www.pegasos.org :: View topic - Linux vs MorphOS (was: Ubuntu black screen)

www.pegasos.org

Linux, BSD, Unix etc. - Linux vs MorphOS (was: Ubuntu black screen)

dholm - Jan 07, 2006 - 15:39
Post subject: Linux vs MorphOS (was: Ubuntu black screen)

Quote:

Yes, loading times is many times a lot slower in Linux then in MorphOS and in AmigaOS too.

Is that because they are using secret Amiga algorithms that noone else in the world is able to duplicate or because the applications have 1/10th of the features you expect to find in modern desktop software? Makes you wonder doesn't it. Rolling Eyes

gunne - Jan 07, 2006 - 16:11
Post subject:

dholm,

No, it doesn't makes me wonder. Smile

And if you have question regarding a particular piece of software for either MorphOS or AmigaOS, I think the best you can do is to direct the question to the developer of the particular software piece you do wonder about.

All the best !

Trizt - Jan 07, 2006 - 17:43
Post subject:

dholm wrote:

Quote:

Yes, loading times is many times a lot slower in Linux then in MorphOS and in AmigaOS too.

I always thought there was some secret CPU opration that only worked in MorphOS that made it so much faster and use so much less memory... but now I start to think it's that algorithm Lol2

gunne - Jan 07, 2006 - 18:13
Post subject:

Hello,

You are of course free to wonder why Smile

I'm only happy that MorphOS is such a quick and responsive operating system. Its structure is also very logical, which make it a pleasure to use.

dholm - Jan 07, 2006 - 19:06
Post subject:

Gunne, keep the MorphOS discussions for the MorphOS forum please. This thread is about Ubuntu and the forum is about Linux and *BSD.

gunne - Jan 08, 2006 - 00:16
Post subject:

dholm,

Yes, sorry !

I will try to keep myself more organized. But, please also try to remember my attempt was to answer on posts before, from FrankB also. Smile

And please also remember, I do really like Linux systems. As I said above different systems and software for different purposes is my own thinking.

And I do also think we all holds our own favourites.

dholm - Jan 08, 2006 - 10:10
Post subject:

If you are really interested in that discussion maybe you could start a new thread about it?

FrankB - Jan 08, 2006 - 20:04
Post subject:

@Dholm

Yeah, may be, but then why the whole system ( even open and move window, the menues.. ) feels a lot slower, and not only when loading/working with appz?

Anyway, dont take me wrong, I dont have anything against linux. Its just another, new for me, option.

Thanks to all for the hints! Very Happy

dholm - Jan 08, 2006 - 20:29
Post subject:

Because it adds a lot of overhead. In most modern GUI systems today (most notably KDE and GNOME) you have events linked to almost all actions. When you move a window etc a signal is sent to everyone listening for those events. That is just one detail, there are other things affecting it as well such as translucency (COMPOSITE) etc.

In MorphOS you do not have features like being able to listen to others events in a uniform way. The GUI backend is still very simple compared to other systems.

Someone that is better into these things might be able to provide you with a more in depth analysis though.

mejde - Jan 08, 2006 - 22:21
Post subject:

There's also a big difference between perceived performance and actual performance. The composite extension (and stuff like double buffering etc) can actually help reduce the rendering artifacts on the screen and thus make the perceived performance greater even though it in reality is slower.

The only reason I butt in is because dholm talked about COMPOSITE and Keith Packard (X guru) posted about this on the xorg mailing list today so it's fresh in my head. Wink

"We learned this from Mac OS X which was initially distributed with all
rendering entirely software based, and with which objective performance
measurements showed to be one of the slowest drawing environments in
existance. However, because the entire display was artifact-free, due in
large measure to the composited window system architecture, users
perceptions were of a high-performance and responsive system."

