RE: Backups
check out linux mandrake, i think its the best of the linux series, it
is even battling with XP when it comes to graphics
acran at readout.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> Hi Euman,
>
> At 20:04 25/03/02 -0500, you wrote:
> <snip>
> >I have to say that recently when I updated my Win98 box to IE6
> >I havent seen a crash in several months.
> <snip>
>
> I might bump up my Windows 98 SE machine from IE5.5 to IE6 but as it's
> only
> a 450 Mhz AMD with 128 meg of RAM I'm worried IE6 will be too much of a
> resource hog. Any thoughts?
>
> <snip>
> >LINUX RANT:
> <snip>
>
> You know how to make me bite 
>
> <snip>
> >I can tell you that anyone who thinks Linux is faster and safer than
> >Windows has been brain washed by someone.
> <snip>
>
> I don't run a desktop on my Linux machine. It's more of a server.
> Backups
> via FTP, system snapshots using a large Samba share, email gateway using
> sendmail, web proxy using squid. Those sorts of things so I have no
> need
> for a graphical user interface. The good old command line works for me
> on
> this system. Hence I can't comment on whether a Linux GUI is faster
> than
> the Windows one.
>
> As for safer you'll have to clarify what safer means for you. Perhaps
> defining dangerous instead might help.
>
> <snip>
> >Try running Linux on a i486 processor.
> > * SLOW, SLOW and way SLOW *
> <snip>
>
> Try running Windows 95 on a i486 processor - that is also slow. I get
> just
> passable performance running Windows 95 (OSRB) on a Pentium 75 with 48
> megabytes of RAM. Then again all I do on that system is surf the net
> and
> search/download MP3 files
>
> <snip>
> >Not to mention you have to keep recompiling the kernel
> >for everychange you make to your system.
> <snip>
>
> Now not every change surely The up side is that you have precise
> control over the changes.
>
> <snip>
> >Some people say that Linux is more stable and hardly crashes and I
> >say that when it does make a mistake it doesnt let you know until you
> >cant boot the O/S anymore.
> <snip>
>
> Linux, like most UNIX implementations, is generally very good at
> allowing
> you to backout your changes as long as you have taken the correct steps
> beforehand to do so (recent recovery diskettes, copies of previous
> config
> files etc). Also good systems management practice is to not perform
> many
> changes at once. If you have two changes to make and both require a
> reboot
> then do the first change, reboot, do the second change and reboot a
> second
> time. Don't do change one followed by change two and then a single
> reboot.
> It might work but then again it might not. If possible do the first
> change and run the system for a while to check it is still stable before
> applying the second change. Thay way if one of the changes does cause
> unstable behaviour you have a better chance of guessing which one (and
> hence which change to backout/reverse).
>
> Now consider this: if upgrading from IE5.5 to IE6 made your Windows
> machine
> more unstable how would you backout that change? It's difficult because
> you have no idea what the upgrade changed in the first place because Mr.
> Gates and his microsoftees won't tell you. If you had the time,
> inclination and patience you could maybe work out what the changes were
> but
> I wouldn't fancy this sort of reverse engineering task.
>
> My experience with Linux is that it is more stable - uptimes in Linux
> out
> perform those on Windows - YMMV.
>
> <snip>
> >Linux Black-Hats chew on those words.
> <snip>
>
<snip>
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
