Bryan Moss writes:
> > [Linux] would be a huge improvement over the whole world
> > using Windows.
Increased stability alone. My uptime (currently 49 days, I've seen
boxes running for years) is interrupted only by kernel/hardware
upgrades (which still, is a nuisance. There should be no interruption,
ever). This translates in G$ saved in the global economy in the course
of the year. Plus, the hardware requirements are smaller. Plus, system
security is dramatically better. Plus, higher user base translates in
more drivers/apps. Plus, better interoperabity. Plus, &c&c&c. I think,
these are pretty good reasons.
> Both, they're interrelated. To do anything useful with the
> UI requires changes to the architecture. And vice versa.
Maybe, if you come from the Windows world. The major point of
X-Windows is that you can change GUIs on the fly, without rebooting,
and use them across the networks. A GUI has nothing with the kernel
whatsoever. It is one of the insanities of the M$ platform that
they're moving friggin' display drivers into kernel space.
> Networks are a good thing, I don't deny that, they're just
> not the only good thing.
They are a major good thing, because they facilitate the advent of
parallelism through the backdoor. FastEthernet (perhaps
channel-bonded, $15/NIC), a cheap switch (~$150/8 ports), and a
message-passing library. It's cheap, and it works.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:04:50 MDT