f



Anyone using Linux to play games?

I'm wondering how driver support is for Linux. I have a AMD 64, Geforce FX 5900
Santa Cruz slound card.. Getting sick and tired of the constant virus attacks
on Win2k. Any comments on which linux to use?Thanks,Dawg
0
yanquidawg (158)
11/7/2004 10:38:01 PM
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action 14509 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

50 Replies
825 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 39

YanquiDawg wrote:
> I'm wondering how driver support is for Linux. I have a AMD 64, Geforce FX 5900
> Santa Cruz slound card.. Getting sick and tired of the constant virus attacks
> on Win2k. Any comments on which linux to use?Thanks,Dawg

What virus attacks are you "getting sick and tired" of? I haven't had a 
single virus infect my machine. Ever.

Try a virus checker. Linus too is susceptible to virus attacks although 
not as many due to its smaller customer base.

If you're a serious game player don't even think about the making this 
move, no matter what the beards tell you.
0
mitticus1 (1908)
11/7/2004 10:44:38 PM
Thus spake Walter Mitty <mitticus@yahoo.co.uk>, Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:44:38
+0100, Anno Domini:

>YanquiDawg wrote:
>> I'm wondering how driver support is for Linux. I have a AMD 64, Geforce FX 5900
>> Santa Cruz slound card.. Getting sick and tired of the constant virus attacks
>> on Win2k. Any comments on which linux to use?Thanks,Dawg
>
>What virus attacks are you "getting sick and tired" of? I haven't had a 
>single virus infect my machine. Ever.
>
>Try a virus checker. Linus too is susceptible to virus attacks although 
>not as many due to its smaller customer base.

Now there is the most ignorant, misinformed post I have read all year! So
much so, that it does not dignify a detailed response. >8^D

>If you're a serious game player don't even think about the making this 
>move, no matter what the beards tell you.

Spoken like a man who has never even seen X-Windows/Lindows/Wine, much less
a Korn shell. ;-p

-- 
Replace 'spamfree' with ('k__umcgl_' + ascii 123456789) to reply via email.
0
nostromo (1399)
11/8/2004 6:49:58 AM
Nostromo wrote:
> Thus spake Walter Mitty <mitticus@yahoo.co.uk>, Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:44:38
> +0100, Anno Domini:
> 
> 
>>YanquiDawg wrote:
>>
>>>I'm wondering how driver support is for Linux. I have a AMD 64, Geforce FX 5900
>>>Santa Cruz slound card.. Getting sick and tired of the constant virus attacks
>>>on Win2k. Any comments on which linux to use?Thanks,Dawg
>>
>>What virus attacks are you "getting sick and tired" of? I haven't had a 
>>single virus infect my machine. Ever.
>>
>>Try a virus checker. Linus too is susceptible to virus attacks although 
>>not as many due to its smaller customer base.
> 
> 
> Now there is the most ignorant, misinformed post I have read all year! So
> much so, that it does not dignify a detailed response. >8^D

Really why? Get googling.

> 
> 
>>If you're a serious game player don't even think about the making this 
>>move, no matter what the beards tell you.
> 
> 
> Spoken like a man who has never even seen X-Windows/Lindows/Wine, much less
> a Korn shell. ;-p
> 

Or a Bourn or a Csh eh? Bring it on.

The only "windows first" games which run natively are those with OpenGL. 
The emulators have serious overheads and with "direct to metal" programs 
such as high sped games, frequently have problems.

Are you really trying to suggest that Linux is a viable alternative for 
a games player? As an OS for enws, mail, office apps etc sure : but for 
games?

I'm not trashing Linux here.

-- 
Walter Mitty
-
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=plagiarism
http://www.tinyurl.com
0
mitticus1 (1908)
11/8/2004 7:16:42 AM
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:44:38 +0100, Walter Mitty
<mitticus@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>YanquiDawg wrote:
>> I'm wondering how driver support is for Linux. I have a AMD 64, Geforce FX 5900
>> Santa Cruz slound card.. Getting sick and tired of the constant virus attacks
>> on Win2k. Any comments on which linux to use?Thanks,Dawg
>
>What virus attacks are you "getting sick and tired" of? I haven't had a 
>single virus infect my machine. Ever.

I've recently had two friends of mine (not PC experts and not heavy PC
users) contact me asking how to remove certain viruses from their PCs
that their commercial virus scanner can detect, but can't remove from
their system. I have no idea how their machines have got infected
because they use commercial virus scanners and firewalls, and don't
use any pirated software. But it does seem to happen from time to
time.

>Try a virus checker. Linus too is susceptible to virus attacks although 
>not as many due to its smaller customer base.

That's just not true. There are many technical reasons why Linux and
unix variants are much less susceptible to viruses, worms etc. than
WindowsXP, there was a pretty detailed article about this awhile ago,
I'll try to find it for anyone who's interested. For starters, in
Linux people are not forced to use root/admin account as often as in
WindowsXP, and I know too many XP users who are using admin account
100% of the time WITH NO ADMIN PASSWORD!

Nevertheless, Service Pack 2 provided much needed extra security to
XP, but still...

>If you're a serious game player don't even think about the making this 
>move, no matter what the beards tell you.

The only part where I agree with you in this. New PC games are better
played on pure WindowsXP, period.

0
riku7653 (682)
11/8/2004 8:59:06 AM
Thus spake Walter Mitty <mitticus@yahoo.co.uk>, Mon, 08 Nov 2004 08:16:42
+0100, Anno Domini:

>Nostromo wrote:
>> Thus spake Walter Mitty <mitticus@yahoo.co.uk>, Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:44:38
>> +0100, Anno Domini:
>> 
>> 
>>>YanquiDawg wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm wondering how driver support is for Linux. I have a AMD 64, Geforce FX 5900
>>>>Santa Cruz slound card.. Getting sick and tired of the constant virus attacks
>>>>on Win2k. Any comments on which linux to use?Thanks,Dawg
>>>
>>>What virus attacks are you "getting sick and tired" of? I haven't had a 
>>>single virus infect my machine. Ever.
>>>
>>>Try a virus checker. Linus too is susceptible to virus attacks although 
>>>not as many due to its smaller customer base.
>> 
>> 
>> Now there is the most ignorant, misinformed post I have read all year! So
>> much so, that it does not dignify a detailed response. >8^D
>
>Really why? Get googling.

The Linux kernel by its very nature is 'virus-proof' - there have been maybe
3 known attacks on it that have semi-succeeded over the past few years, 2 of
which were DoS attacks, which can almost not be termed a virus vulnerability
per se.

>> 
>> 
>>>If you're a serious game player don't even think about the making this 
>>>move, no matter what the beards tell you.
>> 
>> 
>> Spoken like a man who has never even seen X-Windows/Lindows/Wine, much less
>> a Korn shell. ;-p
>> 
>
>Or a Bourn or a Csh eh? Bring it on.

Nice to know you know ;-)

>The only "windows first" games which run natively are those with OpenGL. 
>The emulators have serious overheads and with "direct to metal" programs 
>such as high sped games, frequently have problems.
>
>Are you really trying to suggest that Linux is a viable alternative for 
>a games player? As an OS for enws, mail, office apps etc sure : but for 
>games?

