What OS do you have?
- Thread starter exleper
- Start date
The Pious Pawn
I Can
xp pro
lobster
Well-Known Member
"Thats Win95/8/Me. Windows 3.0 didn't have *any* users... (You can see where Windows Xp gets it multi-user capabilities from... Its kindof why I was so impressed witl Linux when I first installed it when I was at Uni... Wow... A proper multi-user system -- and its free...!)"
Funny enough when i first installed linux i was thinking the same, and pleasently surprised its a real multi-user os.
ms new command line and scripting language microsoft command shell, seems to be a mix of bash, python , pearl , hmm
Funny enough when i first installed linux i was thinking the same, and pleasently surprised its a real multi-user os.
ms new command line and scripting language microsoft command shell, seems to be a mix of bash, python , pearl , hmm
stdPikachu
Plughole in bathtub curve
Crispy said:
I guess it depends on what your priorities are, but the main problem at the moment is that there aren't any full-featured microkernels in existence (apart from Mach, which isn't used in it's microkernel form any more - maybe Solaris too, but I'm not sure) since they're pretty hard to write IIRC, making the issue of a performance penalty a tad moot. Last time I looked, a microkernel was somewhere along the lines of 20-30% slower than a macrokernel regardless of hardware.
You are right about it being a better idea in theory though; you may or may not have heard of the Hurd microkernel, which is the kernel being (very slowly) developed by GNU. Hurd was originally going to be used with the GNU utils, but when Linux came along with the GNU GPL most people opted to use that instead since it was faster and more featureful.
jayeola said:
The main advantage of a microkernel is security and stability. In a microkernel, every part of the kernel runs in its own space. For instance, in a macrokernel, if a driver crashes there's a good chance it'll bring down some or all of the rest of the kernel with it (case in point is the endless BSOD's you get with NT when you're using rubbishy drivers). In a microkernel, the "head" kernel will just terminate that driver and spawn another one.
Similarly for security, if there's a vuln in a driver then a sploit for it won't enable the vuln to spread to other parts fo the kernel. The performance penatly comes (I think) from the kernel keepnig track of all these sub-kernels and keeping up with communications frmo all of them.
I'm not an expert on kernels architecture though, so it's prolly best to do your own googling on this one.
jellyellie
New Member
I've setup my computer to dual-boot with Windows XP Pro or Suse 9.1 Personal, but I haven't used Linux for months. It's hard to change when there are no real bonuses to using Linux, but big minuses... loss of The Sims 2 
(I wouldn't be up for installing a Windows emulator, and what's the point when I have Windows on the same harddrive?)
(I wouldn't be up for installing a Windows emulator, and what's the point when I have Windows on the same harddrive?)
jellyellie said:I've setup my computer to dual-boot with Windows XP Pro or Suse 9.1 Personal, but I haven't used Linux for months. It's hard to change when there are no real bonuses to using Linux, but big minuses... loss of The Sims 2
Check out the Breezy Badger Ubuntu distro... Its the nicest distro I've seen so far and also the easiest to set up. (Ie, it will get nearly all your hardware set-up).
Basic advantages:
* Cheaper, and no reason to have to have a warez copy of Windows
* More secure
* Very reliable once its got going
* No more viruses. No more malware
Games don't tend to work but you can always go and but a Playstation with what you save in ££££ to Microsoft...
Similar threads
