> 1. Windows is probably the only platform that will
> run your favorite 3D games, like Quake III and Delta
> Force, Linux just isn't compatible (I for one am a
> strong game player).
Strange, my Linux box plays all three Quake games properly, even without a
3D accelerator.
> 2. I have run Linux, and it has crashed more often
> than windows '95 on my laptop! and the crashes are
> even harder to understand!("Linuxconf has caused an
> exception at address: exxxxxx-xxxxx:0000")
Linuxconf is a piece of crap. And how is 'Linuxconf has caused an exception
at address: exxxxxx-xxxxx:0000' any harder to understand than 'EXPLORER has
caused a general page fault in module EXPLORER.EXE'? It's exactly the same
information displayed in a very slightly different format. The difference
is, where Linux crashes, the kernel is protected; it's rare to bring down an
entire Unix system from userspace -- only Netscape has ever done it on my
machine, and Netscape is an abomination. DOS-based Windows, on the other
hand, has a sort-of protected kernel, but the entire system can be brought
down relatively easily. Windows NT-based systems are a lot harder to bring
down, but I still see bluescreens on NT, 2000 and XP boxes more often than I
see kernel panics on Unix machines.
> 3. Linux is only good for users with a LOTTA knowledge
> of the command line interface, and it is a nightmare
> just to see if you can get "X" to run, if you can
> get it to run! It also requires a lot of tweaking from
> the start, and newbies would rather prefer windows,
> which doesn't have a lot of /etc /var files to edit!
Bullshit. Those of us who like 'real' Unix systems can have that setup,
sure (which is why I run Slackware), but less Unix-literate users are
catered for -- in fact, the majority of distros are now orientated towards
those users. Mandrake is a good one, Debian's not bad, Corel LinuxOS was
quite nice last I looked. A lot of people swear by Red Hat, but then a lot
of people (myself included) swear at it instead.
FWIW, I installed both Debian and Mandrake on machines a few months back,
and in both cases it was 'stick the boot CD in the drive, confirm a couple
of choices the system made for me and got right, reboot'. All from a
X-based GUI installer.
> 4. Just try and get linux to gain access to your USB (or
> firewire ports)!
Hmm... I have a working USB setup on mt Slackware box. Kernel
2.4.something. Firewire support looks no more complex, but I can't test it.
Granted, it's not as friendly to set up initially as Windows USB support,
but I have no idea what a modern distribution sets up for you. Chances are
it works out of the box.
> 5. How do you expect linux to work with your Pocket PC???
> they are only compatible with (guess what?) Windows!
No they're not. They don't run Windows, they are not compatible with
Windows. The Windows CE operating system looks like Windows to the user,
and supports quite a bit of the Win32 API (but doesn't support quite a lot
more). The tricks pulled under the hood to fit the OS into a smaller
environment are really quite admirable, but they make it fundamentally
incompatible with traditional Windows programs. In fact, I don't think
there's a single Pocket PC running an x86-compatible chip. The Psion Series
3 range used an 8086 clone though...
I'm sure I've seen references to pocket devices running Linux, but even so
such an operating system is not the sort of thing to run on a pocket
machine. Even Windows CE is only just about suitable; it chews far too much
CPU time compared to dedicated OSes such as PalmOS or Symbian/EPOC (I get a
month's runtime off a pair of AA drycells with my Series 3; modern PDAs,
even the new Symbian devices, need a charge daily from what I've seen).
Regards,
Ben A L Jemmett.
(http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ben.jemmett/, http://www.deltasoft.com/)
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
More info can be found at;
http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