Whole post here: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/2006-January/012047.html

Also, many of the performance bottlenecks in GNOME and KDE today are I/O-bound (like for instance loading many small files from disk, causing unnecessary disk seeks). See e.g. http://www.gnome.org/~lcolitti/gnome-startup/analysis/ .

But, like some other people here before me, I digress... Smile

gunne - Jan 08, 2006 - 22:25
Post subject:

FrankB,

Hopefully You will find this combination (being able to take full benefit in both Linux (Ubuntu) and MorphOS) a very good and useful combination.

dholm - Jan 09, 2006 - 07:41
Post subject:

Another important factor in MorphOS is the lack of memory protection. By not having memory protection you gain huge benefits in context switches and you do not need to invalidate the translation lookaside buffers. On the other hand, MorphOS wouldn't survive a day as a mainstream OS without memory protection. Que viruses, worms and friends.

gunne - Jan 09, 2006 - 09:19
Post subject:

dholm,

Is it ok to write about MorphOS in this Linux-thread now ? Evil or Very Mad

dholm - Jan 09, 2006 - 09:48
Post subject:

Yes, the thread originator asked about it which makes it on topic. Is forum netiquette really that foreign to you gunne?

The person who starts a thread controls the content, if they decide to take the thread off-topic it is really up to them to make that decision. If it turns out to be an interesting fork that spawns a lot of discussion it is up to the forum moderator(s) to split the topic if that is a suitable cause of action.
What is generally not seen as ok is going into someone elses thread and starting to post off topic discussion as that ruins the original flow of discussion and the intent of the original post.

gunne - Jan 09, 2006 - 10:44
Post subject:

dholm,

No, it was just that You above asked me for moving the MorphOS discussions to the MorphOS forum. Anyway, before going more deeply into OS structures, and to more low level issues in the operating systems itself, I would like to give a more overall brief about what probably many people notices, especially if they have had some Amiga experience.

I would like to point to this article:

The Zen of Amiga

Please take a look, and consider a while around the table at the middle of the page where he writes: Let's see how other Operating Systems' Zen compares to AmigaOS:

Pasted here also:

There is not many likely articles to find which includes MorphOS yet, because its still a quite young operating system, but it also clearly have 'roots' from the Amiga, and they are very close to each other, why this also 'can' be considered appliceable also for a MorphOS system.

I guess this Zens, (Ease of use, Power, Complexity, Performance, Efficiency, Development), is what people will notice when they will be sitting in front of their Amiga and/or MorphOS systems.

But, now back to work, coming back later. Smile

lisardman - Jan 09, 2006 - 11:05
Post subject:

yes but does it say something about good applications like browsers and office?

mejde - Jan 09, 2006 - 11:17
Post subject:

Regardless of what operating system one prefers I think there's only one word worth uttering about that article: CRAP Smile

lisardman - Jan 09, 2006 - 11:24
Post subject:

dholm - Jan 09, 2006 - 11:32
Post subject:

I like how he has allocated one column for "Linux" as if all distributions are exactly the same. Very scientific study. Shocked

Quote:

MorphOS is mentioned as being something without Zen!

Quote:

With the Zen established, we can consider what other things reflect similar Zen:

* PowerPC
* AmigaOS 4
* Chris Hodges' Poseidon USB stack
* ReAction
* DataTypes that recognise files by their content
* INet225 and socket.library

and those which don't:

* Linux
* x86
* MorphOS
* AmigaDE
* GCC
* PalmOS (the Zen of which is more akin to the original MacOS than anything else)
* Using file extension to identify a file's types
* AmiTCP and bsdsocket.library

lisardman - Jan 09, 2006 - 12:05
Post subject:

Zen for me Zero Effort network or networking

ironfist - Jan 09, 2006 - 15:04
Post subject:

Pardon my French..

How the fsck can someone say that MacOS X is only 'Good' when it comes
to ease of use. There is no easier OS in the whole world than MacOS X.

