On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 04:53:03PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> (Forgive the top-posting)


> Your assertion that "linux is both low end unix and low end windows 
> replacement" is factually wrong: As a high end unix I think it's earned it's 
> stripes, currently dominating the top 500 supercomputer systems in the world, 
> some no other unix has managed to accomplish this time round. Notably, when 
> compared to freebsd it offers support for virtualisation where bsd is nowhere 
> close to doing, just one example of high end unix feature it provides. As a 
> gui desktop, I'm certain kde is a superior interface to windows in many ways.

While I agree that, without some kind of supporting argument, the
statement that Linux systems are "low end" Unix replacements are kind of
spurious sounding, I don't think that market share is really an effective
metric for determination of the quality of a replacement for a given
class of OS.

I'm also not sure I see how virtualization makes or breaks the quality of
any Unix-like system, or qualifies it as "high end".

Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ]
Zat was zen, dis is tao.  http://tao.apotheon.org

Attachment: pgpat2uiW7mAn.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to