On 2/16/2010 8:45 AM, [email protected] wrote:
The frustration of having to run a Windows desktop would drive me insane.
Making the switch caused some grief, but I think it was worth it in the
long run. If nothing else, patches don't eventual bog the system down like
they do in Windows. If you don't believe me, take a fresh machine and
install Windows 2000 on it. Time how long it takes to boot. Then do
nothing but patch it. Alot. Reboot repeatedly. Burn most of a day doing
so. Time how long it takes to boot after all current patches are applied.
Last time I did this, it took about 3 times longer to boot.
Windows 2000 is a decade old now - and was not even intended to be a
desktop OS. And you need to defrag after making big disk changes. If you
don't already see why this is a bad comparision, try installing a
10-year old Linux server distro and try to update it to a current
desktop piecemeal.
Now when my laptop takes longer to boot, it's because I added something.
With windows XP, windows 7 or OSX on a laptop, you generally close the
lid to sleep, open again to wake up nearly instantly with local
networking established automatically and they've done that well for most
of a decade - so you rarely need to reboot. It's possible to make some
of the current linux distros do this if you are lucky, but it's not a
given. Having said that, I prefer Linux on servers, but I'm perfectly
happy to run the screens remotely with freenx/NX (easier than fighting
with distros that don't included Nvidia drivers anyway) and to test
experimental stuff under VMware where it is irrelevant what OS is
hosting natively.
--
Les Mikesell
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above
message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it.
Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com
MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected]
http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