Windows is years behind OS X when it comes to ease of use.

gunne - Jan 09, 2006 - 21:05
Post subject:

Hello,

Ok, Im back again Smile

Thread moved and splitted yes,.. ok as the germans tends to say,.. Keine Problem !

The article I linked too is of course the words of the writer of it. And my aim was to show that people do have opinions, and of course its not anything wrong with that, instead everybody is free to have any opinion, at least in in my opinion.

Anyway, results might not always be what You expect them to be. I got some results concerning memory allocation that I would like to share then.

The below test is said to have been made on a Pegasos 1 in MorphOS and in Linux operating system. Please note that I have not run this myself yet, and my guess is also that if You do run the tests on a Pegasos II, you might get completely different results. I just compiled it here now.

occount is the outer loop

icount is the inner loop

size is the size in bytes thats allocated

then column which tells how long time it took in MorphOS respectively in Linux

Here is the table and source code:

Code:

/*
ocount icount size Mos Linux
10000000 2 10 56 5
10000000 2 64 53 5
10000000 2 256 55 10
10000000 2 1024 50 9
10000000 2 5120 58 9
10000000 2 10240 59 9
1000000 2 1024000 5 60
1000000 20 10 54 5
1000000 20 64 53 5
1000000 20 256 53 8
1000000 20 1024 58 8
1000000 20 5120 60 8
1000000 20 10240 60 144
100000 20 1024000 6 61
100000 200 10 54 5
100000 200 64 53 5
100000 200 256 54 8
100000 200 1024 63 40
100000 200 5120 65 309
100000 200 10240 64 316
10000 200 1024000 18 75
10000 2000 10 54 5
10000 2000 64 61 10
10000 2000 256 70 29
10000 2000 1024 105 100
10000 2000 5120 129 408
10000 2000 10240 411
*/

//#define HAVE_EXEC

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <time.h>

#ifdef HAVE_EXEC
# include <exec/memory.h>
#endif

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
void **mem;
int ocount, icount, size, j;
time_t t1, t2;

if (argc != 4) {
printf("Usage: mtest <outercount> <innercount> <size>\n");
return 0;
}

ocount = atoi(argv[1]);
icount = atoi(argv[2]);
size = atoi(argv[3]);

mem = malloc(sizeof(void *) * icount);

time(&t1);

for (j = 0; j < ocount; j++) {
int i;

for (i = 0; i < icount; i++) {
#ifndef HAVE_EXEC
mem[i] = malloc(size);
#else
mem[i] = AllocVec(size, MEMF_PUBLIC);
#endif
}

for (i = 0; i < icount; i++) {
#ifdef HAVE_EXEC
FreeVec(mem[i]);
#else
free(mem[i]);
#endif
}
}

time(&t2);

free(mem);

printf("Done... Time elapsed: %fs\n", difftime(t2, t1));

return 0;
}

More to discuss Smile

lisardman - Jan 10, 2006 - 04:09
Post subject:

ja koden ser b0rkad ut..

dholm - Jan 10, 2006 - 07:13
Post subject:

@lisardman:
This forum is in english Razz

@GGS:
Why not run a whetstone or dhrystone benchmark instead. They aren't very high regarded as benchmarks these days but they are a lot better than what you pasted above. The source code to the original whetstone and dhrystone benchmarks are freely available here.
The above benchmark means nothing if it doesn't state what kind of system it was supposed to benchmark (server/desktop/embedded) and how the Linux kernel was compiled to accomodate that particular configuration. Was it compiled to do caching, does it run with preemption (low latency higher context overhead) and so on.

BTW, try enclosing your code in [ code] .. [/code] for readability in the forum since it will be treated as verbatim rather than prose.

lisardman - Jan 10, 2006 - 07:17
Post subject:

dholm wrote:

@lisardman:
This forum is in english Razz

okej then.. The code is b0rked

gunne - Jan 10, 2006 - 08:39
Post subject:

Hello,

Well, at least this guy who made this program and tests have tried to do something himself.

