| |
PA2AGA > PACDIG 24.07.99 19:15l 159 Lines 6904 Bytes #-9785 (0) @ EU
BID : PR_99_171E
Read: GUEST
Subj: PacketRadioDigest 99/171E
Path: DB0AAB<DB0FSG<DB0PV<DB0MAK<DB0ERF<DB0HSK<PI8DRS<PI8DAZ<PI8APD<PI8WNO<
PI8HGL<PI8VNW
Sent: 990724/1349Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:41055 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:PR_99_17
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : PACDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA17807 ; Sat, 24 Jul 99 13:22:00 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00014711 ; Sat, 24 Jul 99 14:33:12 MET
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 99 14:26:44 MET
Message-Id: <pr_99_171E>
From: pa2aga
To: pr_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: PacketRadioDigest 99/171E
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
>> Perhaps you are so used to UNIX/LINUX that you think of basic
functionality
>> as a "bell 'n whistle", but most of the rest of us consider it as basic
as
>> ordering an icemaker with your refridgerator, or air-conditioning with an
>> automobile.
>
>True, almost all of my design work involves designing web-based systems.
>In that regard 'functionality' centers around the following questions:
>1: Can I install new tools without rebooting the system?
>2: If my program crashes, will it take the rest of the system down with
it?
>3: Can I run the system at %99 cpu capacity, 24 hours a day, 365 days a
>week with minimal unplanned system downtime.
>4: Is there a body of software I can use without paying high license fees,
>that will permit me to modify that software for my own use.
Well, there you go... I'm looking for a GUI interface for Ham software which
does not take weeks of study to set up and operate. It must be reliable and
there must be good software for it that does what I want it to do. I'm not
interested in writing my own software; I put programming behind me fifteen
years ago. None of the points outlined above really apply to my needs.
>So far I've found Unix in general and Linux in specific to be a very cost
>effective way of meeting four of these requirements.
That's great for you, but not so great for Hams. The story that keeps going
around is that LINUX is great for Hams. I haven't seen any evidence to
support this. In fact, it appears to be a poor choice for Hams since most
Hams are interested in learning about Radio, not computer science and
history.
>
>BTW, I don't have an icemaker in my refrigerator or air-conditioning in
>my car. These things are optional luxuries which are not necessary to
>the primary reasons I need a refrigerator and a car.
For you, maybe... For my part, those are standard items. Ten years ago, they
MIGHT have been seen as "extras", but not in this day and age. Maybe you are
just more tolerant of primitive conditions than I am.
>> Like with "X-Windoze", for example: A full one-third of all the icons in
>> the X-Windoze "Start" menu led precisely nowhere. Click them, then wait,
and
>> wait a bit more because nothing is going to happen. I got fooled by this
>> several times, because the ones that DO work typically take so long to
>> respond. It makes it hard to tell the nonfunctional ones from the ones
that
>> work, but like REALLY SLOW.
>
>My first question is what are you running X on? Many X applications
>require a fairly fast computer and a good amount of memory. However
>this is not unique to X. Microsoft Windows 95 and Windows 98 will
>also choke if you don't have enough power or memory under the hood.
It's a 33 MHz 486dx, 16 MB RAM, SVGA w/1 MB RAM, 420 MB HD
I used the installation software that came with my copy of RedHat 5.2
The computer runs the Win95 version of the software I'm looking at just
fine, and that's what I'm running now. I've decided to stick with LINUX at
least until I get it to fly right, but on another computer.
I wasn't interested in my server being off the air for several days or weeks
while I struggled to get LINUX to behave itself.
Note that the very fact that a standard install produced such poor results
is what I am disgusted with. Even the old pre-warp OS/2 stuff installed
better.
>In regards to buttons not working. Most Window managers are extremely
>user configurable. If one is willing to take the time to configure them
>properly, the work wonderfully. If you are not willing to take the time
>to use the configuration tools to meet your needs, you would probably
>be better served by a Microsoft or Macintosh product.
I'm not willing to study for weeks in order to massage my software into
functionality. Unreasonable old cuss that I am, I expect it to work right
off the bat, right out of the box.
>> - Just for the record; Has ANYBODY had something like this happen with a
new
>> Win95/98 install? I never have.
>
>Actually, I process perhaps 100 contacts a week from people who have
>problems with Win95/98. If you prefer Win95/98 so much, then buy it
>and quit whining.
I've owned those for quite a while.
I'm not whining, OM.. I'm describing what I found when I tried out LINUX. It
sucks, and that's that. If it had worked well, that's what I'd be saying. -
But guess what? It didn't work well.
>> >Quite simply, Unix and Linux was not designed to have a nifty user
>> >interface (although one can certainly install KDE, CDE, GNOME,
Windowmaker,
>> >Afterstep or E as a user interface.) Instead Unix and Linux were
designed
>> >to be extremely stable multi-user systems capable of squeaking the
maximum
>> >performance out of minimal hardware.
>>
>> Well, if that's what they were after, they better get back to the drawing
>> board. LINUX is SLOW. A real dog. - And it regularly froze up when in
>> "X-Windoze". - Not exactly what I would call "extremely stable".
>
>That's not been my observation or the observation of just about any
>of the system administrators I know who use Linux on a regular basis.
>Indeed my first Linux install was on a used 386SX with 8MB ram and X was
>leaving Windows 95 on Pentium 150s in the dust.
For my part, I'd be happy if it would work as well as Win95 does.
>> It takes up WAY too much room on the HD, it takes up WAY too much time to
>> load up and run, then it takes WAY too much time to load 'n run programs,
>> then it takes WAY too long to get out of.
>
>Full installtion fo Linux is 100MB with distributions capable of of
>being run on a single floppy. (The minimal install is only 40MB.) Windows
>98 requires at a minimum 175MB of disk space with a full installtion
>cocking in at 295MB.
Like I said, I used the install software, just as I would for any other
operating system. I didn't take off six weeks to take a college course so I
could build it up from scratch.
Let's get real. - What theoretically CAN happen really does not count for
much, when compared to what actually DOES happen.
What DID happen in my case is exactly as I described it. Linux was a dud.
>
>In addition Windows 98 recommends a minimum of a 200MHz CPU while X for
Linux
>runs comfortably on a 486. If you are experiencing such extreme
performance
>problems, I would suggest that there is something wrong with your system.
I'm pretty sure it was something about the automated setup. I reformatted
the HD on that same system, then installed DOS/Win95 and it worked just
To be continued in digest: pr_99_171F
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
