|
Least secure OS? Linux! | by Bealz | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
| It's suprising.. |
by Khaar |
2003-01-13 15:06:29 |
...how it always ends up to "OS I use is better than yours".
None is perfect, not even close to solid, but everyone sees problems only with the opposition.
"Mine is stable, yours is not."
"At least I can get some work done."
And so on...
Yes, Windows is unstable and yes, most Linuxs are hard to use (not all). But when it gets to real life, Windows users hardly see OS crashing, it's usually program that crashes and it doesn't matter if it's Microsoft's or not. And Linux users are also used to heavy configuring and scavenging the net for programs.
But you can't call any of these better. Just consider that Linux comes in countless distributions and still can't beat Windows when it comes to daily usage. But then again, when servers are in question, the outcome is different.
And there is one major difference between corporations and open-source community. The community will produce countless programs that can do nearly anything, while a corporation will present one suite of programs with a wide, yet limited functionality. In the far end it all ends up to whether you want to use it or live with it. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
I take offence to that. | by caffine-iv | 2003-01-13 15:14:44 |
|
I'd like to see hte day when someone can | by caffine-iv | 2003-01-13 15:17:08 |
|
You take offense too easily. | by LionsPhil | 2003-01-13 15:19:28 |
|
NT kernel is better | by ozanbaba | 2003-01-13 15:22:48 |
|
XP is still *much* better than 9x/ME | by LionsPhil | 2003-01-13 15:25:20 |
|
ME was hte garbage of MS. | by caffine-iv | 2003-01-13 15:26:41 |
|
but XP has weiard problems still | by ozanbaba | 2003-01-13 15:28:19 |
|
I've not noticed any yet. | by caffine-iv | 2003-01-13 15:28:53 |
|
1 day | by ozanbaba | 2003-01-13 15:31:51 |
|
Huh. | by randomman | 2003-01-13 22:24:03 |
|
i agree but seems like someone | by ozanbaba | 2003-01-13 15:27:07 |
|
They did. ;-) | by Avium | 2003-01-13 20:02:49 |
|
I didn't say it ran as efficiently. | by caffine-iv | 2003-01-13 15:24:04 |
|
I was attacking this: | by LionsPhil | 2003-01-13 15:33:01 |
|
Then explain how I had several months uptime | by caffine-iv | 2003-01-13 15:50:18 |
|
Interesting - perhaps it WAS patched. | by LionsPhil | 2003-01-13 15:52:44 |
|
I didn't say it was perfect either. | by caffine-iv | 2003-01-13 15:56:31 |
|
nothing is perfect | by ozanbaba | 2003-01-13 16:01:19 |
|
You said - and I quote - | by LionsPhil | 2003-01-13 16:02:34 |
|
And it's true. | by caffine-iv | 2003-01-13 16:06:00 |
|
So...you've reverted back to your previous point? | by LionsPhil | 2003-01-13 16:11:11 |
|
You're apearently Stupid. | by caffine-iv | 2003-01-13 16:18:54 |
|
In my own experience, stability improved when... | by swisscheese | 2003-01-13 16:21:08 |
|
Here we go - 95, not 98 | by LionsPhil | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
That article is insane. | by caffine-iv | 2003-01-13 16:10:55 |
|
Which version. | by Avium | 2003-01-13 19:59:08 |
|
And even more | by Khaar | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
XP still has the BSoD. | by Avium | 2003-01-13 19:53:30 |
|
Uhm... | by randomman | 2003-01-13 22:16:02 |
