who says you can't run windows without a license? hell there are activators on github if you don't want to pay a cent.
Why would I want to use Windows? It’s super restricted, forces you to register an online account so they can fuck your computer up by syncing shit you don’t want to it, displays ads in the application launcher, and is super basic, like you can’t install on anything but a single disk formatted as NTFS. No option for something as basic as a RAID1 root pool unless you use shitty motherboard RAID, and then you’re still stuck with NTFS which lacks basic features like checksumming.
PLC-EMU: A Programmable Logic Controller EMUlator for automation applications on Linux with digital/analog IO cards.
Thanks man, once I'm done hitting the gym, I will check both of those programs so I don't get caught with my pants down when tasked to fix up some assembly line.
If they use Siemens or Allen-Bradley there might be more proprietary software you'd need to find. Phoenix should have a Linux version of their software as their os is a RTOS Linux kernel.
It's crazy the patented keffals method just made them look like a retard. And people that didn't know them think they're a shitty person.
Installing your OS on a root RAID1 partition is irresponsible.
Not at all. Linux has access to modern filesystems like ZFS and btrfs, which make this a viable (and very good) option. Windows could have a counterpart in ReFS, but Microsoft have largely given up on that. Fuck you for wanting your Windows to not eventually corrupt itself and die.
Ive worked with old gaming laptops that used two hard drives in a motherboard level raid array to double the read/write speed, I can't see it being necessary in the SSD era.
RAID0 does indeed make little sense on most modern hardware, the performance improvement is real but outside niche cases you're unlikely to notice.
Supposing x86/amd64, Netwide Assembler and GNU as are the top free options. These should run on most platforms.
RAID1 gives you uptime if one of the drives fail, but you are introducing another point of failure and complexity. In the case of a desktop, the OS drive failing is easily recovered by a simple backup. Your maximum downtime is going to be a few hours and that’s an extreme case. RAID1 is for a system that would take days to bring back up on failure. You’re adding complexity to your system for no good reason.
You forget about bitrot and bad sectors. RAID1 with checksumming means if a file gets corrupted, the filesystem will automatically repair it and let you continue. Without checksums you're only protected from outright hardware failure, like a head crash. Checksums mean errors are flagged (and an email warning you of this is sent, assuming you're not Linus Tech Tips and bothered taking five minutes setting up ZED properly), and you can replace the failing drive before it starts causing problems. Even if the file doesn't get loaded, your computer will run regular scrubs and detect errors that way, letting you catch them before they become a bigger issue. Without checksumming your first indication that there is a problem will be when things start crashing. You're correct to say I don't need this, but it's a feature I like to have quite a lot. I also don't need a GUI, but having one available does make a lot of things more convenient.
Why would an OS drive on an SSD need to worry about bad sectors and bit rot? You are segregating your data from your OS drive, aren’t you?
SSDs are as susceptible to bit rot as spinning rust, these days each gate stores four bits worth of data.
My point is that the data on your OS drive should be hot enough that it isn’t going to be susceptible to bitrot in a desktop use case. Been running solo OS drives since the fucking 80s and not once have I ever been unable to boot because of a bad sector.
not really otherwise we would be counting every physical hard drive that has multiple platters
