On Fri, 5 May 2000, jim t.p. ryan wrote:
> Please let's not turn this into the typical MS bashing Linux group.
> I like Linux, it is a powerful, somewhat stable OS.
Somewhat stable? Linux has proven itself to be very stable, except when
truly stressing the machine to the limit, and Windows isn't any better at
stressing the hardware. Linux is far more stable than any Microsoft
offering since DOS, and probably that too.
> But compared to Windows, it has virtually no applications.
That's just a lie, or an obvious mistake. Linux has thousands of
applications, and except for certain niche areas such as high-end
accounting and such, it can do virtually anything you need it to do.
You just can't go to a store and PAY for the applications, because they
are FREE.
> When, and I hope it does, have as many disparate (sp??) vendors
> writing to it, and as many users using it as Windows, and it can
> retain it's present claim to stability, then you can point fingers.
Linux has thousands of software authors writing applications for it. This
statement is meaningless. Linux is more stable because anyone can review
the code for both the kernel and (generally) for its thousands of
applications and fix instabilities. The software available for Linux is
much better in general because the people who write it CARE about the
SOFTWARE, rather than just their paycheck. They use the software
themselves, and want to make sure that it actually works. It's been a
long time since I've used any commercial software that I actually thought
was worth the price I paid for it.
The one exception to that is in the gaming area. Commercial game
companies can and do sometimes write quality software.
> But the plain truth is Microsoft brought computers to the masses.
> How they did it doesn't matter. If Unix had prevailed there is no way
> the common person today would be using the level of technology that
> they presently do.
You're probably right about that... that doesn't mean that Microsoft makes
quality products. They just made easy to use products, IF you can put up
with your software crashing every 30 seconds. Quality != easy to use. It
may be one factor, but there's much more to the picture.
> I work as an engineer in an engineering company. We have NT
> Workstation on the desktop. I work for weeks on end and don't have
> any crashes. But, I have very few applications, no sound/multimedia
> stuff, just a few basic tools, like my Linux system at home.
And that's the key. In order to keep Windows running with any semblance
of stability, you can't install very much on it.
> I would venture to guess that if you put Linux into the same
> environment that these managers you point out now work in, you would
> have just as many problems. As you say "superior tools, for those who
> know how to use them", well, without Microsoft, there would be a whole
> lot less people knowing how to use computers.
Don't venture, you're bad at it. Linux BY DEFAULT has far more
applications installed on it than a typical Windows machine. It has
hundreds of utilities, and lots of productivity and multimedia software,
games, etc. It's infinitely more stable than Windows. Your argument
doesn't hold water.
--
Derek Martin
System Administrator
Mission Critical Linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
