Seyed. That was an interesint link. It's odd that when they tested Ubuntu, they never tested it with an nvidia vhip, just the Intel chip. That seems rather unfair.

That aside, They only tested Ubuntu, and not any other Linux distribution ... To be fair (and I like Ubuntu), Ubuntu is bloated. Did they turn off compiz before they ran the game? How may other processes were running?

A better test would have been to include an Ubunut machine with an nvidia chip, and then to include maybe 2 ot 3 other ditributions with the same hardware combinations.

Also, something that was not taken into consideration (and I'm not really gamer, so I'm unfamiliar with the games on the list) but what libraries wee being used by those games? What I mean, is that sometimes, game developers who port their games to Linux do so as an after thought, and don't give much thought to the tools that they are using. Perhaps their games were linked against older, less efficient libraries. Maybe they included thier own instead of using "standards".

As mfillpot has already stated, my own experience has bene that things run faster and smoother under Linux than under other OSes.

Here's an idea ... let's bench mark some originaly Linux software that has been ported to toher OSes, too. How well does the Gimp run under windows as compared to Linux, for example?

If you're running KDE (e.g. Kubuntu), Kdevelop is kind of decent, too.

Is the Linksys providing DHCP services?

Is your network card a PCI card, a USB adapter, or something on the motherboard?
Can you issue the command ' lshw | grep -A12 "network" ' to help us see more information about your network card ...

If you run either Gnome or KDE, then Network Manager already does this for you. also, on the command line, you can issue the command "iwlist scan" and find wireless networks that way.

If you want more information, or are looking for a tool more like NetStumbler, then I would usggest you check out the airodump-ng suite of tools (all CLI), and Kismet (server + nCurses client), and wellenreiter (most like NetStumbler).

It sounds like you just want the ssh session to run int he back ground.

 

ssh -f -N -L 12345:127.0.0.1:10237 ec34@192.101.77.209 

that should do exactly what you want, if I understand your concerns correctly.

Sorry, I also am not clear on what exactly it is you are asking. Are you asking about how to change the "niceness" of a process?

I'm not sure I follow. Are you asking how you use them when writing a script, when writing a program (e.g. in an open() call), or as a parameter inside of another application.

In a shell script, you would use them just like you are used to in the CLI.
In a program or a scripting language, you would also use them in the open() call aspart of the parameter, if the language you are using supports doing so, but this is often superfluos, since you can direct open() to opena file for reading or writing.
Inside another application as a parameter, it would depend completely on how the appliation was written. A security-minded prorgammer (*cough* a good programmer *cough*) would sanitize input from the user and strip out characters like < and > to prevent the user from using the application in unexpected or mischievous ways.

what is your specific use-case?

Santosh, usually, EXT will only do that if it encounters a hardware error with the disk, or something happens that is perceived to be a hardware error (like too much disk I/O for the disk to handle). I'm not awaare of any specific bugs with 2.6.10 with regards to EXT3, other than one a couple folks reported with NFS.

The guys at MontaVista are actually really helpful. Gave you run this by them? I'm assuming that yours is some sort of embedded application, since you're using montavista. What else can you tell us about how things are architected?

Also, have you cross posted this to Meld? If not, you should. Again, Meld / MontaVista is usually really helpfull.

Another posibility is a bottle neck at the bus with the drives. If you are really reading and writing that much data simultaneously to that machine, the drives and the bus that the drives are on may not be able to keep up.

Sources of a network bottle neck can be anythng from the switch being used in the LAN, to improper cabling (e.g. too much untwisted where it was crimped), to the bus into which the network card is plugged. Consider for example, a 1000baseT card plugged into a PCI bus. A PCI bus will NOT move data at 1000bps ....

my $new_line;



while (1)

{

  $sock->recv($new_line, 200, -f);

  if  ......

......

You EITHER use IO::Socket to create an object and then use the object methods, OR you create a file handle w/ socket() and then use recv() ....