Epic and MS...

[kafros]

No decent software in Windows has required a system restart for quite some time.

I guess anti-virus software is not decent. Neither are windows updates. Neither sql server, visual studio, .NET framework... should I go on?

There are plenty of problems with the registry, but slowdowns after 36 hours is one of them. Uptime for Windows 2000 or XP can easily be months if you don't want to update your drivers.

Uptime isn't months, not because of blue screens but because of slowdowns. You answered yourself nicely on this one.

I may sound like MS bashing, but think about it for one minute: The bigest software company in the world, with unlimited (for all practical purposes) money and resources, and 20 years experience on desktop OS, cannot give us an OS that does not need reboot every week (for performance reasons at least)?

Are we happy with an OS written over a period of 5 years which costs as much as the computer it is run on (Vista Ultimate)?

/end offtopic

 

[hal]

You reboot every week for performance reasons??

 

[haarg]

I guess anti-virus software is not decent. Neither are windows updates. Neither sql server, visual studio, .NET framework... should I go on?

Most of those things are libraries and kernel related things, not general software. And I don't know of any anti-virus software I would call decent. Library updates like that don't require a restart in Linux, but these aren't the days of Windows 95 where any install needed a reboot.

Uptime isn't months, not because of blue screens but because of slowdowns. You answered yourself nicely on this one.

Sorry, that was a mistype. I meant that the registry isn't a performance problem, or at least not in that way.

 

[_Lynx]

The 360 has a better community-based infrastructure, a better marketplace, a better mid-game communication interface, better chatting mechanism, more interesting "arcade" options, most of the games people want to play...

I might add easier programming. Those additional SPPs of Cell - programmers pretty much have to feed them with code themselves, instead of allowing CPU handling threads himself.

Also saying the 360 is better than the ps3 is just wrong. If you look at what the ps3 has standard, like blu-ray, and full hd support you'll notice xbawx is in its shadow.

First, see above. Programming for PS3 is hard - many companies admitted that. IF software is not adapted well to Cell it's going to be slow (f.e. iirc NHL08 runs on 30fps on PS3 and 60 on Xbox 360). Second, what standard? Games are not films, they don't necessary need much lot of space to provide Full-HD picture. I might even say a terrible thing to you, what's needed is easily fit on on DVD9. F.e. UT3 on PC takes 7,5Gb 2Gb of which are videos. I doubt it uses more on PS3, more like less, because it has no exclusive content on disk, and the memory restrictions are pretty much the same on both consoles. Also, you'd be surprised that a lot of games that were released on both Xbox and PS3 look pretty much the same. The difference in graphics is very subtle (if it's there), and it's now always Xbox 360 who loses in the comparison. So, given the games look the same on both consoles, it is much different what media the game is sold on? There are just a few games that use more then 8.5Gb of disk space, but otherwise there is no sense in using Blu-Ray. Mostly this is just a marketing move, which gives PS3 nothing except there's no need to change disks and watch certain movies that got released on Blu-Ray. How much of them released every month - 10? So, so far, if we talk about gaming, both consoles are on par, with PS3 "featuring" performance issues with some games, and Xbox having closed enviroment.

 

[Dark Pulse]

Codetechnical Linux is waaaay better, and safer. Just for the record: we do not need to restart our computer when we install something. We don't have the some awesome registry system that makes the OS go slow after using the computer more then 36 hours. We have a system that respects permissions on files and folders which is one of the reasons it DOES make it way more safe.

[sarcasm]Oh no wait, I was kidding. Your right: On the German hackers conference challenge Windows Vista was hacked* in 30 minutes, which is awesome, compared to the 90 minutes of OSX and the still standing Linux after one day...[/sarcasm]

And you're missing the whole point. Nobody hacks Linux because a very, very small percentage of people use it.

If suddenly, overnight, everyone switched from Windows to Linux, how long do you think it'd be before millions of computer hackers are finding weak points in systems? Remember, DOS and Windows co-existed for awhile, and while there were lots of Viruses during its heyday, there wasn't nearly as many attacks on Windows... it took Windows 95 and its large user base to make it more attractive to hackers.

If everyone switched to Linux overnight, that security would be getting a hell of a test... and the hackers would win. A few people on one day won't crack it, but millions of hackers putting in billions of man-hours? Eventually something would be found, because no code is perfect, nor will it ever be. No matter how secure man attempts to make something, there is always a way around it.

Security through Obscurity is a reason Linux is safe - why spend weeks chipping away at a system and piss off perhaps 10,000 people when you can do it for Windows and piss off 10 million?

 

[haarg]

If you think Linux's security isn't well tested, you are very much mistaken.

 

[Dark Pulse]

I know it is, I'm not saying it isn't. But the more attractive (Read: Widespread) a target is, the more people and man-hours that will be spent trying to crack it.

 

[Renegade Retard]

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that Linux is holding back Linux gaming?

The only thing holding Linux back from gaming is Linux...

Plagiarism!!!

 

[Godfrey.Payans]

I know it is, I'm not saying it isn't. But the more attractive (Read: Widespread) a target is, the more people and man-hours that will be spent trying to crack it.

A common counterexample to this view is Apache web servers, which are very attractive and widespread targets, and yet they just don't have the history of failure that software written by MS does.

People have enough bad experiences with MS software to shake one's confidence in the quality of their work. Part of that is because they are a vague entity that is responsible for much more than any individual Linux group would be. So for example an X-Windows problem is not considered the fault of the Linux kernel developers, and vice versa. With MS, who's to say that the jackass responsible for Access silently losing data when a file reaches 2GB, hasn't also done some work on the file system storing your gigabytes of family photos?

 

[zynthetic]

Apache and IIS have a roughly equal amount of results in CERT vulnerability studies. IIS servers running pirated copies of Windows inflate the actual number of vulnerable servers, not IIS itself.

 

[kafros]

You reboot every week for performance reasons??

I use my PC for development (Visual Studio 2005, sql server 2000, Win XP SP2). After a few days, memory usage and disk usage mandate a restart (restarting SQL server service and closing/reopening VS does not help - I guess windows caches too much stuff).

Serfing the internet and gaming do not seem to require freequent restarts