Sellam Ismail wrote:
> This is the second reference I've seen this week to complaining about
> Linux crashing. I find this to be ludicrous.
I don't. I've been using Linux since the early 1.x kernels. I've found
it to crash quite often. If you do certain things to prevent that, it
crashes *MUCH* less. Linux is a great server, as long as it does a
specific task, and that's it. If you make it do too much, it starts to
suck. That's where Solaris blows it off the map.
> Look, if Linux crashes, it's because YOU did something wrong or
> something's wrong with your hardware. Windows just crashes for seemingly
> no good reason. Linux doesn't.
Not so. Ever just clicked repeatedly on the back arrow in Netscape
4.75? If you hit one of those pages that won't let you use the Back
arrow to return, you'll lock the entire box. Netscape is garbage, yes,
but it will still lock the box. It's not the user's fault. It's not
hardware. It's Netscape being big, bloated, and horribly written.
And, it's people saying things like "YOU did something wrong" that gives
Linux users and advocates a bad name. How about finding out what
they're running? How about finding out what they were doing at that
time? How about finding out what hardware they have? Telling someone
they did something wrong is unnecessarily harsh, and rather insulting.
You never know... this guy could be very modest, yet know far more about
Linux than you. I'm not saying this is the case, but it could be. Or,
he could be looking for a little reassurance, and you just made him feel
like an idiot, causing him to return to Windows, and forget about trying
new things.
Have some consideration. That's something I've found lacking in your
recent posts.
> I have a brand new Dell machine. I primarily run IE, a solid telnet
> client (CRT), a good mail reader (Pegasus), Word, Works, Napster, and
> whatnot. Nothing too exotic or risky. Windows crashes. I have to reboot
> about 2 times a month.
>
> Fix my computer, Ernest :)
Why don't you fix your computer? Just because you have a brand new Dell
does not mean that it's flawless. You could have some bitched hardware,
or, as unloaded as it might be, your box could have some software
issues. It's been known to happen, believe it or not.
> You're obviously going about this the wrong way. Why not pick something
> stable like RH 6.2 and just stick with it? That's what I did, and my
> server's been up constantly for months now. Stop trying to be on the
> bleeding edge.
And I've managed, and maintained Red Hat 6.2 servers that were broken
horribly. Red Hat doesn't solve your ills.
And nothing is "obvious". He's given you no information to go on. I
think you're jumping to a conclusion you shouldn't.
> This argument is sickening. Calling Windows an OS in the same sentence as
> mentioning Linux is wrong in the most dire sense of the word.
Not in the slightest. In case you didn't notice, Windows is an OS.
Windows9x is a DOS-based operating system, but an OS, nonetheless.
Windows2000 is an OS (originally a VMS and OS/2 hybrid with NT, but an
OS nonetheless). Linux is a kernel. The OS is based on the GNU tools.
So, actually, if you want to be like that, Linux is not an OS.
GNU/Linux is.
> No, it's not reasonable. You just have this attitude because, as you
> plainly have acknowledge, you make a living off of the misery that people
> must suffer due to the shit products that one software company has forced
> onto the world with their f-ed up marketing practices.
People tend to find more problems when the situation is more common.
The more you use something, the more you're going to find issues with
it. The more popular something is, the more people are going to try to
take it down. Think of the recent battle with the OpenBSD crew.
They've been hawking their "no root exploits in 3 years" banner, and
suddenly, people went after them. Picking apart their methods, their
findings, and their process for fixing and releasing patches. It's not
because they are bad at what they do. It's because they've shown
they're strong, and people want to take them down. It's silly, but it's
the case. And you can see this with plain ol' popularity.
Yes, MS's practices are slimey. And they've been shown to the world
like that. But, people fall for it. And that's their choice. I choose
not to. Why would you make this guy feel stupid for trying out Linux?
You should be praising him, and helping him along when he has problems.
> Again, you're doing something wrong. I think I see the problem. You're
> approaching Linux as you would with Windows. Windows needs every patch
> that comes out for it because it is fundamentally flawed. Linux does not.
> You just don't get it.
He's approaching it in his way. If he patches the hell out of his box,
that's fine. I do it. And guess what? My box is pretty damned
stable. All of my machines are. I keep an eye out for security issues,
look for them myself, and patching is one way. It's a necessity if
you're on the net, as well. Either you keep up, or you get rooted, and
you're reinstalling every two days.
> Sorry to carry on this lame thread, but it is sometimes necessary to
> dispell ignorant obfuscation of the facts.
And sometimes, people who preach too violently can miss the facts. Tone
down your rhetoric, and turn on your brain. This guy wasn't attacking
you, so why attack him.
And to the original poster, my apologies for you having to endure this
tirade. I applaud your efforts, and your willingness to tinker, and
compare, and decide for yourself.
--
Tim Harrison
Network Engineer
harrison_at_timharrison.com
http://www.networklevel.com/
Received on Thu Oct 19 2000 - 01:33:37 BST