Linked by Daniel Allen on Sun 18th Jan 2004 21:16 UTC
I want to start off by saying that MandrakeMove is an incredible distribution and I am going to focus on some rather particular points in this review. My hope is to make the community aware of some of the outstanding issues with running MandrakeMove and not to discredit the countless hours Mandrake employees spent on making such a polished product. We all want Linux to succeed and that can only be accomplished by continuing to test, report and ask why or why not? The lifecycle of linux is like an organism, it has to keep breathing to stay alive.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Hi all...
Just wanted to mention that I have a flash card reader that barely works under windows, in spite of being the target platform, and if connected on boot, makes the boot process hang. Works sometimes if you plug it in afterward, but kills the boot.
Always buy quality USB components!
Dear Manav: it depends what you want to compare, really, if you choose to look at the Linux and NT kernels. To a great extent, it depends what result you actually want to return as well. The old Micro/Monolithic kernel debate has been done to death, and while counter to early 90's wisdom, the Linux kernel bucks the trend for monolithic kernels.
In terms of final results, you need only look at the uptime of Linux systems and the fewer security issues than the NT kernel for the most part to judge it. At the same time, it depends what you want it for.
Personally, I think the Server 2003 kernel looks very good and solid, and that the NT codebase, with that product has finally achieved parity with the Linux kernel in terms of stability and security.
Windows systems still require more resources in general, however, and that is just life. Taking a look at servers, Apache serves more pages, faster and to more users than IIS does under Server 2003. That's why Microsoft shops have, for the past five years, been splitting their mail, file, printer and web servers into separate boxes. Then adding fallover systems for those (due to stability, which server 2003 will hopefully correct) and the server count gets large. With per server per user licensing, this is the main reason why Windows deployments have cost companies so much money.
Anyway, I'm rambling. The question of whether making a stable product is a good idea based on the fact that it will halve client licenses in many cases is something Microsoft managment are, I guess, still chewing over.