> I'll mind my language so anyone won't get offended, even you. > I'll try to answer this via logic and OS theory.
Au contraire, I'm not the one around here who's easily offended. > We don't intend to say that Linux does everything already > as great as Windows does it. Open source is no panacea. "Open source is no cure-all". Hmmm.... Orly would violently disagree with that. My stance is that it is remarkably close to being a cure-all, but not absolutely. Money still makes the world go round :-). > >productivity. I wonder what it would take for the Linux > >kernel to have this ability. (KDE desktop save/restore > >is quite imperfect). > Oh, regarding that last line of yours, just wait and see. I was hoping for a technical explanation of how hibernate functionality might work under Linux, not start a pissing contest. > >By rock-solid stability, I mean being able to work for > >as long as I want to without the OS crashing. Win 9x was > >completely unsuitable for development (or even graphics > >production) purposes because I get blue screens every > >couple of hours or so. This is the reason why I seriously > >considered moving to Linux as my environment of choice > >despite the fact that it took more effort to figure out > >how to get tasks done which I take for granted under > >Windows and there was a dearth of usable, sophisticated, > >applications for it. > Hey! Don't redefine what's STABILITY meant here! If that's > what's stability for you, then pardon me but that isn't > enough definition for us here. Since YOU are here in the > PLUG mailing list, you better conform with the language > game we play here -> we view STABILITY in a broader sense, > and not just restricted to rapid bootup, hibernation and > all that stuff. Try including SECURITY in your definition > of STABILITY. As well as others you might have left out. And don't redefine STABILITY as it is commonly understood to be. OS stability refers to how resistant it is to crashes. Security, bootup speed, and hibernation abilities have nothing to do with the definition. If you took the time to read my post carefully, you'd see that I am not attempting to mix up the two, rather it is your post that does. > And by the way, what boots up fast, shutdowns cutely or > has hibernate/restore doesn't mean it is rock-solid stable, > Nor does it mean that nothing would go wrong. Consider > other factors that may affect your system's performance. > Since you administer systems, go figure what these other > factors be. > As for XP's case, only time will tell if it's stable or > not. Judging Win2000's case (which formed the skeleton > of WinXP, it has been already proven not to be secure > given the humiliating experiences with CodeRed and Nimda Like I keep saying on and on and on and on: XP/2K is STABLE (i.e. crash-resistant) but horribly INSECURE! > Anyway, Linux doesn't compete with Windows. Unfortunately, > Microsoft doesn't view it that way (and you'll see that with > the Valentine memos.) I'm all for the idea that Linux/free software world should not blindly copy every new 'innovation' that Microsoft comes up with (although some are quite desirable). That's what the phrase "not competing with Windows" means to me. Some Linux fan(atics) actually think competing with Windows is a good idea. The Ximian people who are trying to port .NET over for instance. Or this author who was crying out for Apache to provide support for Web Services (I guess Tomcat should take care of that). Apparently though, Microsoft can see that GNU/Linux/(KDE or GNOME) is _good enough_ to compete with Windows. Distros like Red Hat, Mandrake, Caldera, etc... are *at least* on par with the ease of install and desktop functionality of Win 9x. However, 2K/XP have introduced a lot of compelling improvements. Thus, once again, Linux has more catching up to do. I have no reason to see why Linux should not be able to catch up given time. But will it OVERTAKE Windoze in these areas? Now THAT is an interesting question. Application-wise, Linux still has nowhere near the application base that Win 9x had. But I believe that since Linux has become friendly enough for non-techie users to adopt, it bodes well for the Linux application market (although distro fragmentation is an important concern). I still maintain that the gap between apps available for Linux and Windows has widened. Apps previously found only on high end Unix systems - top-of-the-line CG software like Maya, SoftImage, Renderman, etc... - have now been ported over to NT/2K/XP. While it hasn't happened yet, it's not hard to imagine seeing them on Linux soon (but I'll be doggoned if they come for free!!). And while I haven't used it yet, it seems that Borland's Kylix (now at version 2) is something that Linux fans should applaud about (GNOME fan-atics might purse their lips a little though). If MS had taken its time to come out with 2K/XP(*) , their market share would be in *really* deep trouble. As it is, the proliferation of (relatively) mature, user-friendly Linux distros is cause enough for them to worry about (their hidden friend is distro fragmentation). (*) intended more to compete with the Mac than Linux - a good strategy given that it is that much harder to eat into the 'market share' of a (more or less) free OS. > luckiness. You're very lucky then - viruses didn't come > to wreck your PC happiness with Windows. However, I now > a lot of people who'd gladly envy your case. And they One important con of using Windows is you really have to be on your guard against viruses and network security (using a firewall is almost de rigueur even when using dial-up)(*). Overall, though, the bit of extra work needed to secure your desktop is worth it given the overwhelming choice of mature apps available on the platform. Linux is improving all the time, but Windows isn't standing still either. (*) I wouldn't be complacent just because I'm using Linux though. Of course, I'm more for cheering improvements (just because you don't hear me doing it now doesn't mean I haven't done so) on the Linux side because it's free software. But that doesn't mean that I have to blind myself to the advantages of using Windows. Also, the attitude of Linux bigots can really turn off or scare non-techies who are considering the switch (it's as if Linux users were a cult). > Oh, by the way, this is the Philippine Linux Users' Group. > Windows won't fit in here. Just for delicadeza, Ok? At the risk of once again offending someone by pointing out the plain truth, perhaps that applies more to the "Windows sitting/not sitting on top of DOS" or "CLR/.NET" discussions (both exclusively Microsoft topics). _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
