[plug] Microsoft ask users to crack win2000 site (fwd)

[Oliver White]

John Summerfield wrote:
> 
> > Mike Holland wrote:
> >
> > > Amen. A consequence of feature-bloat, backwards compatibility, ...
> > >
> >
> > Just out of interest, what baggage is linux carrying? It has backward
> > compatibility to the i386 architecture obviously. Is this problem
> > entirely solved by being able to select the code you want to go into the
> > kernel, when you configure?
> >
> user  :  10d  1:29:39.47  14.9%  page in : 64055040  disk 1:    77231r
> 406489w
> nice  :   8d 20:17:51.67  13.1%  page out: 50621158  disk 2:  2777821r
> 8393763w
> system:   6d 12:09:12.44   9.6%  swap in :  5096182  disk 3:  6850927r
> 4138321w
> idle  :  42d  3:33:02.26  62.4%  swap out:  2301514  disk 4:      392r
>   0w
> uptime:  67d 13:29:45.82         context :684169456
> 
> Assuming all the system time's kernel, to reduce its overhead would have
> little overall benefit; for what users actually do, optimising X would be
> better. In my case, there might be some advantage in optimising perl - it
> consumes most of the user and nice values above: that's where real work's
> done.

So that's kernel baggage.

WRT X, I agree that it is one of the worst pieces of baggage, to the
point that many would rather not use it. Someone pointed me here, when
we were bitching about X-flakeyness...

http://www.berlin-consortium.org/

Could be big, could be betamax :-)

This is an interesting subject, and has many implications as to how MS'
'weld it all together' philosophy and GNU based systems 'mix and match'
philosophy compare. I can see a lot of people playing with berlin on
linux, and if it's any good, word will spread. However, I have doubts
about it's applicability to the windows platform as really it becomes
just one more layer to hog and break. Any thoughts?