Roy Schestowitz je napisao:
> __/ [ samir.ribic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] on Sunday 18 June 2006 16:24 \__
>
> > The comparision between Linux and Windows (I mean NT/2000/XP series)
> > often rises to flame war. Linux users often point to bad and buggy
> > Internet Explorer, and tell that it is the main reason why Windows is
> > crap. When someone points that Konqueror and Firefox under Linux can
> > crash very often, the counter argument is "They are not integral part
> > of Linux, you are not forced to use them". When someone points that
> > Linux is slower, the answer is "Do not use KDE, and Linux will be fast"
>
>
> Firefox under Linux crashes? When? Show me.
It happened to me when I today visited the page www.domavija.ba which
caused crash (SIGNAL message) of Konqueror, Firefox and Galeon. It
seems that Flash player plugin has some bugs. Then all the browsers
become unstable even when visiting other web pages. In the same time I
used bittorrent client and it worked correctly. The distribution is
Debian Sarge. Sarge itself never crashed on my computer, (Athlon 64,
1G), while I once had serious problems with SUSE 9 AMD 64 version
(destroyed file system), and all Windows (crashes).
To be honest, just when I started to reply to the message, under
Windows version of Firefox, Windows 98SE rebooted without reason. And
bittorrent is unusable on Windows, because it can not last more than
one hour without lockup.
The last time I used Internet
> Explorer was about 4 months ago and it crashed quite regularly, on SP2...
Yes, especially after it became spyware magnet.
> Not to mention the fact that it could not handle CSS properly. The
> administration panel of a CMS rely on was not usable. Literally. It is
> heavily standards-based, but I could not do anything because widgets were
> not rendered.
>
>
> > But, if Linux is just a kernel, should be more fair to compare Linux
> > kernel with NTOSKRNL.EXE file? They are both fast, very stable and
> > useless without user level programs.
>
>
> In Linux, the /user/ can *CHOOSE* what goes ononc top of the kernel. How does
> one, let us say, get a lightwight Windows Vista?
I managed to make 600 kilobytes long Windows 3.1 on a single floppy or
5 megabytes Windows 95. It is possible to do the something similar with
NT series, at least technically. Microsoft finally understood
importance of this and they released XP embedded which gives you
selection of thousands of components, but I have never seen it. The
Vista version is anounced too.
I am not talking about legal isuses, however. Microsoft do not like
hacked versions of their products :-(.
Or an Apache server on
> Windows, which actually serves pages with command-line mode?
You mean, without loading GUI? On 9x series edit MSDOS.SYS to set
BootGUI to 0, compile Apache with DJGPP and put it to autoexec.bat.
Under NT/2000/XP systems it is possible to write "Native NT
applications" (they use NTDLL.DLL library) and if they are put into
HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\BootExecute, it
is possible to have windows kernel without GUI. Don't ask me why
someone should do it :-).
>
> Best wishes
>
> Roy
Thanks, Samir
>
|
|
