General discussion


Hey I am liking free O/S more and more

By zlitocook ·
I am a MS system builder and partner but with each update I get a little more p*ssed off at them. I have set up four companys with server 2003, and two with data center. All have XP Pro on all workstations. I have set the Amin. guy up to be able to install and update each workstation by SUS and it worked great until the last update.
Now he gets svhost.exe is using 99% of CPU, and some times wuauclt.exe is doing the same. Why dose MS keep doing this? I posted some thing about the WGA doing this.
Is this some thing new that MS is trying out or just a new update bug?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

my guress...

by Jaqui In reply to Hey I am liking free O/S ...

it's MS making sure people see a need to get the hardware that will properly support vista when it's released.

gotta get them sales numbers somehow.

Collapse -

Yeah but

by zlitocook In reply to my guress...

It has the IT teams at alot of companys just saying no to updates. And updating each computer which is a pain and cost them a ton of money.

Collapse -


by Jaqui In reply to Yeah but

I never said it was smart of them :)

I like my linux. use a distro and you can have automatic updates, or a single script to run after testing them that updates the entire network.
[ an f.y.i.: since 1998 I have only had one linux update break anything, and that was distro specific. it was fixed within 24 hours of my telling them about the problem. no support contract needed. [ an apache mod_perl update broke apache ] ]

Collapse -

Noticed something

by Ed Woychowsky In reply to hey

Over the last weekend I created a dual boot on my laptop, Fedora Core 5 and XP. I've noticed something interesting about the speed difference between the two, Linux is faster. The difference is really apparent when accessing a USB flash drive, Fedora Core is about twice as fast as XP.

It appears the Windows burns CPU cycles for no good reason. Or, it could be something along the lines of what was said about IBM, "The purpose of IBM software is to sell IBM hardware." Makes sense, if you have to upgrade you'll need a new license.

Collapse -

Now I see...

by NOW LEFT TR In reply to Noticed something

That is why the hour glass rotates...

Collapse -

What version of Linux

by cmiller5400 In reply to hey

do you use? I was going to use Fedora 5 is that a good choice?

Collapse -

Fedora Core 5

by Ed Woychowsky In reply to What version of Linux

I only installed it Saturday and I've only played around with Linux, but it seems solid. Actually, at first glance, it seems more solid than XP. I'm still having some issues with adding software, rpms are relatively easy, but the dependencies are confusing.

Fedora seems to be the easiest to start with, also there are sites with forums where help can be found.

Collapse -


by cmiller5400 In reply to Fedora Core 5

Thank you for your reply. I guess I will download it at 3 gigs. (it will take a while on a dsl 3meg line ]:)

Collapse -

I tried it and then switched to SUSE

by w2ktechman In reply to Fedora Core 5

Hello Ed,
I agree and have been stating several times that installing depenencies and installs in general are a bit of a problem. Mainly this is compared to Windows and installing there.
As well as you, I have recently been turning to Linux. I tried Fedora 5 on 2 systems, which I had a lot of trouble with. On 1 system, just trying to change to dual screen hosed everything and forced a reinstall. After 4 installs on 2 systems I gave up Fedora and tried SUSE 10. Much better in my opinion (although everyone is different). If you are used to installing RPM's, then the switch is easy as well, since SUSE supports RPM installs.
I find YAST easy to use and very useful as well. The problem is that SUSE is fatter than Fedora, and installs/runs a bit slower.
Just my 2 cents on comparison. If you are interested though, I would suggest looking at it.

Collapse -

software management on Fedora

by apotheon In reply to Fedora Core 5

You shouldn't have to install using the rpm command. Look into a package manager for Fedora and RHEL called YUM instead. It handles dependencies so you don't have to. Fedora also supports the use of APT-RPM, and RPM-based version of Debian's Advanced Package Tool. Because of the difference in the RPM package format from the DEB package format that Debian uses, there are occasional issues with APT-RPM, but it's easier to use than YUM (in my honest opinion) and runs significantly faster. Either way, though, you're likely to have a much easier time of it than by using the rpm utility directly.

If you choose to use APT for software management, keep an eye on TechRepublic: there should be an article about using APT appearing here before too long.

Related Discussions

Related Forums