Hello

I have RedHat 5.0 installed on one of my computers at home. It''s still up and running fine, though I rarely use it as a desktop computer anymore. It seems that just to keep the system current involves an endless process of patches, tar''s and rpm''s, which I can''t find the time to do anymore. (Once I could, but I was 15 then, and who doesn''t have oodles of free time when he''s 15 years old?

My main computer is a nice new PIII 733 running Windows 2000. The programs crash (although, programs do crash on my Linux box -- a frequent occurence when most of the software never get out of beta) and I do have to reboot every couple of days for the machine to remain usable. Yet I still use it. Besides the limited unstability, the OS is hassle free and easy to manage. It saves me time.

I know "how to turn on a computer", having been a computer technician, worked in a software company''s QA division, and been programming since I was 14. I know my way around hardware and software, and have used both Linux and Windows. It is silly for me to say one is better than the other; they''re just different, that''s all. If someone has a certain type of job, or develops a certain application, then one OS may suit this person''s needs better than the other. Any juvenile argument one way or the other(no matter how "artistic") is, well, pointless.

So, in the spirit of Christmas, let us put aside our petty differences in our individual choices of OS, and concentrate our intellectual efforts on more pressing problems. Last time I checked, there are still some people who haven''t the chance to make a choice; they cannot afford Christmas dinner, let alone a computer.

I wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year,

Chris

One word, Be!

Linux is not as bad as it sounds.. but Windows has a strangle hold on users. The problem is that Linux is not meant for people that do not like typing command lines. I got sick of typing stuff like echo hi >/dev/lp0 or mount /etc/fd0.. or whatever it was just to access the floppy drive. Some Linux GUI programs such as KDE do use shortcuts to mount your floppy...cd rom etc.. but it still is a little odd for me. On the other hand, Linux is stable...sometimes.. it crashed on me when I was using Netscape... I guess my computer is not configured correctly or something.
NA.. I''ll still concentrate using Windows and the DirectX7 API...I do not like the concept of learning a new API because Microsoft puts it out... if it works... why fix it? =)

It''s settled!
check out the ''os shutdown: Windows 2000 vs. Linux'' at bbspot.com



btw, also check out the other articles at this site

-mike

Both OS''s have their place. I use windows for my main desktop both at home and at work. Linux operates my servers. One topic no one has touched on is security. I am deeply involoved in the security community and I can tell you that a properly configured windows system cannot even try to match a properly configured linux box. Windows also has the most interesting bugs like the changing icons on the desktop. Linux provides excellent support for writing things like low level packet drivers and the like. Also Microsoft often denies that problems exist even after an advisory and an exploit for a vulnerability have been released. Often with Linux flaws are patched within hours. As for someone commenting that mainatining a linux box required constant downloads, ever heard of hot fixes? They come in an endless stream and occaisionaly conflict with each other. I would like to see Microsoft embrace Linux instead of trying to subvert it. And DirectX isn''t all that. Just wait until it has no competition. Think it will still be free? Guess again. MS is only nice when it can''t get what it wants, like calling for an openInstant Messaging standard when most of its are proprietary. Just my thoughts.

InFerN0

Not all who wander are lost...

I have said it before and I will say it again:

It is NOT acceptable for an OS to crash as often as you are saying (several times a day). It is not acceptable for an OS to allow an application to bring down the OS (both fail there, but Windows does so more).

The Windows people have been churning crap, making people think that because an OS is a complex peice of software, it is acceptable to have it crash every so often. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. Just ask anyone with propper education in computers (computer science, and the like)

My Windows machine crashs at least 5 times a day, dosn''t shutdown, and here is somthing odd I have seen windows do:

DAMAGE ITS OWN BOOT SECTOR FROM A CRASH IN ITS OWN CODE

I have seen it do that on more computers than my own, so don''t you tell me otherwise. This is evedant of bad programing if ever I saw it.

Fortunatly for MS they have a monopoly (everyone knew this before the court case, the DOJ just had to prove it legaly), so they can churn out whatever bull crap they like and find some way to make us use it. (take windows, we have to use it because most of the software runs on it).

I reckon a suitable way to punish MS for having a monopoly, is to have it work on WINE or somthing, to allow its Windows apps to run on any OS, taking the edge off its OS that makes everyone need to use it. Then there wouldn''t be arguments like this, because everyone could use whatever OS they wanted without worring about large numbers of apps working. Many linux people still have to have a copy of windows, to dual boot to, so they can run the windows stuff.

ANDREW RUSSELL STUDIOS
Web site coming soon...

Now.......why is Linux more stable......this is because Linux has less code then windows......making it easier to find errors.
Besides that, the GUI (X-Windows and all others) aren''t coded into the OS, or directly linked to the kernel. Windows has it''s GUI linked directly to it''s kernel (you can''t run windows without it).

I am curious about the stability of whistler (the next OS of Microsoft), with this OS the GUI is seperated from the OS itself, making coding for the Microsoft coders easier, and more readable.

About what i think what is the best OS......i use both...and i am happy with both.