Learn more about Charles Darwin and his work.
Looking for stuff about birds?
Lean more about lions
Linux in Exile has refined the empirical test of which operating system boots more often. Details and discussion here.
Of course, it also matters that Windows requires constant rebooting for the purpose of routine maintanance, while Linux does not, so the total 'boot wait' time (TBWT) for the two systems is so different that they really can't be compared at all.
Meanwhile, ...the new Linux Kernel (2.6.10) has faster boot time and will run faster than the previous Kernel.
Thanks to the already implemented fastboot patches, the new Kernel 2.6.30 has the ability to recognize hard disks simultaneously and therefore significantly quicker. Ext 4 operates more securely, and Ext 3 increases performance.Kernel 2.6.30 has arrived, and along with Tux as the old new mascot, is accompanied by an assortment of modifications to the new data system Ext 4.
Those of you who have been following the ext4 maneno will want to read the whole story here at Linux Magazine.
Technology
Comments
The linked post says nothing at all about "which operating system boots more often" - all it talks about is boot time. Now, while I'll certainly grant that Linux boots a darn sight faster than my Win2k3 Server, since I can't remember the last time I actually had to reboot the thing, it doesn't really matter, does it?
The trick to not having to constantly reboot for routine maintenance turned out to be uninstalling Adobe Acrobat Reader - that was my main cause of maintenance reboots. Like I've said before, the fact that lots of people write really, really shitty software for Windows is not actually the fault of the OS itself - it's a factor of its popularity. If Linux had the same market penetration, you can bet that just as many people would be writing equally shitty software for it too.
Posted by: Dunc | June 18, 2009 5:20 AM
I spent last night fixing my uncle's windoze system. The main problem turned out to be some dodgy anti-virus software which ground the system to a halt as it powered up. Took an age to even realise it was running (2% CPU usage, no memory problems, and still it took 2 minutes just to get a response to hitting the 'windows' button). Pathetic.
There's the practical difference. On a domestic system that gets turned on and off every day, Windoze spends an age loading up unnecessary shit that shouldn't even need to be there. ..and always just when you need it fast.
In the end, after 5 or 6 reboots, the thing booted in two minutes; it had been fifteen. Next time, I'm taking an Ubuntu live CD with me...
Posted by: davem | June 18, 2009 12:41 PM
The linked post says nothing at all about "which operating system boots more often"
Is there some rule that I'm not allowed to express a thought of my own?
Dunc, your concept of where crappiness comes from (sheer numbers) is deeply flawed, IMHO. If I may express one, thank you.
Jeesh.
Posted by: Greg Laden | June 18, 2009 1:18 PM
@Dunc:
Since similar software packages are available for Windows and Linux, written by different communities. I would posit that, since less 'shitty software' is written for Linux, this is still a problem with Windows.
Posted by: Ben Zvan | June 18, 2009 7:00 PM
Of course not. But that's not exactly how the sentence "Linux in Exile has refined the empirical test of which operating system boots more often" reads, at least to me.
Posted by: Dunc | June 19, 2009 4:38 AM