Neither have he tried to explain in the forum why Linux feels behave slower then MorphOS Wink

All the best,

Gunne

dholm - Jan 10, 2006 - 09:35
Post subject:

Yes, it fits well with my "doing things half-assed" comment. Smile

d.olen - Jan 10, 2006 - 09:56
Post subject:

So linux is several times faster than morphos in that test? Numbers in time?

gunne - Jan 10, 2006 - 10:04
Post subject:

d'olen,

Well, as dholm wrote above, its difficult to say how good this code really is. I feel myself the results looks, hmmm.. little bit strange. I compiled and did run it on my Pegasos II with MorphOS and got very different results.

How elapsed time can be so like for different sizes as in the table above looks for me also little strange.

lisardman - Jan 10, 2006 - 10:49
Post subject:

in Linux you have working Altivec such thing doesn't exist in morphos

d.olen - Jan 10, 2006 - 11:38
Post subject:

I guess altivec can do the differense. MorphOS was designed to run on handhelds and the abox was made to run amigaOS system friendly programs which also was made to run on low end hardware. Its not hard to understand if MorphOS behaves faster than Linux on a 1 ghz G4. Even if the linux kernal makes better use of the hardware.
I red somewhere on an amiga software vendors site: this application uses a lot of memory, 16 mb is highly recommended. 128 mb ram was sciense fiction back in the Amiga prime time.
I hope the MorphOS develpment keep its direction being a small superfast OS. After all, thats one of the few things AmigaOS and compatibles are still world beaters at. And hopefully that will enable me to keep my fullscale desktop with me in my pocket!

kozz - Jan 10, 2006 - 14:53
Post subject:

@lisardman
There is a difference between exists and available Wink

That code isn't using Altivec on Linux, but I do not know what that AllocVec function does. Sound like something for Altivec?

dholm - Jan 10, 2006 - 15:32
Post subject:

AllocVec is probably just a malloc-type function that allows you to flag regions of memory, MEMF_PUBLIC meaning the vector is publicly accessible? Although I thought the Amiga API didn't support memory protection so that might not be an entirely correct guess.

gunne - Jan 11, 2006 - 09:47
Post subject:

I have run the mtest I pasted above on Pegasos II with MorphOS now.

Here is the outcome I got:

Code:

ocount icount size MorphOS
10000000 2 10 Time elapsed: 4.000000s
10000000 2 64 Time elapsed: 8.000000s
10000000 2 256 Time elapsed: 8.000000s
10000000 2 1024 Time elapsed: 9.000000s
10000000 2 5120 Time elapsed: 11.000000s
10000000 2 10240 Time elapsed: 12.000000s
1000000 2 1024000 Time elapsed: 1.000000s
1000000 20 10 Time elapsed: 9.000000s
1000000 20 64 Time elapsed: 9.000000s
1000000 20 256 Time elapsed: 8.000000s
1000000 20 1024 Time elapsed: 10.000000s
1000000 20 5120 Time elapsed: 12.000000s
1000000 20 10240 Time elapsed: 12.000000s
100000 20 1024000 Time elapsed: 13.000000s
100000 200 10 Time elapsed: 9.000000s
100000 200 64 Time elapsed: 9.000000s
100000 200 256 Time elapsed: 10.000000s
100000 200 1024 Time elapsed: 13.000000s
100000 200 5120 Time elapsed: 13.000000s
100000 200 10240 Time elapsed: 12.000000s
10000 200 1024000 Time elapsed: 13.000000s
10000 2000 10 Time elapsed: 9.000000s
10000 2000 64 Time elapsed: 12.000000s
10000 2000 256 Time elapsed: 13.000000s
10000 2000 1024 Time elapsed: 13.000000s
10000 2000 5120 Time elapsed: 13.000000s
10000 2000 10240 Time elapsed: 13.000000s

dholm - Jan 11, 2006 - 10:51
Post subject:

Gunne,
Use the code section for verbatim output like I told you otherwise it just makes it more difficult to read your posts.

gunne - Jan 11, 2006 - 11:30
Post subject:

So then ? Each column is not displayed correct strictly up and down here now.

dholm - Jan 11, 2006 - 11:46
Post subject:

Thank you. Smile

It's perfect here. Maybe your web browser has a bug in the CSS parser so that it fails to select a monospace font or you do not have a monospace font either installed or selected in that font group?

