Posts by Tim7 posts • joined Tuesday 17th April 2007 04:22 GMT
Yeah that's what we need, run a $hit OS on top of a $hit OS. I can't see why anyone would want to run VMs on top of Windoze. Think patching, and instability. If you work in a datacenter where they force you to use Windoze on the servers then you know how many times processes hang on a Windoze box. I have no problem with running it on top of Linux or another 'nix platform because that would actually make sense. Patch one VM while running another instance of it and no down time but IMHO it is suicide to run VMs on Windoze no matter what the host virtualization software is.
-Tim
Yeah that's what we need, Citrix owning Xensource. That piece of crap has to be the worst app I have ever supported. Citrix on every server...NOT!
Too bad. Xen was promising, especially with all the support for Linux. Vmware Server has proved to be mch better for me though and it's free. What will Citrix do with free Xen? Kill it probably, they were never known for free or cheap, just buggy.
"My PC took far too much time in finding files for programs to use, in finding directory items, thumbnails etc. Very annoying. After rebuilding the index, which takes time, the machine was as fast as ever. Lovely."
You are missing the whole point. The OS shouldn't take eons to locate files in the first place. The system is obviously so bloated it has to use another service to "find" itself. Wonderful.
-Tim
If they had started putting back 323,000 per year back when they knew they had 15 years to pay it, they would have had the money. Obviously since they never budgeted for it, they had no intention of paying the bill. This is not IBMs problem, this is how badly American school systems are managed here. It makes you wonder when private schools do better with about 1/10 of what the public schools spend doesn't it?
The real problem is that the OS is inherently insecure as it is written. M$ continued insistence on backward compatibility all the way to DOS is a major problem.
To answer the above poster, the difference is that in Unix (or Linux) one program would not be able to run at such a level to take down the entire system. The design of any Unix OS is much different than Windoze and naturally more secure, even when running X in stupid mode.
If you read the article it doesn't say anything about Apple. It says they recommend Linux.....which the last time I looked, was free.
Hard to argue with THAT now isn't it, Webster?
Can anyone believe they run Windoze on those desktops? Surely you jest.
I dare say if they ran a naturally resistant OS, they might have many less problems with compromise. MacOS, Linux, etc., anything but that insecure piece of garbage.
Open standards would also make it easy to switch to other platforms if need be to stay ahead of the bad guys.
-Tim