No, but it runs several *very* popular games quite well enough. Having said
that, if a person is mainly interested in these OpenGL games, it is
workable, though I wouldn't even go there myself, being the Windows whore
that I am. >8^D

>I'm not trashing Linux here.

Neither am I - & I should - I've gotta work with the damn OS! :)

-- 
Replace 'spamfree' with ('k__umcgl_' + ascii 123456789) to reply via email.
0
nostromo (1399)
11/8/2004 11:37:32 AM
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:49:58 +1100, Nostromo
<nostromo@spamfree.net.au> wrote:


>Spoken like a man who has never even seen X-Windows/Lindows/Wine, much less
>a Korn shell. ;-p

I have, and in fact have Linux on my other PC right now. I wouldn't
even consider using it for my main gaming machine.
0
no8898 (333)
11/8/2004 2:41:49 PM
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 22:37:32 +1100, Nostromo
<nostromo@spamfree.net.au> wrote:


>No, but it runs several *very* popular games quite well enough. 

*Several* is very few games in the Wintel world.
0
no8898 (333)
11/8/2004 2:43:51 PM
Mike Kirkland wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 22:37:32 +1100, Nostromo
> <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>No, but it runs several *very* popular games quite well enough. 
> 
> 
> *Several* is very few games in the Wintel world.

My point exactly. In addition, I note no withdraw of the statement about 
Linux virus issues :)
0
mitticus1 (1908)
11/8/2004 2:55:23 PM
Nostromo wrote:
> Thus spake Walter Mitty <mitticus@yahoo.co.uk>, Mon, 08 Nov 2004 08:16:42
> +0100, Anno Domini:
> 
> 
>>Nostromo wrote:
>>
>>>Thus spake Walter Mitty <mitticus@yahoo.co.uk>, Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:44:38
>>>+0100, Anno Domini:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>YanquiDawg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I'm wondering how driver support is for Linux. I have a AMD 64, Geforce FX 5900
>>>>>Santa Cruz slound card.. Getting sick and tired of the constant virus attacks
>>>>>on Win2k. Any comments on which linux to use?Thanks,Dawg
>>>>
>>>>What virus attacks are you "getting sick and tired" of? I haven't had a 
>>>>single virus infect my machine. Ever.
>>>>
>>>>Try a virus checker. Linus too is susceptible to virus attacks although 
>>>>not as many due to its smaller customer base.
>>>
>>>
>>>Now there is the most ignorant, misinformed post I have read all year! So
>>>much so, that it does not dignify a detailed response. >8^D
>>
>>Really why? Get googling.
> 
> 
> The Linux kernel by its very nature is 'virus-proof' - there have been maybe
> 3 known attacks on it that have semi-succeeded over the past few years, 2 of
> which were DoS attacks, which can almost not be termed a virus vulnerability
> per se.

because its not targeted. Linux systems running as web servers with, 
say, apache, frequently are. Linux is SW too and any SW which allows 
exes or scripts to be downloaded are susceptible. Nearly all the windows 
viruses are one of the same - idiots opening scripts which power off the 
same to all or selected recipients from the users outlook address book. 
Windows has settings to prevent this, in addition to multiple excellent 
3rd party virus and trojan checkers.

> 
> 
>>>
>>>>If you're a serious game player don't even think about the making this 
>>>>move, no matter what the beards tell you.
>>>
>>>
>>>Spoken like a man who has never even seen X-Windows/Lindows/Wine, much less
>>>a Korn shell. ;-p
>>>
>>
>>Or a Bourn or a Csh eh? Bring it on.
> 
> 
> Nice to know you know ;-)
> 

I really don't see how x-windows has anything whatsoever to do with 
windows running games under linux. The emulators yes. And as for the 
shells : handy for extracting a rar or tar file maybe, not much else :)

> 
>>The only "windows first" games which run natively are those with OpenGL. 
>>The emulators have serious overheads and with "direct to metal" programs 
>>such as high sped games, frequently have problems.
>>
>>Are you really trying to suggest that Linux is a viable alternative for 
>>a games player? As an OS for enws, mail, office apps etc sure : but for 
>>games?
> 
> 
> No, but it runs several *very* popular games quite well enough. Having said
> that, if a person is mainly interested in these OpenGL games, it is
> workable, though I wouldn't even go there myself, being the Windows whore
> that I am. >8^D

Yeah. very popular games might well be ported or written using very 
basic Windows API - they will run under windows emulators. But the 
market doesn not warrant most games having that effort put into it. So I 
really don't see why you were disagreeing in your original reply.

> 
> 
>>I'm not trashing Linux here.
> 
> 
> Neither am I - & I should - I've gotta work with the damn OS! :)
> 


-- 
Walter Mitty
-
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=plagiarism
http://www.tinyurl.com
0
mitticus1 (1908)
11/8/2004 3:00:27 PM
riku wrote:

> 
> I've recently had two friends of mine (not PC experts and not heavy PC
> users) contact me asking how to remove certain viruses from their PCs
> that their commercial virus scanner can detect, but can't remove from
> their system.

Try identifying the files concerned, booting into Safe Mode Command
Prompt Only and manually deleting them.

>  I have no idea how their machines have got infected
> because they use commercial virus scanners and firewalls, and don't
> use any pirated software. But it does seem to happen from time to
> time.

Do they open emails they shouldn't? Are they susceptible to the various
security holes in Windows / IE and do they keep their machines patched
up?

>  I know too many XP users who are using admin account
> 100% of the time WITH NO ADMIN PASSWORD!

That's user stupidity, not XP's fault. It's suicidal on a 2000/Xp PC
with a broadband connection - all yout have to do is connect via a
terminal services session, log into Windows as admin and there you go.



-- 
|
| Take it from our drummer Puff, being good it gets you stuff.
|
0
11/8/2004 3:48:57 PM
Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> wrote in message news:<7amuo0hs0dcgr6ftn335qguo0lbl4ejh86@4ax.com>...
> Thus spake Walter Mitty <mitticus@yahoo.co.uk>, Mon, 08 Nov 2004 08:16:42
> +0100, Anno Domini:
> 
> >Nostromo wrote:
> >> Thus spake Walter Mitty <mitticus@yahoo.co.uk>, Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:44:38
> >> +0100, Anno Domini:
> >> 
> >> 
> >>>YanquiDawg wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>I'm wondering how driver support is for Linux. I have a AMD 64, Geforce FX 5900
> >>>>Santa Cruz slound card.. Getting sick and tired of the constant virus attacks
> >>>>on Win2k. Any comments on which linux to use?Thanks,Dawg
> >>>
> >>>What virus attacks are you "getting sick and tired" of? I haven't had a 
> >>>single virus infect my machine. Ever.
> >>>
> >>>Try a virus checker. Linus too is susceptible to virus attacks although 
> >>>not as many due to its smaller customer base.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Now there is the most ignorant, misinformed post I have read all year! So
> >> much so, that it does not dignify a detailed response. >8^D
> >
> >Really why? Get googling.
> 
> The Linux kernel by its very nature is 'virus-proof' - there have been maybe
> 3 known attacks on it that have semi-succeeded over the past few years, 2 of
> which were DoS attacks, which can almost not be termed a virus vulnerability
> per se.

