Linux is not more stable!!!!

[protocool]

did you ever know that there is no perfect operating system built yet in this planet... however, linux is much different in windows. linux depends on how you configure and tweak it.

well you should make your linux configure properly to make it run properly. and of course, linux is great it is widely use in the internet.

[ThePreacher]

I am also using mandrake and have found that the system is more stable than my old windows 98 se machine. I hope that you dont have a hardware problem, but it seems that way since Linux is so stable.

[mistral]

Bahhh linux rocks !!

must be your install or your hardware
either its got early development drivers or
you have some serious hardware problems
are you overclocking ?

i had big problems with Mdk 8.1 it used to crash on
a Cyrix 200 every 3-8 days on me now i have a 2.4.14
and a custom RH7.2 install and it was up for 30 days until
last night which it came down because i needed the sound
card out of it.

along with a few 486's and a P233 and an Athlon 1.2 Ghz
i have seen them all with uptimes > 100 days

[mistral]

Originally posted by s0nIc
ok a little hint boys and girls... long story short

as long as you meet or better yet exceed the hardware requirements of the O/S.. you are less likely to come accross crashing it..

if i install win2k on a puter wid 64MB RAM.. heck surely it will crash coz the minimum requirement of it is 128MB RAM...

but since i added 128MB more which would give me a total of 128 + 64 = 192MB RAM.. it has never crashed since..

this is not exactly true the OS should just run like a DOG
eg i have a 486sx/25 with 16MB of ram and
bind on it using 20MB of ram thing runs fine
it swaps a bit but it still does not have too much latency for
doing dns lookups.

if a OS crashes when it runs out of RAM its a bug and makes it relitivly easy to DOS it (try tail /dev/zero)

but only will it really start crewing up is when you really exceed the require ments and the OS spends the whole time swapping ram and never actually getting anything done.

eg 16MB ram and 200MB used

process 1 loads lots of pages back from swap
process 2 does the same
process 3 same
..
process 15 same but requires process 1's ram so they get swapped out again and just keep repeating.

but there are some nice patches to prevent this but it would not work well in an X enviroment. it does this by suspending and swapping all of a process out process out until other finish what they are doing or loads more ram becomes avilable.

[mistral]

Originally posted by Conf1rm3d_K1ll



The big diifference between Linux and Windows is the price. Linux is free! You can't argue with that...

and you tend to get better support from linux people just
so long as you dont ask dumb ask questions.

[uraloony]

I have Red Hat 7.2 dual-booting with windows on a P-200, 96 meg ram. I haven't had too many problems with windows actually. Linux is quite stable however. It has only crashed once on me.

[Vorlin]

Outside of open-source and free support from the masses, linux has one big big thing going for it over windows: memory management. That alone right there, if MS decided to ever write an actual good memory management system, would solve a good portion of the problems. A friend of mine told me that he was told by an MS programmer that the term GPF (general protection fault) was the "catchall" for any memory related issues that they had no idea on. Knowing it's still in today (if that's true), what does that tell you?

[Evil Homer]

I throw caution about Red Hat 7.2 as a colleague of mine said that it was worse than Windows 95.

a bit of a tangent, but I just thought I'd mention that this is very true - I went back to 7.1, I have a gigabyte of ram yet was running out of memory after running a counter-strike server for 30 min....lots of other memory issues like that too

[tridentrue]

We use Redhat Linux 7.1 here as a DNS server for our site. It works great and has never had a problem. We run command line interface becasue it is supposidly more secure and less prone to crashing. Its been running for about 4 months now and hasn't missed a packet since. The only reason it was restarted was to allow the kernal form 6.2 to update. I think its a great alternative, especially compared to our windows 200 servers which we use to host the actual site.


I hope your problems don't stop you form using Linux

[Vorlin]

Yeah, I have a server at the house (server == pc with pretty good hardware) that has RH 7.1 on it, about to go to 7.2. Tridentrue: you can run gui mode if you want, because if anything dies, just about all the time (90%+) the X server will quit on you, taking you back down to the prompt. What you can also do is crank up the server, get into X (startx) and then do control-alt-f1
which takes you back down to the command line yet the server's awaiting if you need it for gui.

But I digress....real men/women use CLI! Currently on mine, I run sendmail, a mud, and various other daemons and it's not had a problem either. X 4 is pretty stable now with support on a lot of video cards so it's not too bad to use.

Anyways, I'll fight to the death on anyone who says NT has it over Linux. Nothing I've seen points me to believe that NT has a service that's better than a similar service (open source no doubt) on linux. File-sharing can be done with Samba with all the restrictions/security you want, email can be done with Sendmail which is a LOT less problematic than Exchange, web servers (we already know where this is going) can use Apache which is Open Source *and* free *and* supports everything relating to W3C standards (cgi,java,javascript,php,etc), and Bind 9 with DDNS is a much better solution (open source and free once again) to WINS, which is a joke all the way around. I'll stop ranting now but I think I've made a point that yes, you can find alternate software packages that are just as good if not better. It just takes jumping off the MS bandwagon.