[NTLUG:Discuss] [Fwd: [WTLUG:discuss] Microsoft FUD]

[cbbrowne@godel.brownes.org]

On Tue, 05 Oct 1999 22:08:10 CDT, the world broke into rejoicing as
"Jay F. Cox" <baa204 at saturn.angelo.edu>  said:
> For instance I know Linux can handle more than 128Mb in swap. However,
> they say "The Linux SWAP file is limited to 128 MB RAM."  is ths the max
> size for a single Linux swap file? (which isnt what you are supposed to
> use anyway. You should allocate a swap partition in your linux install.)

The limitation, *which applies on IA-32, on pre-2.3 versions*, applies
both to swap files and to swap partitions.

But the fact that they use the term "swap file" betrays that they don't
know how large amounts of swap space are supposed to be managed.

It's hard to argue with this part, as the fallacies are fairly subtle,
and there's *some* truth to it.

> "Linux does not provide support for the broad range of hardware in use
> today;" Bullshit.  And how many architectures does NT run on?
> (Addmittedly, this was under the section "Myth: Linux can replace
> Windows on the desktop." But I was under the impression that the number
> of video cards Linux supports was MORE than NT.  perhaps they mean other
> "multimedia" cards?)

Comparisons to W9x may let Linux look bad in this regard; there may
indeed be *somewhat* more support for hardware on NT than on Linux,
but it's certainly a horse-race...
--
"If we believe in data structures, we must believe in independent
(hence simultaneous) processing.  For why else would we collect items
within a structure?  Why do we tolerate languages that give us the one
without the other?" -- Alan Perlis
cbbrowne at hex.net- <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>