No, it's not. That's a big, fat myth. Just because you're running on a
userlevel rather than root level doesn't mean you're secure from
viruses or exploits. If you can run a binary attachment, you can get a
virus. Period. No, it might not take down your system or compromise
the box - but it can delete everything you got stored your user
account.

Hey, I love Linux for the competition it brings on the table. Without
it, Microsoft wouldn't have to work as hard to bring Windows up to
date as they're forced to do now. But Linux is not a holy grail of
stability and security. Seriously. Subscribe to the security mailing
list hosted at seifried.org:
http://lists.seifried.org/mailman/listinfo/security and take a look
the multitudes of vulnerabilities discovered every day in open source
(as well as closed source) software.
 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>>If you're a serious game player don't even think about the making this 
> >>>move, no matter what the beards tell you.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Spoken like a man who has never even seen X-Windows/Lindows/Wine, much less
> >> a Korn shell. ;-p
> >> 
> >
> >Or a Bourn or a Csh eh? Bring it on.
> 
> Nice to know you know ;-)
> 
> >The only "windows first" games which run natively are those with OpenGL. 
> >The emulators have serious overheads and with "direct to metal" programs 
> >such as high sped games, frequently have problems.
> >
> >Are you really trying to suggest that Linux is a viable alternative for 
> >a games player? As an OS for enws, mail, office apps etc sure : but for 
> >games?
> 
> No, but it runs several *very* popular games quite well enough. Having said
> that, if a person is mainly interested in these OpenGL games, it is
> workable, though I wouldn't even go there myself, being the Windows whore
> that I am. >8^D

Yes, it runs a few games, like Unreal Tournament, RCTW and Quake III.
Does it run Doom 3 natively yet? I know id sort of promised it, but I
haven't heard if it's out yet. Emulation layers doesn't really count.
;P

For games, it's better to stick with Windows. Or a console.
0
robbestad (4)
11/8/2004 4:05:38 PM
Thus spake Walter Mitty <mitticus@yahoo.co.uk>, Mon, 08 Nov 2004 15:55:23
+0100, Anno Domini:

>Mike Kirkland wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 22:37:32 +1100, Nostromo
>> <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>No, but it runs several *very* popular games quite well enough. 
>> 
>> 
>> *Several* is very few games in the Wintel world.
>
>My point exactly. In addition, I note no withdraw of the statement about 
>Linux virus issues :)

Yeah, but I knew/know ppl that play nothing but Quake/CS/Wolf:ET and/or a
few others. Most of the online fragfests are supported by Linux (will HL2
be?); I think UT2004 is. If you want a *stable* platform that happens to
also be the platform you use at work or academically with only a choice
selection of the games you play, then why not?

-- 
Replace 'spamfree' with ('k__umcgl_' + ascii 123456789) to reply via email.
0
nostromo (1399)
11/8/2004 7:25:21 PM
Thus spake Walter Mitty <mitticus@yahoo.co.uk>, Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:00:27
+0100, Anno Domini:

>> The Linux kernel by its very nature is 'virus-proof' - there have been maybe
>> 3 known attacks on it that have semi-succeeded over the past few years, 2 of
>> which were DoS attacks, which can almost not be termed a virus vulnerability
>> per se.
>
>because its not targeted. Linux systems running as web servers with, 
>say, apache, frequently are. Linux is SW too and any SW which allows 
>exes or scripts to be downloaded are susceptible. Nearly all the windows 
>viruses are one of the same - idiots opening scripts which power off the 
>same to all or selected recipients from the users outlook address book. 
>Windows has settings to prevent this, in addition to multiple excellent 
>3rd party virus and trojan checkers.

You're so far off I don't know where to begin (hence my earlier comments).
Linux is *by its nature* self-protecting, being a true protected-mode
environment, unlike WinXX. The kernel & only the kernel allocates memory
space - nothing other than it can affect other process' memory/execution
space. Therefore, a typical virus is not possible. You can't infect anything
from square 1. You can't even get a mail worm. This is all on the assumption
you have the firewalling rules & file permissions set up correctly &
sensibly - if a hacker gets in via a server app vulnerability backdoor &
drops/overwrites binaries, well, it's all over at that point obviously. But
I haven't heard of that happening on a well maintained Linux box ever (there
are plenty of the other kind for which there are plenty stories ;-).

>> 
>> 
>>>>
>>>>>If you're a serious game player don't even think about the making this 
>>>>>move, no matter what the beards tell you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Spoken like a man who has never even seen X-Windows/Lindows/Wine, much less
>>>>a Korn shell. ;-p
>>>>
>>>
>>>Or a Bourn or a Csh eh? Bring it on.
>> 
>> 
>> Nice to know you know ;-)
>> 
>
>I really don't see how x-windows has anything whatsoever to do with 
>windows running games under linux. The emulators yes. And as for the 
>shells : handy for extracting a rar or tar file maybe, not much else :)

Fair enough - the point was that X as a GUI environment is as old (if not
older) than windows. It's not like Linux just got a graphical facelift last
year of something ;-)

>>>The only "windows first" games which run natively are those with OpenGL. 
>>>The emulators have serious overheads and with "direct to metal" programs 
>>>such as high sped games, frequently have problems.
>>>
>>>Are you really trying to suggest that Linux is a viable alternative for 
>>>a games player? As an OS for enws, mail, office apps etc sure : but for 
>>>games?
>> 
>> 
>> No, but it runs several *very* popular games quite well enough. Having said
>> that, if a person is mainly interested in these OpenGL games, it is
>> workable, though I wouldn't even go there myself, being the Windows whore
>> that I am. >8^D
>
>Yeah. very popular games might well be ported or written using very 
>basic Windows API - they will run under windows emulators. But the 
>market doesn not warrant most games having that effort put into it. So I 
>really don't see why you were disagreeing in your original reply.

Because it is a viable games platform (I have known several friends/contacts
who swear by it) so long as you don't subscribe to Billy Boy games. :)

-- 
Replace 'spamfree' with ('k__umcgl_' + ascii 123456789) to reply via email.
0
nostromo (1399)
11/8/2004 7:47:04 PM
Thus spake robbestad@gmail.com (Sven Anders Robbestad), 8 Nov 2004 08:05:38
-0800, Anno Domini:

>> The Linux kernel by its very nature is 'virus-proof' - there have been maybe
>> 3 known attacks on it that have semi-succeeded over the past few years, 2 of
>> which were DoS attacks, which can almost not be termed a virus vulnerability
>> per se.
>
>No, it's not. That's a big, fat myth. Just because you're running on a
>userlevel rather than root level doesn't mean you're secure from
>viruses or exploits. If you can run a binary attachment, you can get a
>virus. Period. No, it might not take down your system or compromise
>the box - but it can delete everything you got stored your user
>account.
>
>Hey, I love Linux for the competition it brings on the table. Without
>it, Microsoft wouldn't have to work as hard to bring Windows up to
>date as they're forced to do now. But Linux is not a holy grail of
>stability and security. Seriously. Subscribe to the security mailing
>list hosted at seifried.org:
>http://lists.seifried.org/mailman/listinfo/security and take a look
>the multitudes of vulnerabilities discovered every day in open source
>(as well as closed source) software.

