> > "Should have probably fixed that then."
> Yeah - the traditional way of doing it is to pop Linux on the box.
Funny how most people don't have that problem.
> > "Race it against an Iyonix for a fair comparison."
> It boots in around 10 seconds, including starting NFS and Print servers, a commerical web server, X Windows, and loads of stuff extra. If I removed lots of stuff from it so it were functionally identical, such as cron, sshd and such, it'd prolly boot in 4 or 5, and most of that is the BIOS and X starting. Using another GUI system, like Fresco, would yeild another startup.
> The Iyonix's boot time is only "quick" because it loads so little, because of the lack of modern features in the OS. (It'd boot even quicker if the OS did proper caching and buffering.)
It does the bios thing, the GUI thing, file sharing, filer, task manager, app launcher, editor, display manager, in about the same time.
> > "It's 437.9 times more useful than every other OS without a booting harddisc."
> Not only have you made the number up, you've made the entire 'fact' up.
Well duh, obviously.
> I like that.
> (I have a Linux box downstairs with no hard disc, just ROM. It boots into X, has Mozilla, Dia, and Vim on it. [A browser, graphics tool, text editor] And the possibility of running other applications available on other UNIX boxes as if they were running locally.
Not without a network cable.
I have an A7000 with no hard disc, just ROM. It boots into a GUI and runs everything over the network, what's the big deal? Been doing that kind of thing for about 20 years.
> mavhc in trolling and completely wrong unshocker!
Who's on the RISC OS site saying RISC OS sucks?