and performance isn't that much of an issue. BTW, the slow reponse in X
jace> > doesn't affect the other processes ... it's just the visual components that
jace> > show up slowly.
jace>
jace> Not really. Run GNOME and everything slows down. Unless you feed it 96+
jace> megs of RAM.
Yup. GNOME is slow.
I was not talking about GNOME+++. GNOME does not run all by itself but needs
another windowmanager along with it. And btw, that windowmanager can run all by
itself too ... so, GNOME is an add-on. { I hope I've got the correct term ..
after so many threads on windowmanager vs. desktop managers! ;-) }
And BTW, the Win2k manuals demand anything above 128M RAM! (256 for servers).
jace> > Ok. And what about the simple things like multiple desktops and a WHOLE
jace> > lot of choices. Windows can have it (from some third-party software components)
jace> > but none like the ones on Linux/*BSD.
jace>
jace> This is the overwhelming reason why I prefer Linux on my desktop. I tend
jace> to run a lot of stuff simultaneously, and lack of good workspace
jace> management makes Windows unusable.
And possibly because of this very reason people do not start too many apps on windows
as opposed to Linux. So, they appear to run fast! ;-)
Well, and really speaking, just do a "ps -ef" and see the number of processes that run
after you start X+GNOME+<some windowmanager>. X architecture is such that they gave us
too many layers for a great amount of choice at the expense of speed. But look at what
have we gained because of that.
1] Choices for multiple desktop/window managers (a HUGE number). And too many types
of environments.
2] Inbuilt network-awareness (so that you can run app anywhere and see it anywhere).
So, we have things like dumb-terminals et al, not possible with windows.
Maybe, it is a good idea to tell those guys, "why not build two versions of X for
distribution - one solely for desktops on a single machine - for fast performance"?
Or, maybe, one day, a Linux distribution might come up promising very fast X
performance,
but "you have to stick to this particular desktop/windowmanager because it has been
compiled for that, and tightly integrated. Of course, there is the standard X too along
with this .....". Maybe, it could be a good idea and work wonders. Who knows?
jace> > BTW, we had a major power-surge problems. Win2k destroyed it's own
ntoskernel.exe
jace> > (I guess that's the name it said is corrupt) and refused to boot after that
till repaired.
jace> > Hard disk has been sent to the "experts" for that.
jace> >
jace> > All Linux servers are fine.
jace>
jace> Ext2 is susceptible to massive corruption in case of a faulty
jace> controller, where FAT would have lost just a few files. This kind of
jace> argument can be thrown both ways.
Well, what about things like "read-only" mounting. Does windows have it?
My ideal setup is "read-only" mounting of all the important system areas which do
not change often, and a JFS on /home, /var and /tmp. And no problems with simple,
cold reboots.
Hmmm ... long mails back on list! ;-)
--
jaju
_______________________________________________
Website: http://www.ilug-bom.org.in/
Linuxers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://ilug-bom.org.in/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
