Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 1st May 2006 03:03 UTC
Windows Kurt Hudson explains tricks to optimize applications on multiprocessor computers, even if those applications were developed without such systems in mind.
Thread beginning with comment 119875
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Only for Windows users
by ivans on Mon 1st May 2006 14:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Only for Windows users"
ivans
Member since:
2005-12-03

IRIX was running 64-bit MIPS in 91

And System/38 (and later AS/400) had 64b/128b non-VNA architecture more than 10 years before IRIX and NT (or any other OS) ....your point is what?

You claimed that Linux and *nix general embraced SMP much earlier than NT, which supported it as an original design goal? That sounds like trolling to me.

Linux did not support SMP from the start. It would have been a stupid design choice, given its target market and resources to begin with.

Yes, having a big f.... kernel lock for 11 years has nothing to do with incomptence of it's developers...yeah right.

Yeah I imagine it would have been at least 2 years
before it was running on 1024 CPU systems in '04.


On penny-stock almost-bankrupt SGI systems? LOL ;)

And WNT of its instability and security holes? ;)

I presume the last time you used Windows was back in the mid-1990s...right?

As for the security: not so long ago, almost everyone could trade linux 0days on undernet..

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Only for Windows users
by nick on Tue 2nd May 2006 01:50 in reply to "RE[6]: Only for Windows users"
nick Member since:
2006-04-17

And System/38 (and later AS/400) had 64b/128b non-VNA architecture more than 10 years before IRIX and NT (or any other OS) ....your point is what?

That unix was 64-bit before NT. Are you incapable of
reading?

You claimed that Linux and *nix general embraced SMP much earlier than NT, which supported it as an original design goal? That sounds like trolling to me.

No, you troll. I said it was running on *dual core*
hardware earlier. Dual core, not SMP, was the original
question.

Yes, having a big f.... kernel lock for 11 years has nothing to do with incomptence of it's developers... yeah right.

It did not have a big kernel lock for 11 years. I think
you are the incompetent liar and troll.

On penny-stock almost-bankrupt SGI systems? LOL ;)

Yeah, and multi billion dollar companies like HP and
IBM are only able to run NT on 64 CPU systems. LOL ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Only for Windows users
by nick on Tue 2nd May 2006 01:55 in reply to "RE[6]: Only for Windows users"
nick Member since:
2006-04-17

I presume the last time you used Windows was back in the mid-1990s...right?

Is that the last time you read about an NT remote
code execution security bug? Oh yeah I fogot: you can't
read properly.

As for the security: not so long ago, almost everyone could trade linux 0days on undernet..

The Linux kernel? Remote code execution? Very rare.
Far less often than NT.

Back then, Linux was a hobby OS that was hacked on by
a bunch of people in their spare time and you could
download for free. What's NT's excuse?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Only for Windows users
by Hugo on Tue 2nd May 2006 15:53 in reply to "RE[7]: Only for Windows users"
Hugo Member since:
2005-07-06

"What's NT's excuse?"

People actually use it as a desktop??!

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Only for Windows users
by Ookaze on Tue 2nd May 2006 11:20 in reply to "RE[6]: Only for Windows users"
Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

You claimed that Linux and *nix general embraced SMP much earlier than NT, which supported it as an original design goal? That sounds like trolling to me.

I think you're mistaken, the people I read here talked about Linux being more embraced on 64 bit dual-core CPU.
They don't talk about SMP but about dual-core CPU. Your kernel working on a 64 bit CPU, or supporting SMP, does not mean it works on a dual-core 64 bit CPU.

Yes, having a big f.... kernel lock for 11 years has nothing to do with incomptence of it's developers...yeah right.

You should not talk about incompetence of Linux developers, when even with the big kernel lock, the Linux kernel was running circles around other kernels which supposedly do not have one big lock, some kernels you know very well.
Big kernel lock is not the bad thing you imply it is, though it can hurt bad on SMP.

On penny-stock almost-bankrupt SGI systems? LOL ;)

Which does not remove the fact that Linux actually runs on 1024+ CPU ...

I presume the last time you used Windows was back in the mid-1990s...right?

I think it was less than 2 years ago that IBM produced the results of several OS/kernels under their test stress, and NT could not finish some of them, while Linux worked flawlessly on all of them. The stress test involved things like running at 100 % CPU and different high loads for one month.

As for the security: not so long ago, almost everyone could trade linux 0days on undernet..

Trade perhaps, working 0days exploit I have far more doubts, except is "not so long ago" is at least 6 years to you.
Don't come bragging about security when talking about NT kernel, please. Given that Windows is the only OS running on it, and that the kernel security features are not even exploited by this OS, we can't know the actual security quality of NT kernel, and can only assume it is very bad. Why ? Because the only OS on top of it is actually allowed to do things considered highly dangerous security wise in a Linux kernel (for example).
People often cite numerous NT security features, but given MS products quality and how they are not used by Windows, these are just a list of features, we don't know if they work as advertised, we don't know if they even work or are usable.

Reply Parent Score: 1