Chuck Esterbrook wrote:
On 6/10/07, Darren New <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm sure lots of people have had solid Linux experiences. I'm sure lots
have had awful Linux experiences. Just like Windows.
Are you implying that because some people on each platform have had
problems, that the platforms are equivalent in their frustration
level? (Or that since people have had great experiences on each, that
they are equally great?)
No. I'm implying that when people tell me "the only reason your Linux
ever crashed is broken hardware", they're not basing it on any evidence.
That's a religious statement.
Regarding all the strange issues you're having, I can't offer much
advice because Linux hasn't given me the same kinds of problems.
I wasn't really looking for advice about the strange issues. I just
power cycle and go on my way. The amount of work I lost by having the
machine lock up once or twice a week wasn't worth the time it would take
me to find, learn, and reinstall a distro. (Especially given some of the
disastrous yet popular distros I've tried to install in the past, like
Fedora.)
I was simply pointing out my experiences that are contrary to what the
general consensus is.
Put it this way: If the mantra is "if Linux crashed on you, it had to be
because your hardware was broken, because nobody else ever complains
that Linux crashes", how many times are people going to complain that
Linux crashes? I'm not claiming my experiences are universal. I simply
said that Linux crashes for me more often than Windows does. I didn't
even say it wasn't my fault.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
His kernel fu is strong.
He studied at the Shao Linux Temple.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