I took the liberty of modifying your previous post as well. I hope you don't mind.

gunne - Jan 11, 2006 - 12:06
Post subject:

dholm,

Yes, ok.

Cant answer right up and down how it is in all different browsers. I only know it often tends to look different in different browsers. Whats specified within the pre tag usually looks exactly the same in all browsers if I dont remember wrong from when I tried with different browsers before.

However, its not so big problem for me personally, as Im used to use different systems and browsers Smile

But, when we are on it then. The frontpage on pegasos.org looks little different in Internet Explorer then in other browsers from here. All text in newsitems is for some reason centered, while its left-held in other browsers I use. Maybe it is some setting in IE I not checked, but perhaps also other people notice difference ?

dholm - Jan 11, 2006 - 12:30
Post subject:

It's correctly formatted in Firefox, Konqueror (and therefore likely Safari as well) and Internet Explorer. pre-tags are HTML-code whereas this forum uses bbcode.

gunne - Jan 11, 2006 - 12:41
Post subject:

Sure, but pre is allowed to use as well, at least when I made the post Smile

dholm - Jan 11, 2006 - 12:51
Post subject:

It wasn't pre-formatted in my firefox at least. Anyway, there's a reason why they implemented bbcode instead of just filtering HTML so it's better to stick with it than to try to do fancy non-standard stuff.

lisardman - Jan 11, 2006 - 12:55
Post subject:

nope it was not preformatted

kozz - Jan 11, 2006 - 13:15
Post subject:

It wasn't actually correct om my computer either, it only used Microsofts fonts for monospace (Courier and Courier New). But now I updated the stylesheet too also use the regular Monospace font.

gunne - Jan 11, 2006 - 13:30
Post subject:

Hello,

Maybe there is some bug in the browsers you use ? blob

And I thought pre was a standard Html-tag Wink

dholm - Jan 11, 2006 - 14:10
Post subject:

Quote:

And I thought pre was a standard Html-tag

When is standard HTML equal to standard bbcode and why do you always insist on taking threads way off-topic? If you really want to go on with this discussion instead of just accepting facts please start a new thread.

gunne - Jan 11, 2006 - 15:27
Post subject:

dholm,

Im not taking threads of topic, I clearly want to reject that statement.

It was not me who started talking about possible bugs in browsers.

I tried to explain why I choosed to use pre instead of code in the first place. Because when I did try in different browsers, I found this to look most identical in various browsers. However that was a while back, so it might have changed. I also changed to code when you asked for it. Not the first time, but the second time, and You changed the first post yourself. No problem for me, Im happy people are satisfied with how it behaves and look.

So forward I will try to remember to use bbcode and code if pasting similar texts or such.

Yes, end of discussion. Smile

kozz - Jan 11, 2006 - 23:35
Post subject:

@gunne
Fixed the text center problem in the news for Internet Explorer.

gunne - Jan 12, 2006 - 09:15
Post subject:

kozz,

Great, You are the master !