Those are app vulnerabilities that are NOT spreadable, so not a virus per
se. Someone getting a once-off trojan onto your system because you're silly
enough to d/l & run 'uncertified' software in the first place is not a
weakness of Linux.

>> >Are you really trying to suggest that Linux is a viable alternative for 
>> >a games player? As an OS for enws, mail, office apps etc sure : but for 
>> >games?
>> 
>> No, but it runs several *very* popular games quite well enough. Having said
>> that, if a person is mainly interested in these OpenGL games, it is
>> workable, though I wouldn't even go there myself, being the Windows whore
>> that I am. >8^D
>
>Yes, it runs a few games, like Unreal Tournament, RCTW and Quake III.
>Does it run Doom 3 natively yet? I know id sort of promised it, but I
>haven't heard if it's out yet. Emulation layers doesn't really count.
>;P
>
>For games, it's better to stick with Windows. Or a console.

Indubitably. But that doesn't make Linux a non-gaming platform period.
Here's some quick links I googled up (mainly Wine related):

http://librenix.com/?inode=5423
http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,77449,00.asp
http://ad.doubleclick.net/adi/xtrm.dart/ossoftware;sz=160x600;ord=895959735?
http://www.frankscorner.org/

Sure, you need a Win emulator, but who cares? At least you're not stuck with
paying licenses for Windows & all it's issues/vulnerabilities, which let's
face it, are legion compared to Linux.

-- 
Replace 'spamfree' with ('k__umcgl_' + ascii 123456789) to reply via email.
0
nostromo (1399)
11/8/2004 7:54:11 PM
Thus spake Mike Kirkland <no@email.here>, Mon, 08 Nov 2004 06:41:49 -0800,
Anno Domini:

>On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:49:58 +1100, Nostromo
><nostromo@spamfree.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>>Spoken like a man who has never even seen X-Windows/Lindows/Wine, much less
>>a Korn shell. ;-p
>
>I have, and in fact have Linux on my other PC right now. I wouldn't
>even consider using it for my main gaming machine.

Have you even tried? Sure, you'd have to forgo playing brand new DirectX
games, bit that doesn't mean it's not possible. If you're only using it as a
server you haven't scratched the surface of gaming, so your not coming from
a position of authority, now are you? ;-)

-- 
Replace 'spamfree' with ('k__umcgl_' + ascii 123456789) to reply via email.
0
nostromo (1399)
11/8/2004 7:56:07 PM
"Nostromo" <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> wrote in message
news:trhvo0h94r46njn1e6m63kg7mea15l1nob@4ax.com...

> If you want a *stable* platform that happens to
> also be the platform you use at work or academically with only a choice
> selection of the games you play, then why not?

Here is the real crux of the matter, the guy wants to play on the machine at
work that runs linux.

No one I have ever met started out buying a machine for themselves to run
games on with linux as the os. I have a six machine lan here, and not one of
them runs linux, one day I might add a linux machine to the lan but it won't
be there to run games, except perhaps as a dedicated server for games
running on the other machines. I have exactly one game that runs under linux
(dominions) and that is just because that version came along with the
windows version.

Years ago I was taught that you buy the computer to run the progams you want
to run, not the other way around.

If you have a legacy game that doesn't run under winxp then buy yourself a
legacy computer to run it. If on the other hand you have a game like doom3
that won't install unless you have xp or better then you need to buy a
computer (or upgrade your os) with xp. When I see hundreds of games only
released for linux then I will have an incentive to put together a linux
box.


0
graesser8515 (117)
11/8/2004 10:24:05 PM
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 06:56:07 +1100, Nostromo
<nostromo@spamfree.net.au> wrote:


>Have you even tried? Sure, you'd have to forgo playing brand new DirectX
>games, bit that doesn't mean it's not possible. If you're only using it as a
>server you haven't scratched the surface of gaming, so your not coming from
>a position of authority, now are you? ;-)

I'm coming from the position of "using the right tools for the job".
0
no8898 (333)
11/9/2004 12:02:54 AM
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 15:48:57 GMT, "One Punch Mickey"
<fantantiddlyspan@hotmail.com> wrote:


>That's user stupidity, not XP's fault. It's suicidal on a 2000/Xp PC
>with a broadband connection - all yout have to do is connect via a
>terminal services session, log into Windows as admin and there you go.

XP is too limiting when you use a user account. I use just one account
on my XP box and it is user protected and I have never had a problem.
No, I'm not stupid, I just prefer convienence over a pain in the arse
limited account.
0
fish6550 (44)
11/9/2004 12:06:02 AM
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 06:56:07 +1100, Nostromo
<nostromo@spamfree.net.au> wrote:

>Have you even tried? Sure, you'd have to forgo playing brand new DirectX
>games, bit that doesn't mean it's not possible. If you're only using it as a
>server you haven't scratched the surface of gaming, so your not coming from
>a position of authority, now are you? ;-)

WineX lets you play most DX games, but it is a bit pricey.
-- 
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
0
Andrew
11/9/2004 5:41:58 AM
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 15:48:57 GMT, "One Punch Mickey"
<fantantiddlyspan@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>  I have no idea how their machines have got infected
>> because they use commercial virus scanners and firewalls, and don't
>> use any pirated software. But it does seem to happen from time to
>> time.
>
>Do they open emails they shouldn't? Are they susceptible to the various
>security holes in Windows / IE and do they keep their machines patched
>up?

Automatic XP updates enabled etc. They have no idea how they got the
viruses.

>>  I know too many XP users who are using admin account
>> 100% of the time WITH NO ADMIN PASSWORD!
>
>That's user stupidity, not XP's fault. It's suicidal on a 2000/Xp PC
>with a broadband connection - all yout have to do is connect via a
>terminal services session, log into Windows as admin and there you go.

Why does XP even allow this, and makes it very easy for newbies to go
on with the installation without an admin password? Have you ever seen
a Linux box with no password for the root account?

0
riku7653 (682)
11/9/2004 8:14:10 AM
riku wrote:

> 
> Why does XP even allow this, and makes it very easy for newbies to go
> on with the installation without an admin password? Have you ever seen
> a Linux box with no password for the root account?


Well fair comment. On corporate networks you can enforce strong
passwords, I would have thought XP SP2 would alert you if your admin
p/w was blank.

-- 
|
| Take it from our drummer Puff, being good it gets you stuff.
|
0
11/9/2004 8:46:03 AM
Nostromo wrote:
> 
> Yeah, but I knew/know ppl that play nothing but Quake/CS/Wolf:ET and/or a
> few others. Most of the online fragfests are supported by Linux (will HL2
> be?); I think UT2004 is. If you want a *stable* platform that happens to
> also be the platform you use at work or academically with only a choice
> selection of the games you play, then why not?
> 

XP is extremely stable.

