[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/12/27]
> Windows and > Unix blow roughly with the same magnitude despite the age difference. Are you conflating "Unix" with "Horrible windowing toolkits designed to run on an experimental window system that should have been put out to pasture a decade and a half ago... at the latest"? Gnome Is Not Unix KDE Is Not Unix X11 Is Not Unix SDL Is Not Unix Motif Is Not Unix CDE Is Not Unix Openstep Is Not Unix Etcetera... Etcetera... Etcetera... > However, if something is broken by design, diapers will not help. Anything that exports Windows file system semantics is broken by design. > Rumors tell that Unices at the early 80's were as stable as Windows 3.11 at > the early 90's. Not just "no", but "hell no". Jesus. We had PDP-11/70s running for weeks at a time with 30-40 concurrent users and load averages peaking near 80 during finals week. Despite the DEC FSE cleaning the swap disk platters with spit (yes, I watched him do this). And this wasn't even the '80s yet. > And it seems to me that Windows NT/2000 is as stable as a Linux > machine today If you pick your Linux machine poorly enough, that may be true. It seems to me that Windows 2000 is not actually as stable as Windows NT 3.51 was, though, and neither of them are anywhere near the stability of a good Unix system. Four digit uptimes (that is, 3+ years) are not remarkable for Unix. > (I mean the subsystem causing it to be marginally useful, which > includes the X server, Most of my Unix systems don't have X installed, and at least half the Windows systems I've ever installed would have been better off if I could have left out GDI (which was (theoretically) possible back before NT4 came along and tossed out one of the few good ideas in NT and turned it into a pure Windows emulation platform). X is not Unix. [flames about C++] I'll flame along with you about C++. What does C++ have to do with anything?There's stuff above here
Generated at 03:02 on 01 Jan 2007 by mariachi 0.52