I checked, and text is left-held now, as in other browsers I also have checked.

zhulien - Jan 13, 2006 - 09:53
Post subject:

dholm wrote:

That isn't an important factor as far as an OS is concerned. If an OS is supposed to cater for morons who don't know what they are doing with their own computer (ie: if they require it to be secure and let it be insecure) then they deserve it. As a computer user/owner/programmer I want my computer to do what I want, if I want to poke around the memory or crash it, so be it. Same with software I run, if I wanted to I could choose to buy all software from specific vendors which might give me a false security in knowing that they will not crash my computer or do anything I don't want them to do. In the end, the OS is there to help the USER do what THEY want to do. If you took M$ Windoze as an example, if M$ really wanted to make it better, they would get rid of all the crap memory protection etc and just fix their networking so that just the networking is secure. People who want to use a web browser in a trusting way can run it in a sandbox. Security or memory protection on my OWN computer is just a pain with zero returns.

zhulien - Jan 13, 2006 - 09:57
Post subject:

ironfist wrote:

Yet I still cannot just copy my operating system from one partition to another easily.

kozz - Jan 14, 2006 - 12:16
Post subject:

For most people the computer is just a tool, I would not trust a user to always do the right thing and run the "right" programs on it. Didn't you know that the goal of an OS is to protect the computer from the user Wink

zhulien - Jan 14, 2006 - 13:50
Post subject:

yeah right Wink

the OS is there to make the user's job using their computer easier whether 'using' means poking around in memory or running a spreadsheet. I definately don't want protection from myself on 'my own computer'.

d.olen - Jan 14, 2006 - 14:19
Post subject:

Yes. AmigaOS was allways about getting close to the system. And I think thats part of what made it fun to use.
And also, I dont think MOS/AOS will ever be the avarage user´s system of choice. It will remain with people who knows what they´re doing and have a great interest in OS´s in general. There will allways be a greater % of the users who will code for such OS´s than f.ex windows and MacOS.
That makes the users more alike on MOS/AOS and therefore such a close community! I do think linux has a bit of that also but not comparable nowdays.

Trizt - Jan 14, 2006 - 23:31
Post subject:

as it is, it never has a possiblity to be anything else than a play ground, but even with important improvements MOS/AOS/AOS4 will still lack hardware drivers, software and games to have to be anything else than somethign people use of sentimental reasons.

d.olen - Jan 15, 2006 - 11:02
Post subject:

For me, no sentimental reasons but because its:
very customizable system and yet easy to use,
boots much faster than f.ex linux,
looks much better on the screen,
more responsive,
close community,
it makes me different,
it has separate screens,
its somewhat a more colorful experience than linux.

I use WinXP mostly because there I can do my job whatever it is, I also have Fedora core installed but rarely uses it because it gives me about the same feeling as XP but does´nt have some few apps I need (XP also boots up much faster). And since I lack interest in such big OSs I prefer XP and would rather have MOS/AOS4 or maybe even Zeta to play around with for fun.

dholm - Jan 15, 2006 - 12:30
Post subject:

Actually it doesn't boot faster than Linux. We proved that with the CrabFire iso as it booted in about 10s from power up compared to MOS which boots in like 12-15 seconds?

lisardman - Jan 15, 2006 - 13:01
Post subject:

earlier mupper booted faster than that.. about 8s

d.olen - Jan 15, 2006 - 14:14
Post subject:

What can I do to make my fedora core boot faster? Its over a minute now!

d.olen - Jan 15, 2006 - 14:16
Post subject:

I read somewhere that MOS booted to full desktop in 5 seconds from firmware! Is that bull?

lisardman - Jan 15, 2006 - 16:08
Post subject:

just turn off some unwanted services..

dholm - Jan 15, 2006 - 16:08
Post subject:

Don't use Fedora Core Razz

Use a distribution that allows you to select a faster boot method.

I seriously doubt it is one of Fedora's business goals to make it boot faster. Fedora is a test bed for RedHat Enterprise and RH is a server OS where boot speed isn't interesting.
Go for a distribution which isn't governed by business goals and that supports using initng or some similar method for "fast boots".

ironfist - Jan 15, 2006 - 16:16
Post subject:

d.olen: CrabFire boots in under 10s from power-up.

