Netscape 7 PR 1

[Wombat]

I have to agree that Linux is much more fault tolerant. When things break, the rest of the system seems to do just fine. When beta testing for Matrox, my X server would lock up a lot. I could always log in from somewhere else and fix things. I managed to screw up a bunch of important files once, but I was surprised that the people on my ftp server didn't notice anything strange going on.

[rugger]

Originally posted by The PIT


You must be kidding when Linux breaks is normally re-install time unless you know obscur commands off by heart.
Dumbest thing I ever saw was when the hard drive that linux was installed had got corrupted. Run xxxx command to fix it.
Fine ran that and it said okay what do want me to do which switch do you want too use type man xxxx for help. I typed man xxxx and got sorry the hard drive is corrupted run XXXX to fix it.
The last farce I had was with samba. In the end there was nothing wrong with it apart from a combination of a duff password file and software that was broken.

I didn't say it was fairy land, easy peasy stuff. You have to make an effort to become proficent in it. It WILL NOT hold your hand at all. But once you know how the basic utilities like fsck work, how the bootloader works, and how the config files are layed out, it is much easier to fix and far more flexible than windows.

[The PIT]

I think we're going to disagree on this. Remember you're used to it. It's getting better. It would be a lot better if people who wrote stuff for Lunix didn't always presume the person already had a fair knowledge.
Linux is also easier to break when changing hardware and again you have to drop down to the cmd line if you can get there and try and sort out things there.

[Wombat]

I disagree there too. New hardware is easier in Linux than it is in Windows. The module is there, it just slaps it in.

When I installed my new motherboard, Windows took 9 reboots to set it up, and that's even with skipping some of the reboots it told me to do.

Linux:
1) Shutdown
2) Swap motherboards
3) Turn computer on.

It was all done, without a hiccup. It even switched from the AMD 750 drivers to the KT133A drivers automatically.

[rugger]

The pit. Changing hardware is always easier under linux than it is under windows. And under linux, the command line is no TOY, it is far more powerful and flexible than ANY command line I have seen for windows. You can do EVERYTHING from the linux command line. Fixing stuff at the command line is how it works in linux. Difficult to learn, exceptionally useful in practice.

As for linux handling hardware change:

I have changed motherboards on a linux setup multiple times. Linux always come up, without any problems. Once linux starts, I simply need to recompile the kernel to reoptimize it for the new cpu/hardware. (a 5 minute job)

Downgrading a motherboard requires you recompile your kernel for the older cd before you change though

As I said above, Linux doesn't make a big attempt to hold your hand, so you have make the effort. It isn't for everyone, and I will respect your decision if you decide it sounds too much like hard work

In servers, linux's flexibility means less downtime to change hardware and software. In desktop's, downtime is not such a monster and windows ease of use is an important factor.

[The PIT]

Well in my case it hasn't but then I ain't an expert I'm one of those people that the Linux world is trying tio bring into the fold as an alternative to Microshaft.
The only thing I managed to swap under linux without falling in a heap is a soundcard.

[Marshmallowman]

hmm, my experience has been with most flavours of linux has been that if you get the OS hardrive, and move it into a new system it usually boots and run with no intervention.
(even had a 4 year old linux install that went through 3 computers)

I never had that level of interoperabilty with any flavour of windows...

if it autologins to a window manager, you may have problems untill you reconfigure your X-server for the video card.(or any other unsupported hardware)

[DentyCracker]

NS 7 PR 1 is a damn sight faster on my machine than IE6. I did a minimal install and it just flies. If the final is as quick, I'll probably switch back to Netscape

[The PIT]

Originally posted by DentyCracker
NS 7 PR 1 is a damn sight faster on my machine than IE6. I did a minimal install and it just flies. If the final is as quick, I'll probably switch back to Netscape

It's not bad is it.

[The PIT]

Originally posted by Marshmallowman

if it autologins to a window manager, you may have problems untill you reconfigure your X-server for the video card.(or any other unsupported hardware)

Which of course most people will do as they want a nice little GUI interface where they can click on icons and load up their apps. Thats if of course that rpm they used actually did put a shortcut on the desktop.

[Jammrock]

I've been using Netscape 7 a lot lately. Definately much faster and stable than N6. Hopefully they don't screw something up before final release.

Jammrock

[EvilDonnyboy]

I just installed Netscape 7 PR1. Amazing, it doesn't suck! From what I've experienced with it so far, It's definately better than Mozialla 1.0 RC3.

Althought it still does have the same rendering quirks as Mozilla (Ign.com and bmw.ca render slightly incorrectly), it's definately faster. It still does use a couple more meg's of ram, but it's speed makes up for it.