-- 
Walter Mitty
-
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=plagiarism
http://www.tinyurl.com
0
mitticus1 (1908)
11/9/2004 12:09:27 PM
Nostromo wrote:
> Thus spake Walter Mitty <mitticus@yahoo.co.uk>, Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:00:27
> +0100, Anno Domini:
> 
> 
>>>The Linux kernel by its very nature is 'virus-proof' - there have been maybe
>>>3 known attacks on it that have semi-succeeded over the past few years, 2 of
>>>which were DoS attacks, which can almost not be termed a virus vulnerability
>>>per se.
>>
>>because its not targeted. Linux systems running as web servers with, 
>>say, apache, frequently are. Linux is SW too and any SW which allows 
>>exes or scripts to be downloaded are susceptible. Nearly all the windows 
>>viruses are one of the same - idiots opening scripts which power off the 
>>same to all or selected recipients from the users outlook address book. 
>>Windows has settings to prevent this, in addition to multiple excellent 
>>3rd party virus and trojan checkers.
> 
> 
> You're so far off I don't know where to begin (hence my earlier comments).
> Linux is *by its nature* self-protecting, being a true protected-mode
> environment, unlike WinXX. The kernel & only the kernel allocates memory
> space - nothing other than it can affect other process' memory/execution
> space. Therefore, a typical virus is not possible. You can't infect anything
> from square 1. You can't even get a mail worm. This is all on the assumption
> you have the firewalling rules & file permissions set up correctly &
> sensibly - if a hacker gets in via a server app vulnerability backdoor &
> drops/overwrites binaries, well, it's all over at that point obviously. But
> I haven't heard of that happening on a well maintained Linux box ever (there
> are plenty of the other kind for which there are plenty stories ;-).


I think you're living in cloud cuckoo land if you really believe all 
that. It might all be true in theory but for you to even begni to 
suggestt that Linux cant get infected is pure idiocy.
0
mitticus1 (1908)
11/9/2004 12:11:16 PM
Thusly riku <riku@invalid.none.com> Spake Unto All:

>>>  I have no idea how their machines have got infected
>>> because they use commercial virus scanners and firewalls, and don't
>>> use any pirated software. But it does seem to happen from time to
>>> time.
>>
>>Do they open emails they shouldn't? Are they susceptible to the various
>>security holes in Windows / IE and do they keep their machines patched
>>up?
>
>Automatic XP updates enabled etc. They have no idea how they got the
>viruses.

If they have up-to-date virus scanner, that should pick off the
viruses the second they turn up. If they get viruses repeatedly
despite having a virus scanner and an updated XP, then ask them who it
is who turns off the virus scanner, and when.


0
11/9/2004 1:18:32 PM
Thusly Walter Mitty <mitticus@yahoo.co.uk> Spake Unto All:

>> be?); I think UT2004 is. If you want a *stable* platform that happens to
>> also be the platform you use at work or academically with only a choice
>> selection of the games you play, then why not?
>
>XP is extremely stable.

Convincing linuxites of that is the ultimate lost cause.

0
11/9/2004 1:18:39 PM
"riku" <riku@invalid.none.com> wrote in message
news:t7v0p0hkd7mkti1c18bkpkc7k9ggbg8lhg@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 15:48:57 GMT, "One Punch Mickey"
> <fantantiddlyspan@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>  I have no idea how their machines have got infected
> >> because they use commercial virus scanners and firewalls, and don't
> >> use any pirated software. But it does seem to happen from time to
> >> time.
> >
> >Do they open emails they shouldn't? Are they susceptible to the various
> >security holes in Windows / IE and do they keep their machines patched
> >up?
>
> Automatic XP updates enabled etc. They have no idea how they got the
> viruses.
>
> >>  I know too many XP users who are using admin account
> >> 100% of the time WITH NO ADMIN PASSWORD!
> >
> >That's user stupidity, not XP's fault. It's suicidal on a 2000/Xp PC
> >with a broadband connection - all yout have to do is connect via a
> >terminal services session, log into Windows as admin and there you go.
>
> Why does XP even allow this, and makes it very easy for newbies to go
> on with the installation without an admin password? Have you ever seen
> a Linux box with no password for the root account?
>

IIRC, Lindows used to do this !


0
nospam21 (19047)
11/10/2004 12:00:21 AM
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:09:27 +0100, Walter Mitty <mitticus@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>Nostromo wrote:
>> 
>> Yeah, but I knew/know ppl that play nothing but Quake/CS/Wolf:ET and/or a
>> few others. Most of the online fragfests are supported by Linux (will HL2
>> be?); I think UT2004 is. If you want a *stable* platform that happens to
>> also be the platform you use at work or academically with only a choice
>> selection of the games you play, then why not?
>> 
>
>XP is extremely stable.

Not really.

Even though Windows XP is supposed to have strong preemptive multi-tasking,
there are cases where a program locks up the computer.  For example, an
editor that I am writing for a game - when I tell the debugger to break the
program, it sometimes locks the system up for a few minutes before
returning to a usable state.

While CTRL-ALT-DEL works, it's not helpful since I either have to use the
task manager to kill the process manually - and the task manager gets
blocked by whatever is locking up the computer.

The same can easily happen with the Linux operating system - however, that
usually occurrs at either the driver or kernel level.  In Windows XP, it's
much easier to write a user-level application that locks up the system.  



0
bk0391 (636)
11/10/2004 4:38:46 AM
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 08:14:10 GMT, riku <riku@invalid.none.com> wrote:

>>>  I know too many XP users who are using admin account
>>> 100% of the time WITH NO ADMIN PASSWORD!
>>
>>That's user stupidity, not XP's fault. It's suicidal on a 2000/Xp PC
>>with a broadband connection - all yout have to do is connect via a
>>terminal services session, log into Windows as admin and there you go.
>
>Why does XP even allow this, and makes it very easy for newbies to go
>on with the installation without an admin password? Have you ever seen
>a Linux box with no password for the root account?

I have seen it.  I've been using Slackware Linux on a standalone machine
and not bothered with the root password because there was absolutly no way
anyone could get into the system remotly.  (There is the case with local
physical access, but if that's the case, then it's already too late.)

If I intended to connect to the internet, then I'd make sure that there was
a root password (or that it was not possible to login remotely.)


0
bk0391 (636)
11/10/2004 4:43:33 AM
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 08:59:06 GMT, riku <riku@invalid.none.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:44:38 +0100, Walter Mitty
><mitticus@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Try a virus checker. Linus too is susceptible to virus attacks although 
>>not as many due to its smaller customer base.
>
>That's just not true. There are many technical reasons why Linux and
>unix variants are much less susceptible to viruses, worms etc. than
>WindowsXP, there was a pretty detailed article about this awhile ago,
>I'll try to find it for anyone who's interested. 

The technical reason behind Linux not being as suseptable is because of how
it's archetecture is designed.  Primairly, executable files are usually
stored in places that cannot be overwritten by users (or in a user's home
directory in some cases.)  If one of those files happens to be a virus, it
cannot infect any other applications (unless it exploits a security hole or
if the user was running as a super-user, both of which are special
exceptions.)  

While Windows is beginning to be designed in the same way, there are still
too many applications that require full access to their own directory.
This isn't a problem in Linux because there is either a written standard or
general guideline on how to store temporary files or information.

>For starters, in
>Linux people are not forced to use root/admin account as often as in
>WindowsXP, and I know too many XP users who are using admin account
>100% of the time WITH NO ADMIN PASSWORD!

