Log in

No account? Create an account
letters to my life - Princess — LiveJournal
letters to my life
Dear 8 am presentations to head honcho people,

Hate you so very very much.


Dear Computer,

Hate you so very very much. You are super fast and have a great keyboard but what is with this crashing thing?!


Dear Oysters,

You're not so bad. Especially when covered with an area hot sauce and horseradish that exceeds your own.

Betcha don't often get eaten by chopsticks,

Current Mood: annoyed annoyed

4 comments or Leave a comment
From: gorski Date: April 9th, 2002 06:23 am (UTC) (Link)
You need BSD. :)

iltamies From: iltamies Date: April 9th, 2002 03:39 pm (UTC) (Link)
She needs something that >< Windows, if she wants to avoid crashing. Stability is much improved, yes. To use the simple and overused uptime: My windows box, less than 4 days at a time. My OpenBSD box... 20 days, which is pathetic. I had ISP issues that required a reboot. My Slackware Linux box... 34 days. Again because of ISP. I had an uptime of 342 days on one of my Linux servers. But, to Window's credit, both Windows 2000 and Windows XP (Pro) can be fairly stable when run on a big machine. I have a friend who's Win2k Server had a 178 day uptime before he had to reboot it. But it wasn't doing anything except authentication for the network.
From: gorski Date: April 9th, 2002 05:21 pm (UTC) (Link)
20 days? Man, you'd think you dumped your Coke and pretzels into the case or something. Even OpenBSD isn't that bad, usually :) , and the people who want "rock" stability usually turn to NetBSD...

Slackware can be pretty respectable for Linux... mostly because it expects you to hand-tune almost everything anyways. But that can be a lot of work, and you still end up with a Linux box.

...if a Windows box isn't doing anything, the pervasive and ubiquitous memory leaks don't have a chance to catch up to it... and if it's well enough protected (I'm thinking usually "inside a firewall"), nobody'll have the chance to knock it over. Sure, I'd buy that a Windows machine could stay up for a couple months if it wasn't doing anything...

My roommate went out and purchased an XP box the weekend I was out of town (and couldn't suggest he reconsider). It's a Pentium-IV that clocks in at a whopping 1.5GHz. ...XP may be stable, but it's amazing how slow a 1.5GHz machine can be with the right[0] OS.

'Course, it is a Pentium-IV, with a pipeline so deep it can't be filled and a crippling amount of trace cache... but that should still behave like an Athlon 700 or so, not like '98 on a Pentium-200.

Some people argue that it's "stable"; I'd assert that XP just takes that long to finish the crash which it began days before...

<geek> ...By the way, I almost thought you meant X-Windows at first...I assume you know the broken-X emblem of which the >< made me think. But at a better guess, you meant to kluge Pascal's "not-equal", that is, <> , which C spells as != , Fortran-90 as /= , older Fortrans as .ne. , PL/I as ¬= , or mathematicians simply as ≠? </geek>



[0] by which I mean "wrong"
iltamies From: iltamies Date: April 9th, 2002 06:10 pm (UTC) (Link)


Yeah, agreed. And I couldn't remember which way it was, it's been four years since I've written anything in Pascal. *shudders just remembering*

I also forgot that the reason I went down was to physically add hardware on my OpenBSD box, 20 days ago.
4 comments or Leave a comment