OpenFirmware takes a few seconds to reach the prompt..

gunne - Jan 15, 2006 - 17:37
Post subject:

Hello,

My fully loaded MorphOS desktop shows up just in three seconds, withdrawn the 5 seconds boot delay set in SmartFirmware.

MorphOS - always quicker ! Smile

d.olen - Jan 15, 2006 - 17:38
Post subject:

Searched for some info and found nothing but some firewall named crabfire. Where´s the info.
Does ubunt boot faster than fc?

Trizt - Jan 15, 2006 - 17:55
Post subject:

Crabfire

I doubt it will load that much faster, everything of course depends on which services you have enabled, the more the slower startup. Use chkconfig to turn off the services you don't use.

d.olen - Jan 15, 2006 - 18:02
Post subject:

Does chkconfig has a gui?

I´ll check it out, I doubt however that it can be made to boot faster than Gunne´s morphos since I think it´s about 3-4 second just to load the nvidia Gfx driver.

lisardman - Jan 15, 2006 - 18:05
Post subject:

I can say that my morphos don't show up in just 3s it shows up in about 8s

d.olen - Jan 15, 2006 - 18:34
Post subject:

I did some measurements on my asus/athlon64_3400/S-ATA: (maybe twice the power of Pegasos II?)

Windows XP SP2 bootup time from grub menu: 55 s (+5 with some stuff loaded while desktop is usable)
Fedora Core 3 with allmost nothing installed except the distro /no server/no develpment: 2m29s (not counting the time for logging in)

Adding my A4000/040/25: (say 2% the power of my PC?)

AmigaOS 3.1 with some xtra candy like MCX/CyberGFX/MUI: 32s from pressing the powerbutton.

dholm - Jan 15, 2006 - 18:59
Post subject:

My Gentoo boots in 50s flat on a 2GHz amd64 and that is without parallell startup or initng. If you aren't happy with Fedora, switch distribution.

If you strip away functionality from Linux in order to make it on-par with AmigaOS or MorphOS I'm sure you will see similar results in terms of boot-time, responsiveness and usability Razz

kozz - Jan 15, 2006 - 19:07
Post subject:

I don't know about Fedora, never used it. But I had RedHat Enterprise Edition preinstalled on my computer when I got it and it was really slow to boot, since Fedora and RedHat has a lot of things in common I think the same goes for Fedora. I later installed an other distribution on the computer and it booted a lot faster.

Trizt - Jan 15, 2006 - 19:18
Post subject:

@d.olen
GUI for chkconfig, you must be kidding... why does all windows-fags need GUI for everything?
You loose usability when adding GUI to chkconfig

If it takes you over 2 mins to boot into FC3, then something is really screwed with your installation, don't even take that time to boot up my server, which has a lot more services started during boot time than Redhat has default. Disabling IPv6 can in some case make big difference. An upgrade to FC4 couldn't be bad either, or just wait a bit more and then upgrade to FC5.

d.olen - Jan 15, 2006 - 19:38
Post subject:

Maybe I shall try my Ubuntu 5.1 cd.

And about the GUI thing, I have not taken the time yet to learn the linux commands. So I need a gui or some hours of education!
Maybe Ubuntu is fancy enough for that effort. A few years of active windows-use makes you lazy! Everything is just flying from any media to everywhere on the HD and when it does´nt work you´re clueless.

lisardman - Jan 15, 2006 - 19:48
Post subject:

windows suxx thou

Trizt - Jan 15, 2006 - 20:15
Post subject:

@d.olen
command line commands are quite easy to use, specially when they usualy come with a manual page
man chkconfig
and you can read how to use the command, it takes you max 5 minutes to figure out how to use chkconfig, but of course that requires reading skills Smile

dholm - Jan 15, 2006 - 20:21
Post subject:

Be nice

ironfist - Jan 15, 2006 - 22:34
Post subject:

Trizt - Jan 15, 2006 - 22:47
Post subject:

Nice invisible inc... Smile