That's generally a problem with programs that are running under Windows XP,
not with Windows XP itself.  Usually, the problem is with games trying to
write to their installation directory - this is solved by giving users
write access to that directory without having to give full admin
privilages.   While Microsoft is trying to get developers to store
persistant data in the "My Documents" folder, not everybody listens.  

There are cases (such as running punkbuster and some copy protection
systems) where you must have full access to the system.  Personally, I call
these "defective products" since the only applications that should require
them are those necessairy to maintain the system.  I also have similar
complaints to Linux applications that absolutly refuse to run under a
super-user account - warning is okay, but not an outright refusal.  

>Nevertheless, Service Pack 2 provided much needed extra security to
>XP, but still...

Except for the Internet Firewall enabled by default, there's nothing really
of interest in SP2 that will increase the security of my computer.  All
that you really need to do is get a firewall/IDS to block all unnecessairy
inbound connections, a virus scanner, and a web browser other than Internet
Explorer.  With this configuration, I have never had an incident with
Spyware, viruses, or worms (other than my email accounts being clogged up.)

>
0
bk0391 (636)
11/10/2004 4:58:57 AM
Nostromo wrote:

> Yeah, but I knew/know ppl that play nothing but Quake/CS/Wolf:ET
> and/or a few others. Most of the online fragfests are supported by
> Linux (will HL2 be?); I think UT2004 is. If you want a *stable*
> platform that happens to also be the platform you use at work or
> academically with only a choice selection of the games you play, then
> why not?

It is a myth that Linux is necessarily more stable than Windows. At least 
the NT-based Windows versions (NT/2k/XP) show a comparable stability than 
Linux or even "real" UNIXes on the right hardware. Most stability problems 
people have with Windows are _not_ because of the OS, it's because of 
flakey/crappy hardware, a buggy software/driver, or simply because people 
"tuned" their Windows...

Benjamin 

0
bgawert (1322)
11/10/2004 5:53:18 AM
YanquiDawg wrote:

> I'm wondering how driver support is for Linux. I have a AMD 64,
> Geforce FX 5900 Santa Cruz slound card.. Getting sick and tired of
> the constant virus attacks on Win2k.

What constant virus attacks? I never ever had a virus or Worm on my Windows 
machines...

> Any comments on which linux to
> use?

Forget Linux for gaming. There are just a few games that are available for 
Linux...

If You want a system that's not Windows You also should consider a Mac. It 
combines the best from both Windows (easy handling) and UNIX (stability and 
security), and there are much more games available for Mac than for Linux...

Benjamin 

0
bgawert (1322)
11/10/2004 5:56:42 AM
Thus spake bk039@ncf.ca (Raymond Martineau), Tue, 09 Nov 2004 23:58:57
-0500, Anno Domini:

>Except for the Internet Firewall enabled by default, there's nothing really
>of interest in SP2 that will increase the security of my computer.  All
>that you really need to do is get a firewall/IDS to block all unnecessairy
>inbound connections, a virus scanner, and a web browser other than Internet
>Explorer.  With this configuration, I have never had an incident with
>Spyware, viruses, or worms (other than my email accounts being clogged up.)

Ditto. I use Opera & Agent + std SP1 firewall (note: very *carefully* set
up) & AVG. Only time I got spyware/adware in the last couple years is from
my Mrs, who insists on using IE..... o O (mental note: must find those
instructions for uninstalling IE :). There are some (very few) sites that
Opera doesn't cope with but fuck em I say. >8^D

-- 
Replace 'spamfree' with ('k__umcgl_' + ascii 123456789) to reply via email.
0
nostromo (1399)
11/10/2004 5:59:34 AM
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 06:56:42 +0100, "Benjamin Gawert" <bgawert@gmx.de>
wrote:

>If You want a system that's not Windows You also should consider a Mac. It 
>combines the best from both Windows (easy handling) and UNIX (stability and 
>security), and there are much more games available for Mac than for Linux...

Can you run DirectX Windows games on a Mac like you can with WineX on
Linux?
-- 
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
0
Andrew
11/10/2004 6:17:27 AM
Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> Nostromo wrote:
> 
>> Yeah, but I knew/know ppl that play nothing but Quake/CS/Wolf:ET
>> and/or a few others. Most of the online fragfests are supported by
>> Linux (will HL2 be?); I think UT2004 is. If you want a *stable*
>> platform that happens to also be the platform you use at work or
>> academically with only a choice selection of the games you play, then
>> why not?
> 
> 
> It is a myth that Linux is necessarily more stable than Windows. At 
> least the NT-based Windows versions (NT/2k/XP) show a comparable 
> stability than Linux or even "real" UNIXes on the right hardware. Most 
> stability problems people have with Windows are _not_ because of the OS, 
> it's because of flakey/crappy hardware, a buggy software/driver, or 
> simply because people "tuned" their Windows...
> 
> Benjamin

I'd agree. I've used lots of systems and XP, considering what I put i 
through has proved very, very stable.  Especially after I stopped using IE.
0
mitticus1 (1908)
11/10/2004 9:15:00 AM
Kev wrote:
> "riku" <riku@invalid.none.com> wrote in message
> news:t7v0p0hkd7mkti1c18bkpkc7k9ggbg8lhg@4ax.com...
> 
>>On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 15:48:57 GMT, "One Punch Mickey"
>><fantantiddlyspan@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I have no idea how their machines have got infected
>>>>because they use commercial virus scanners and firewalls, and don't
>>>>use any pirated software. But it does seem to happen from time to
>>>>time.
>>>
>>>Do they open emails they shouldn't? Are they susceptible to the various
>>>security holes in Windows / IE and do they keep their machines patched
>>>up?
>>
>>Automatic XP updates enabled etc. They have no idea how they got the
>>viruses.
>>
>>
>>>> I know too many XP users who are using admin account
>>>>100% of the time WITH NO ADMIN PASSWORD!
>>>
>>>That's user stupidity, not XP's fault. It's suicidal on a 2000/Xp PC
>>>with a broadband connection - all yout have to do is connect via a
>>>terminal services session, log into Windows as admin and there you go.
>>
>>Why does XP even allow this, and makes it very easy for newbies to go
>>on with the installation without an admin password? Have you ever seen
>>a Linux box with no password for the root account?
>>

Because 99% of people who use xp at home have about as much chance of 
understanding the Unix security system as I do of becoming the next 
James Bond.
0
mitticus1 (1908)
11/10/2004 9:16:36 AM
Thusly bk039@ncf.ca (Raymond Martineau) Spake Unto All:

>>XP is extremely stable.
>
>Not really.
>
>Even though Windows XP is supposed to have strong preemptive multi-tasking,
>there are cases where a program locks up the computer.

Yeah, the task-switcher sucks.

>The same can easily happen with the Linux operating system - however, that
>usually occurrs at either the driver or kernel level.  In Windows XP, it's
>much easier to write a user-level application that locks up the system.  

Well, in your example above, the system isn't locked - it's bogged
down. The task manager will eventually show up, but as it through
microsofts infinite wisdom runs at normal priority, that may take a
while when a program (especially one with high priority) is hogging
memory and CPU.

