On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 09:58:04 +0800, Andy Sy wrote:
>Does this mean you can turn off a Linux box, *unplug it*,
>then turn it on again and end up in the *exact same state*
>as you did when you hibernated? Because this is what
>Windows hibernation is about. It does wonders for
>productivity. I wonder what it would take for the Linux
>kernel to have this ability. (KDE desktop save/restore
>is quite imperfect).
I'll mind my language so anyone won't get offended, even you.
I'll try to answer this via logic and OS theory.
We don't intend to say that Linux does everything already
as great as Windows does it. Open source is no panacea.
Oh, regarding that last line of yours, just wait and see.
>By rock-solid stability, I mean being able to work for
>as long as I want to without the OS crashing. Win 9x was
>completely unsuitable for development (or even graphics
>production) purposes because I get blue screens every
>couple of hours or so. This is the reason why I seriously
>considered moving to Linux as my environment of choice
>despite the fact that it took more effort to figure out
>how to get tasks done which I take for granted under
>Windows and there was a dearth of usable, sophisticated,
>applications for it.
>
>With Win2K, this is no longer the situation. W2K Pro
>remains stable no matter what I do. This is a HUGE
>improvement. In Win2K's case, Linux still goes from
>bootup to KDE desktop much faster so there's still a bit of
>a plus for Linux there. However, with Windows XP's very
>rapid bootup, shutdown and hibernate/restore features,
>there now remains very little *practical* reason to use
>Linux [for development and desktop purposes] except, like
>I mentioned, PRICE.
Hey! Don't redefine what's STABILITY meant here! If that's
what's stability for you, then pardon me but that isn't
enough definition for us here. Since YOU are here in the
PLUG mailing list, you better conform with the language
game we play here -> we view STABILITY in a broader sense,
and not just restricted to rapid bootup, hibernation and
all that stuff. Try including SECURITY in your definition
of STABILITY. As well as others you might have left out.
And by the way, what boots up fast, shutdowns cutely or
has hibernate/restore doesn't mean it is rock-solid stable,
Nor does it mean that nothing would go wrong. Consider
other factors that may affect your system's performance.
Since you administer systems, go figure what these other
factors be.
As for XP's case, only time will tell if it's stable or
not. Judging Win2000's case (which formed the skeleton
of WinXP, it has been already proven not to be secure
given the humiliating experiences with CodeRed and Nimda
Applications are one thing. An OS is another. A faulty
application should not lock an OS to be in a pretty useless
state).Remember that security is founded on reliability/stability.
In symbolic logic, if argument P is stability, and argument
Q is security, the form
P ----> Q
~Q
therefore ~P
would be true. Not secure implies not stable. And it's in
the base of WinXP. Productivity comes from stability/
reliability.
If there wouldn't be too much humiliating security
compromises with XP, I can agree with you on your claim
of ROCK-SOLID STABILITY based on our generally-accepted
conception of SECURITY. And "wouldn't be" would imply
the future -- TIME will tell if WinXP is stable or not.
>It may pain the Linux 'fundamentalists' to face up to the
>fact that Windows is now competitive (or may even beat)
>Linux in terms of stability and many other critical areas, but
>that's the reality. It doesn't make Linux less of an OS, but
>there's much less of an incentive to switch.
I'm no fundamentalist, really (I do my thesis in Windows, and
I use Visual C++ for it's somehow best to utilize MS tools for
the MS OS).
Anyway, Linux doesn't compete with Windows. Unfortunately,
Microsoft doesn't view it that way (and you'll see that with
the Valentine memos.)
>Windows was able to catch up with Linux's stability and
>was able to trim itself of bloat. On the other hand,
>in terms of applications and usability, while there
>is undeniably progress in the Linux side, the gap
>between the two has probably widened.
I don't think so. Any decent computer scientist would comment
harshly of adding too much functionality in the OS kernel which
is not necessary for basic OS services. The moment MS moved some
graphics routines into the kernel is already a big mistake, as
video routines needs direct hardware access. And allowing such
direct hardware access is already a security compromise. And that
compromise of security already is deep within the heart of the OS.
Virus (virii? Latin...) operates on that principle of hardware
access.
When you compromise your stability, you aren't in a stable position
(be it in software or even in real life).
When you add something unnecessary, isn't it considered bloat?
>Frankly, after being exposed to all the open-source
>propaganda, I'm shocked that it is actually possible for
>a company like MS to make a solid, stable OS. But the
>proof is in front of me, every crashless productive day
>I spend working under Win2K, and I'd be a truly rabid
>imbecile to deny it.
When I took my Discrete Mathematics in UP, I learned some
rules in logic, like Universal Instantiation and Universal
Generalization. What does these mean to your case? Your
case is just an instance, and it won't be valid when you
generalize it to the other millions who didn't enjoy your
luckiness. You're very lucky then - viruses didn't come
to wreck your PC happiness with Windows. However, I now
a lot of people who'd gladly envy your case. And they
are using Windows too. Practically, I envy your case
with Windows, as sound support in my Windows machine is
screwed for no apparent reason (being my sound hardware
nowadays is Microsoft-certified).
Try getting back to the basics (OS theory and logic).
It sometimes solves the arguments and determines the validity
of premises and conclusions without getting too much into
the moral aspect of things.
Oh, by the way, this is the Philippine Linux Users' Group.
Windows won't fit in here. Just for delicadeza, Ok?
Paolo Falcone
__________________________________
www.edsamail.com
_
Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph
To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
