Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.sys.powerpc:30211 comp.sys.intel:25977 comp.os.misc:3544 comp.unix.bsd:15674 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:7836 comp.unix.sys5.r4:8879 comp.unix.misc:15181 comp.os.linux.development:21576 comp.os.linux.misc:32125 comp.os.linux.misc:32126 comp.os.386bsd.development:2864 comp.os.386bsd.misc:4498 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!agate!news.ucdavis.edu!library.ucla.edu!galaxy.ucr.edu!jjs From: jjs@dostoevsky.ucr.edu (Joe Sloan) Newsgroups: comp.sys.powerpc,comp.sys.intel,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.misc,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.386bsd.development,comp.os.386bsd.misc Subject: Re: Interested in PowerPC for Linux / FreeBSD / NetBSD? Date: 20 Dec 1994 19:50:26 GMT Organization: University of Calfornia at Riverside Lines: 109 Message-ID: <3d7ci2$rjm@galaxy.ucr.edu> References: <3cilp3$143@news-2.csn.net> <3d4ucp$sbn@hearst.cac.psu.edu> <3d52i8$am5@galaxy.ucr.edu> <3d6o4n$k2q@hearst.cac.psu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: dostoevsky.ucr.edu In article <3d6o4n$k2q@hearst.cac.psu.edu>, Kenneth J. Hoover <ken@psuedvax.ed.psu.edu> wrote: > > Boy did I pick the wrong group to post this to. Well, here goes. Be warned >this is kinda long. > > Features and stability, which I'll take over bugs and bombs any time >for a production environment. The job of a sys/net admin is to PREVENT that >phone from ringing. If done right, it hardly ever does. Ditto for our Pentium Linux workstations here - they are used daily by EE and CS students, and linux just never breaks... > Benchmarks aren't everything, you know. Stability, reliability, and ease >of admin make up for lower benchmark rating in my book all the time. Need a >faster server? Buy an Alpha. Wouldn't it be a lot easier and cost-effective to just install linux? >>3. We have a number of identical dual-boot pentiums with Windows NT 3.5 >> "advanced server" and Linux - the comparison is hard to avoid; under >> linux I can rlogin, start a kernel recompile in the background, study >> the system logs, then rlogin into another machine and do something >> else, and come back to the kernel recompile when I get around to it. > > Excuse me? Have you ever heard of "multitasking"? You must, since you run >unix. How about doing it the way all the windoze users in the world do -- >start a program, ICONIFY IT, and go about your work. Start another program. er... re-read the above paragraph carefully - I said *rlogin* - with linux, you don't have to be seated in front of the machine, or even in the same country, to do useful work on the machine! >> 3. Support multiple UNIX user rlogins - totally impossible under NT > > See #3 above. Get a freeware telnetd and log in to your hearts' content, >tho there isn't much to do there I heartily agree that there is not much you can do there... I've used the telnet and rlogin programs on our "advanced server" -- hehe - very amusing! want some fun? try this: 1. rlogin to your NT box from another host 2. try to telnet out from there (ROTFL!!!!!!!!) >> 4. Run simultaneous X servers and/or clients - totally impossible under NT > > Bzzt. There are several providers of X for NT. Bogosity meter just pegged again... The so-called "X" for windoze NT is a crippled partial implementation - NT lacks the basic OS infrastructure to do a full implementation of X... I can not telnet to the NT server, set the display to my local desktop, then run MS Word with the display on my desktop - X is a lot more than a GUI - people from a windoze background do not realize this, thinking that if you can display the "X" logo on your desktop, you're running "X" > You can't beat free... if you can handle the bugs, memory leaks and >incompatibilities. I haven't seen that sort of thing for some time - When did you last use linux? And as far as bugs go, give me a break! you think just because you bought a nice glossy box with "microsoft" on it, there are no bugs, memory leaks, or incompatibilities? Haha! There's bugs in that there code! But instead of a 3-day turnaround on bug fixes you typically see with linux, you often get a denial that there is a bug, and after some months perhaps, if you are lucky, anouncement of an upgrade package that fixes the bug... > Is there a good SQL server for Linux? I'd really like to know. See the latest issue of Linux Journal - there are several commercial vendors offering various database solutions, and more to come... > How about software that supports a decent office e-mail package (not >POP) like cc:mail? Well, I don't know, I'm totally happy with elm and sendmail, but I have heard of a chap who was so taken with ms-mail that he fires up the linux dos emulator just to run it.... You have heard about the dos emulator, haven't you? I've used it to run Print Shop Deluxe, Norton Utilities, QBASIC, pkzip/pkunzip, and more - There are also people who use it to run Novell. (IMHO a morbid experiment) > If you have time to go over the sources for your OS to find out why it >crashed while 400 people call you to tell you your server's down. And don't >tell me that Linux docs are either complete or easy for a non-unix person to >understand, because they aren't and they're not. Well, as to your first statement, I've never heard of a situation where it was neccessary to look at the source code to get a linux server back up... As to your second point, I agree - running a UNIX network is not an entry-level position... >I'm sure, since I'm obviously in the wrong by not bowing to the god of un*x to >fulfill all my needs. By the way, how long does it take to configure a Linux >box as a LM server if the computer's currently set up with Windoze like they >come from the manufacturer? Be advised that not all computers come with NT installed - in fact, there are several sources for workstations with linux pre-installed... But, let's assume the computer has NT on it... boot linux, fdisk, setup, install takes maybe 60 minutes; next, get the samba sources and make - - 30 minutes - then write the config file - 5 minutes - shutdown and reboot - voila! UNIX workstation with full-on networking, X, emacs/gcc/gdb, and also a smb server for the dos, OS/2, and NT boxes! It is true that linux is still under development, but I think that your impressions sound like they are from a year ago... When I first installed it, it was a hacker OS - but since then it has grown tremendously.. I don't have a problem with Windows per se' - I even have a modest dos partition, with windows, on my home system... For a single user OS, to be used by the typical home user, it's fine - but NT is not "a better UNIX than UNIX", as bill gates proudly proclaimed. it's not even close. jjs