> 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. > OS stability may mean how resistant it is to crashes, but the true measure is how long it can run without rebooting.
> Like I keep saying on and on and on and on: XP/2K is > STABLE (i.e. crash-resistant) but horribly INSECURE! > Stability and security is very near to each other, actually they are very much inter-related. In fact, the reason why XP/2K is more stable than Win98 is because it's more secured. > 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). > I think it's a good idea for Linux to copy innovations from MS, the fact that MS just copied *some* of their innovations somewhere too. > 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. > Depends on what area... in the above area, I'm not very sure if Linux will overtake Windows, MS has their own research team doing user interface design, analysis, and surveys for feedback. When comes to technical design of the OS, I think it's Windows who's catching up Linux. > Application-wise, Linux still has nowhere near the application > base that Win 9x had. But I believe that since Linux has become Nope.... again, depends on what application. Big enterprise are in favor of Linux because it save them big bucks, you said it, money makes the world go round.. > 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). > I don't see porting of applications to Windows means Windows is superior. I think that just mean that there's money on Windows. You said it, money makes the world go round.. > 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). > I don't speak for the majority here. I do agree that the distro fragmentation is a problem in Linux. What the techie want might not be what the non-techie want. > 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). > Don't be surprise, Linux is *not* just an OS... it's more than just an OS. Regards/ Jerome _ 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]
