Linux advice from a Windows user...

/

I always find it interesting to read about people's experiences with Linux. It makes me happy to know that I'm not alone in getting pissed off at how complex it can be to perform something that is so simple in Windows. That said, partitioning, formatting, and installing Windows really isn't any easier than Linux, just more of us have done it. Now that the installers have matured, it can actually be easier, with a few caveats. A USB mouse won't worked during the installation procedure for Windows 2000, just as it won't for Linux, but you'd have a realistic shot at getting it to work afterwards.

Before I get flamed to death for that statement, yes, I realize that you can get a wide range of hardware to work in Linux, if you have the time to track down drivers and can comprehend the installation procedure. In my experience, the more expensive your hardware is, the more likely it is to work with Linux. Go for the name-brand stuff, avoid USB like the plague, and don't buy a single product, with the exception of CPU's and motherboards that isn't at least six months old, or you won't find any support for it in your shrink-wrapped distribution.

I have no life...

/

I'm at work, yes, on a Saturday. I'm going to remove my Linux server and replace it with a Windows 2000 box. I've been using the Linux box and Samba for the last 8 months, and while it's been rock-solid, it can't handle much of a load. File transfers at 100 Megabit consume 70% of the CPU power. No one at my local linux users groupcould explain it, they just gave me answers like "Well, that's Samba..." so I'm dumping it. Windows 2000, incidentally, on the same speed hardware uses less than 10% of the CPU for the 100 Megabit transfers I'm doing right now. This round goes to Microsoft... Besides doing some "legacy" file sharing, this box is also going to be my "Backup" Domain Controller for the Windows 2000 domain I've gotten set up. While if the main server goes down, the users won't have access to their Roaming Profiles and any software they need to install, they'll at least be able to still login and work locally until I get the PDC back on it's feet. I know you can create complete backups using the more advanced server products from Microsoft, but I don't anticipate us having an instance where we're without the main server for more than 24 hours, no matter what happens, and I could always restore the data from tape to the second server if something drastic does happen.

Busy Signals

/

Things are insanely busy here at work, I've got literally tons of machines to set up in the coming weeks. I need to clone myself. I've got cable modem access from home now! I was able to survive, barely, on 33.6 dial-up, but I found myself putting off those operating system updates that I normally apply automatically. It takes 60 seconds to download 10MB on my cable modem, compared to about 90 minutes via my phone line.

Bench-Marketing

/

I watched Steve Jobs introduce Apple's new products at MacWorld Expo this morning. He showed a scripted test in Photoshop running side-by-side on a 500mhz G4 and a 1ghz PC, then again on a dual-CPU G4 and the same PC. While I rarely trust any company's single benchmark to rate their product, this one especially perturbed me. How much and what types of RAM did the machines have? What speed hard drives? Why didn't Apple also include a dual-CPU PC in their benchmarks? Jobs basically compared dual-CPU Macs to single CPU PC's and declared that Macs were the fastest, while never once mentioning that dual-CPU PC's are fairly commonplace.

I then realized that the real reason that Apple is now offering the dual-CPU Macs is because Motorola can't get the clock speed of the G4's to surpass 500mhz in any quantity yet. It's been almost a year since Apple introduced the G4 PowerMacs, and we haven't seen a speed-bump yet. I can't even buy PC's with the same speed Pentium III CPU's that I bought at this time last year!

Maybe Apple should port Mac OS X to the x86 platform, I'd buy a copy...

I Hate Netscape

/

I really despise Netscape Communicator. The browser war is over, and Microsoft won by a landslide. Here's a short list of why I hate Netscape Communicator:

  • No PGP Plugin for Messenger
  • Installs AOL Instant Messager, with no option to refuse it
  • Installs said Messager over existing Messager program, which is generally newer.
  • The nifty blue lines on this sitewhich separate each day don't look right in Netscape, they have a white line in between the cells.
  • Netscape doesn't store it's user info with Windows user info, you're left with the clunky profile manager program for something that should be handled automatically.
  • It hasn't been significantly updated in a year
  • It has a "Shop" button now
  • Installs outdated versions of RealPlayer, even if there were newer version available when that version of Netscape was released
  • Installs old versions of Winamp, into a separate directory than your existing Winamp, but then grabs all the file associations.

    Does anyone have any to add? Post em below in the discussion links, and I'll add them here.

    While I don't claim that Microsoft's Internet Explorer is the end-all-be-all of Web Browsers, it's much easier to use and administer than Netscape's product is. If Mozilla pans out, it could be really nice, but don't expect an endorsement from me for at least 6 months.