Author: Jan Thomas (cache-wit-hsi.cableinet.co.uk)
Date: 11-20-2001 00:51
None of the points you have raised are actually true (apart from windows being crap). So I will go through them in the order you scribbled 'em.
Which distribution(s)/version(s) of linux do you know? I'd be interested to know, it might explain a few things.
My server (redhat 7.0) has been up 24/7 for 8 months without a single crash.
Linux is the fastest OS on x86. You couldnt do what I am doing with my 66mhz 486 if it had windows on it.
Linux doesnt need tons of space, its comparable to windows only in the fact that a default install will use ~the same amount of hard disk, but the Linux install will give you millions of tools and accessories to boot. Knowledgable installs use about half the space of windows systems.
Modern distributions have installations that are as easy (or easier) as windows.
Its not a PC OS, its a x86, 68k, risc, alpha, mips, sparc and others - OS.
I cant compare it to RISC OS I dont have and I am unlikely to ever have any hardware to run it on. Why dont you port it to x86 or 68k so we can all check it out? ;-)
As for every OS that isnt in a rom being crap...utter nonsense. Some emebdded systems (industrial controllers, some DVD/MP3 players etc) come with linux in ROM. Does that make linux "not crap"? What about Magic or Mint? they dont come in ROM, are they crap?
I see not a single objective argument in your reasoning... of course people are gonna be offended, its not cos you're slagging off unix, hell - I didnt write it...
|
