--- Orlando Andico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 3:14 PM, JM Ibanez > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > .. > > - A Linux server usually runs headless, so > > resources do not go to > > maintaining a GUI. Not so with Windows Server > > 2003, which still runs > > a GUI subsystem even as a server; > > Not anymore. I've never seen a headless Linux box in > ages. I mean it > has no monitor, yes, but the GUI is still running. > This is true of all > the client deployments I've seen.
Almost all the servers (web, mail, mysql, dhcp, moodle, etc) at Ateneo are Fedora at runlevel 3, which means there is no X server running, thus no GUI. In fact the entire server room has only one monitor/keyboard, which is switched among servers. But those are our servers, not client Linux boxes assigned to faculty. > But on Linux, everything is a > THREAD. fork() is just a wrapper around the > thread-creation routine. I've been reading /usr/src/linux*/kernel/fork.c and do_fork() does not seem to be a wrapper around some thread-creation routine, if by thread you mean the new thread and its parent shares almost all resources (text, data, heap, open files, etc), except that the thread has its own stack. For now, I'm confused. > Also, in my experience, equivalent apps run faster > on Windows than on > Linux, simply because better compilers are available > on Windows. Very > few Linux binaries are compiled with a "decent" > compiler like Intel's. Can you name "equivalent apps" that run on both Windows and Linux, and run faster on Windows? Thanks. Pablo Manalastas _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