IMO the slow task-switch and generally piss-poor multitasking of XP is
the biggest annoyance of the OS, but it's not really a stability
issue.
A serious stability issue, on the other hand, is that drivers run at
ring zero, meaning that a buggy driver can take the whole system down.
This, in turn, basically means that an XP system with third party
drivers can not be guaranteed crash-free. The irony of that is that
drivers didn't run at ring zero in Win2000, so this is a conscious
design decision by Microsoft, not a legacy. Why they did this I have
no idea.
But there's much I don't understand about WinXP, like why WinXP pro's
Internet Information Service is limited to 10 simultaneous connections
(=five people browsing the server).

Incidentally the task switcher is also much faster in Win2000 than in
XP.


-- 
        ***  UPHOLD THE FIRST AMENDMENT: REPEL THE FCC  ***
         
0
11/10/2004 1:26:26 PM
Thusly Walter Mitty <mitticus@yahoo.co.uk> Spake Unto All:

>>>Why does XP even allow this, and makes it very easy for newbies to go
>>>on with the installation without an admin password? Have you ever seen
>>>a Linux box with no password for the root account?
>
>Because 99% of people who use xp at home have about as much chance of 
>understanding the Unix security system as I do of becoming the next 
>James Bond.

Not that the XP security system is much less obfuscated than UNIX's...
You've got "simple file sharing" which basically means you can't share
your files at all, and if you turn it off -which you should- you find
yourself in the morass of overlapping groups and policies.

I wonder who designed the security management system for XP, and if it
makes sense and seem easy to overview and manage to them?



-- 
        ***  UPHOLD THE FIRST AMENDMENT: REPEL THE FCC  ***
         
0
11/10/2004 1:26:27 PM
Andrew wrote:

>> If You want a system that's not Windows You also should consider a
>> Mac. It combines the best from both Windows (easy handling) and UNIX
>> (stability and security), and there are much more games available
>> for Mac than for Linux...
>
> Can you run DirectX Windows games on a Mac like you can with WineX on
> Linux?

For most games You don't need anything like WineX  since they are available 
as native MacOS version anyways, with fully accelerated 3D gfx.

But Transgaming.com which sell WineX aka Cedega also seems to offer 
something that allows PC-Games using DirectX and OpenGL and also XBox-Games 
to run on the Mac...

Benjamin 

0
bgawert (1322)
11/10/2004 3:09:49 PM
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:26:26 +0100, Mean_Chlorine
<mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Thusly bk039@ncf.ca (Raymond Martineau) Spake Unto All:
>
>>>XP is extremely stable.
>>
>>Not really.
>>
>>Even though Windows XP is supposed to have strong preemptive multi-tasking,
>>there are cases where a program locks up the computer.
>
>Yeah, the task-switcher sucks.
>
>>The same can easily happen with the Linux operating system - however, that
>>usually occurrs at either the driver or kernel level.  In Windows XP, it's
>>much easier to write a user-level application that locks up the system.  
>
>Well, in your example above, the system isn't locked - it's bogged
>down. The task manager will eventually show up, but as it through
>microsofts infinite wisdom runs at normal priority, that may take a
>while when a program (especially one with high priority) is hogging
>memory and CPU.

Actually, the system does get locked up.  If I have a Dos window available,
I can task switch to that and switch to full screen, and play a few
Dos/Console games without any interference from background processes.
However, this isn't always the case, and therefore the system gets locked.
I also don't have an auxillary access to the system (standalone
workstation), and thus can't really kill the tasks remotly.  

I can get the task manager window to appear - however, one of the other
applications is not responding or responding incorrectly to messages
checking on the status of the window (I suspect WM_NCHITTEST is the problem
message, but there's nothing I can really do about it.).  Thus, when I try
to open up the task manager, the window appears, but the clicks don't
register since Windows somehow thinks that some other window should receive
them first.

>IMO the slow task-switch and generally piss-poor multitasking of XP is
>the biggest annoyance of the OS, but it's not really a stability
>issue.

Task switching isn't the problem - the fact that the task manager needs to
run in a normal display is.  Microsoft could fix a lot of problems by
integrating the Task Manager with the CTRL-ALT-DEL menu, which is not
affected by the drawing attempts of other applications.    

>A serious stability issue, on the other hand, is that drivers run at
>ring zero, meaning that a buggy driver can take the whole system down.
>This, in turn, basically means that an XP system with third party
>drivers can not be guaranteed crash-free. The irony of that is that
>drivers didn't run at ring zero in Win2000, so this is a conscious
>design decision by Microsoft, not a legacy. Why they did this I have
>no idea.

Allowing the drivers to run at Ring 0 is claimed to be a performance issue
(by someone, not necessairly Microsoft). There might not be that much of a
performance hit for switching between Rings, but MS believes that it is
significant.  

Unstable drivers can potentially take down the system even if they aren't
in Ring 0.  For example, QNX is a real time operating system where the
Kernel will survive even if the video drivers unrecoverably crash.  Even
though the system itself is functional, you won't be able to do much unless
you have another means for accessing the system. 

>But there's much I don't understand about WinXP, like why WinXP pro's
>Internet Information Service is limited to 10 simultaneous connections
>(=five people browsing the server).

IIS being limited to 10 connections is a licensing issue, not a technical
one.  I belive this limitation is lifted in Windows 2003 Advanced Server or
in the "Enterprise" or "Corporate" editions of WinXP...

>
>Incidentally the task switcher is also much faster in Win2000 than in
>XP.

0
bk0391 (636)
11/10/2004 9:54:05 PM
Walter Mitty wrote:

> I'd agree. I've used lots of systems and XP, considering what I put i
> through has proved very, very stable.  Especially after I stopped
> using IE.

I can't speak for Windows9x since I never used them, but I'm using Windows 
since NT 3.5 days. And I honestly never ever had a real problem with it, and 
only reinstalled when I got a new harddrive, a new computer, or a new 
version of Windows...

At work we have several hundred Windows workstations that are running CPU- 
and gfx-intensive applications, and Windows proved as reliable as our HP9000 
and IBM RS/6000 workstations...

Benjamin 

0
bgawert (1322)
11/10/2004 9:56:45 PM
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 06:53:18 +0100, "Benjamin Gawert" <bgawert@gmx.de>
wrote:

>Nostromo wrote:
>
>> Yeah, but I knew/know ppl that play nothing but Quake/CS/Wolf:ET
>> and/or a few others. Most of the online fragfests are supported by
>> Linux (will HL2 be?); I think UT2004 is. If you want a *stable*
>> platform that happens to also be the platform you use at work or
>> academically with only a choice selection of the games you play, then
>> why not?
>
>It is a myth that Linux is necessarily more stable than Windows. At least 
>the NT-based Windows versions (NT/2k/XP) show a comparable stability than 
>Linux or even "real" UNIXes on the right hardware. Most stability problems 
>people have with Windows are _not_ because of the OS, it's because of 
>flakey/crappy hardware, a buggy software/driver, or simply because people 

The point is that buggy software or drivers should not cause OS
instability. The OS itself should be impervious to buggy
software/drivers.

