> 3. Stability > I hope your not talking about Linux. I have had more Kernel Panic's then > General Protection Faults. impala:~$ uptime 9:43pm up 153 days, 5:43, 19 users, load average: 0.96, 0.80, 0.65 that server runs many different services, from irc to a muds to a web server. It serves several hundred megabytes of data a day. If you are getting lots of kernel panics, you need to re-evaluate how you installed your system. > 4. Win95/NT Require More Resources > True, and so does xwindows. This is called development. If better > computers are built, why not take advantage of it? cpu-for-cpu, memory-for-memory, linux is a lot more efficient, especially in network code, which is what you need for a muds. You don't run your muds in a GUI- my muds server doesn't even run X. > Sure, it's no argument that linux outruns win95 as a production mud > server; but it is also no argument that linux can hardly do much else. I haven't noticed... only thing win95 does better is um... um... line micro$oft's pockets. Taran. Reign of Towers bpape@ezl.com +-----------------------------------------------------------+ | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: | | http://cspo.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list_faq.html | +-----------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/07/00 PST