linux-gnu and linux-gnu-static, have, together reached a total just over
100,000,000 work units in aid of Seti@Home

http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/oss.html

OS WUs CPU Total CPU avg / WU

1) Windows NT: 5.0 287652487 335305.947 years 10 hr 12 min 40.3 sec
2) Windows NT: 5.1 217683971 191455.627 years 7 hr 42 min 16.2 sec
3) Windows 95: 4.10 193166923 437479.709 years 19 hr 50 min 21.9 sec
4) Windows NT: 4.0 134848586 233462.043 years 15 hr 09 min 57.9 sec
5) linux-gnu 80119267 85571.747 years 9 hr 21 min 22.1 sec
6) Macintosh OS 52769068 109191.227 years 18 hr 07 min 35.1 sec
7) Windows 98: 4.90 39332710 70152.948 years 15 hr 37 min 26.9 sec
8) Windows 95: 4.0 24587154 92525.551 years 32 hr 57 min 55.2 sec
9) linux-gnulibc1 18900527 28774.351 years 13 hr 20 min 10.7 sec

--
Best Regards,
Steve Withers
defenestrate: The act of throwing Windows out the window and replacing it on
your PC with some other operating system.

Cool! Windows 2000 is the #1 OS. The best OS there is period.

Al Wilson wrote:
Make that Dullard * 2...

But then, you don't understand do you?


Do a bit of research and cogitation.

Good luck,
Martin


--
---------- Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today.
- Martin - Teach him how to fish and he won't bother you for weeks!
- 53N 1W - - Anon
----------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message

On 1 Dec 2003 15:30:23 -0800, Al Wilson <astronomer@mailinator.com> wrote:
Unless, of course, you happen to have tried any of the non-Microsoft
operating systems out there.

And, of course, none of this is open to any kind of personal opinions,
right? I mean, it's not like there's a best OS for me, and a different
OS is the best for somebody else, right? ;-)

To each their own. I don't try and talk Grandma into trying
Slackware... :-)

--
Rob | If not safe,
Email and Jabber: | one can never be free.
athlonrob at axpr dot net |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/zA6Ehm6KEoOOAe0RAq2eAKDcoosZ3scMfmyrewDIP7PEPGWe7A CgoWVG
RSKBsgMKINYGgHzM2ZEcJEE=
=x5Tr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Martin wrote:

the kids are home from school now with too little to do. Ignore the
trolls. Most of those types think they are "133t" because they use
Win2k instead of XP.

Malke
--
"I have a cunning plan..."
(remove 3's to reply)

steve <steve@wenowut.org> wrote in message news:<QSCyb.10700$ws.994793@news02.tsnz.net>...
It's catching up but it isn't faster at this point. The time that it
takes for Windows is still less tht Linux according to the numbers.
Maybe it's because it takes more CPU to run Windows (but then it sits
idle more after it's started).

Units CPU Years CPU Years Units per
per Unit CPU Year
1) Windows NT: 5.0 287652487 335305.947 0.001165663 857.8806597
2) Windows NT: 5.1 217683971 191455.627 0.000879512 1136.994375
3) Windows 95: 4.10 193166923 437479.709 0.002264775 441.544874
4) Windows NT: 4.0 134848586 233462.043 0.00173129 577.6038977
5) linux-gnu 80119267 85571.747 0.001068055 936.281773
6) Macintosh OS 52769068 109191.227 0.002069228 483.272049
7) Windows 98: 4.90 39332710 70152.948 0.001783578 560.670807
8) Windows 95: 4.0 24587154 92525.551 0.003763166 265.7336674
9) linux-gnulibc1 18900527 28774.351 0.00152241 656.8532858
I have seti running on (2) P4 2.4ghz, (2) AMD 1700+ and (6) P3 450mhz
and a fried has it running on some similar hardware and I tend to beat
him by about 5% on average unless I'm playing warcraft in which case
it slows considerably but I leave it running anyways.

The good news is that we see a lot more people running Linux...