> >i have installed a STOCK redhat 7.2 on an ACER travelmate > >laptop. i close the laptop and linux goes to sleep.(almost > >instantly). i open it and it wakes up in less than 5 seconds. > >(and this is NO EXAGGERATION). i have done the same for > >boxes with ATX power supplies and suspend features too. > > 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). > > >> Rock-solid stability. > >ow. another subjective statement. Linux is rock solid. > >look everybodyi made a subject statement too. gee wiz. > > 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. > > 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 still like using the powerful GNU tools which I became > familiar with under Linux before and happily I can use them > via Cygwin, MinGW, and straight Win32 ports (i.e. file > utilities, sed, etc...). > > 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 do maintain that for server purposes, it would be smarter > to use Linux (or even better, OpenBSD, if you're hardcore > enough to wrestle with that is). Windows server security > is truly horrible. > > For learners and tinkerers, I find that Linux is the most > ideal. > > > stability i will still argue about XPs stability. i > > will just leave you to your own opinions. i have > ... > > stability on the other hand another question. > > XP still crashes on me though. but, i think that is > > because M$ sofware do not like me personally and that > > is why they crash. > > Currently, I have heard some reports of XP boxes > rebooting spontaneously due to driver problems. Based > on 2K history though, it shouldn't be long before > more certified drivers are available for XP and > that should no longer be a problem. > > 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. > > > deployed a number of XP boxens. frankly, i find them > > cute. > > Actually I find XP to be too eye-candyish to the point > of distraction! =) I always catch myself staring at > those shadowed menus. So I guess you could say that's > a negative point in terms of productivity :-). > >
XP's features just dont cut it for me. Its so damn big. And its so slow on my PIII. I click and wait. Also my company paid for it. I just cant afford it. I also use gnu tools because the developer suite is also expensive. We cant use it for our products because we just cannot beat our competitor's prices. That competitor is from europe who is using linux and the royalties we need to pay would just wipe us out of the market. CE well it is just out of the question. I just wonder why MS cant fix those fonts. Its unreadable when displayed on a tv! And most of all we cant make CE run on an SH4. And also I cant get to fix that bug in the video overlay code that makes the last couple of scan lines flicker when playing high res video. Well QT works and display video without that flicker. And I can develop on whatever machine I happen to have. And we have a gui on SH4 that would also work on strongarm and ppc and pa-risc. _ 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]