0
riku7653 (682)
11/11/2004 11:28:24 AM
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:26:26 +0100, Mean_Chlorine
<mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>But there's much I don't understand about WinXP, like why WinXP pro's
>Internet Information Service is limited to 10 simultaneous connections
>(=five people browsing the server).

The only reason for that limitation is to sell their server OS at a
higher price. If you want to run a server which allows lots of
connections, you are not supposed to use the "cheap" XP Pro, let alone
XP Home.

0
riku7653 (682)
11/11/2004 11:28:24 AM
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 14:18:32 +0100, Mean_Chlorine
<mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>>>Do they open emails they shouldn't? Are they susceptible to the various
>>>security holes in Windows / IE and do they keep their machines patched
>>>up?
>>
>>Automatic XP updates enabled etc. They have no idea how they got the
>>viruses.
>
>If they have up-to-date virus scanner, that should pick off the
>viruses the second they turn up.

Not really. It takes time from a new virus being discovered to it
being included in common virus scanners' databases. I read sometimes
that may take up to a week at least with some (popular) scanners.

>If they get viruses repeatedly
>despite having a virus scanner and an updated XP, then ask them who it
>is who turns off the virus scanner, and when.

This was not the case. They both had separate incidents with a virus.
It is a mystery how those viruses got to their system, because in
theory their systems should have been up to date security-wise. Either
they really opened a mail attachment that they shouldn't and which
wasn't in their virus scanner database yet, or they got it from some
www site.

0
riku7653 (682)
11/11/2004 11:34:28 AM
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 00:00:21 +0000 (UTC), "Kev" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

>> Why does XP even allow this, and makes it very easy for newbies to go
>> on with the installation without an admin password? Have you ever seen
>> a Linux box with no password for the root account?
>>
>
>IIRC, Lindows used to do this !

Shame on them then!

0
riku7653 (682)
11/11/2004 11:35:55 AM
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 11:28:24 GMT, riku <riku@invalid.none.com> wrote:

>The point is that buggy software or drivers should not cause OS
>instability. The OS itself should be impervious to buggy
>software/drivers.

That's a nice theory, but I have yet to see it happen in practice on
any of the OS's I have used - pretty much all  versions of Windows,
DOS, Unix, Linux, VMS, OS400, Tandem, EPOC.
-- 
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
0
Andrew
11/11/2004 11:38:12 AM
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:16:36 +0100, Walter Mitty
<mitticus@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>>>Why does XP even allow this, and makes it very easy for newbies to go
>>>on with the installation without an admin password? Have you ever seen
>>>a Linux box with no password for the root account?
>>>
>
>Because 99% of people who use xp at home have about as much chance of 
>understanding the Unix security system as I do of becoming the next 
>James Bond.

They don't necessarily have to understand it fully to use it. If your
point is that Linux overall is too hard to use and understand for
common users, that is hogwash. Sure it is different in many regards to
Windows, but normal people become accustomed to other ways of doing
things. Common people used to use MS-DOS, how on earth could they cope
with it?

0
riku7653 (682)
11/11/2004 11:38:19 AM
Thusly riku <riku@invalid.none.com> Spake Unto All:

>>If they have up-to-date virus scanner, that should pick off the
>>viruses the second they turn up.
>
>Not really. It takes time from a new virus being discovered to it
>being included in common virus scanners' databases. I read sometimes
>that may take up to a week at least with some (popular) scanners.

The odds are *hugely* against being an early adopter of a new strain,
at least if you're not someone likely to be specifically targeted by
hackers (e.g. Microsoft, NASA, Valve, the Democratic party...).

>>If they get viruses repeatedly
>>despite having a virus scanner and an updated XP, then ask them who it
>>is who turns off the virus scanner, and when.
>
>This was not the case. They both had separate incidents with a virus.
>It is a mystery how those viruses got to their system, because in
>theory their systems should have been up to date security-wise. Either
>they really opened a mail attachment that they shouldn't and which
>wasn't in their virus scanner database yet, or they got it from some
>www site.

I'm still betting someone turned off the viruskiller because they
wanted to play a game or install some software, and the viruskiller
kept annoying them with alerts.
Either that, or the viruskiller hadn't been updated in the last six
months.

I've just seen it one too many times, even from people who really
should know better.



-- 
        ***  UPHOLD THE FIRST AMENDMENT: REPEL THE FCC  ***
         
0
11/11/2004 12:59:20 PM
riku wrote:

> The point is that buggy software or drivers should not cause OS
> instability. The OS itself should be impervious to buggy
> software/drivers.

Yes, it should. However, there is _not_ a _single_ OS that is immune against 
buggy drivers. Neither Windows, nor Linux, *BSD, MacOS, AIX, HP-UX, IRIX, 
Tru64, MsDOS, OS/2, ReliantUNIX, Solaris, Super-UX, Dynix/ptx, UNICOS, 
VxWorks, QNX, BeOS, Plan9, and all the others. Drivers go very deeply into 
the system, so it's clear that buggy drivers easily cause every OS to go 
berserk...

I know it's political correct today to blame MS for all and everything, but 
at least a small view to reality should remain...

Benjamin 

0
bgawert (1322)
11/11/2004 4:14:37 PM
Mean_Chlorine wrote:

> IMO the slow task-switch and generally piss-poor multitasking of XP is
> the biggest annoyance of the OS, but it's not really a stability
> issue.

Multitasking in NT/2k/XP isn't piss-poor. It was piss-poor in Win9x but ot 
in the NT-Line.

> A serious stability issue, on the other hand, is that drivers run at
> ring zero, meaning that a buggy driver can take the whole system down.
> This, in turn, basically means that an XP system with third party
> drivers can not be guaranteed crash-free. The irony of that is that
> drivers didn't run at ring zero in Win2000, so this is a conscious
> design decision by Microsoft, not a legacy.

That's not quite correct. Since NT 4.0 all drivers run in ring 0, NT 3.51 
was the last version that had them run in ring 1. This simply was done to 
speed up performance (especially gfx, NT 3.51 had a dog slow gfx)...

> Incidentally the task switcher is also much faster in Win2000 than in
> XP.

Not really, if You deactivate all the coloured gizmos in XP it's as "fast" 
as W2k...

Benjamin 

0
bgawert (1322)
11/11/2004 4:23:48 PM
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 13:59:20 +0100, Mean_Chlorine
<mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>>This was not the case. They both had separate incidents with a virus.
>>It is a mystery how those viruses got to their system, because in
>>theory their systems should have been up to date security-wise. Either
>>they really opened a mail attachment that they shouldn't and which
>>wasn't in their virus scanner database yet, or they got it from some
>>www site.
>
>I'm still betting someone turned off the viruskiller because they
>wanted to play a game or install some software, and the viruskiller
>kept annoying them with alerts.

Neither system is used for gaming at all (one is a laptop used for
studying and work, another is used 100% to run his own small
business), and both persons seemed to be aware that you must a
firewall and a virus scanner that is updated often. They both were
using the commercial firewall/virus scanner software they got with
their new system.

>Either that, or the viruskiller hadn't been updated in the last six
>months.

Both viruskillers were set up to update themselves automatically (I
checked it).

0
riku7653 (682)
11/12/2004 7:47:31 AM
Reply: