What is the disadvantage of having 5 different window managers? None. If I get tired of one, I can switch to the other. This is the real strength of Linux--The customisability. In Win, I'm stuck with one crappy window manager.
Second, if browsers are so complex and that they were free in the past, why isn't MS charging for IE?
Seems like everytime MS says something, it gets "foot in mouth disease."
I understad that the people who read a huge number of posts may be using bots just so they can be eligible to be a mod. But, I think that being in the top 25% is not bad. Perhaps the top 5 percent or so should be blocked. Those are the ones with the bots.
This is just another MS tactic to make us GNU and Linux (I dare not say GNU/Linux! It could be taken differently:) users feel bad. GNU is not um..Gates. Perhaps it's time to find a new home...
The statements that I will make are not biased. I agree that Microsoft products are a little easier to setup. It takes a little less for me to install Windows 98/NT than Linux. (Of course I lose a lot of flexibility going MS.) If so many Linux users claim that it is faster and more stable, then there must be _some_ kind of truth to that. Sure every OS has pluses and minuses and that MS has more resources because they are rich. MS might strive to make their product as good as possible, but there is a great deal of improvement. However, Because of the beuraucracy of such a large company, those service packs take a long time to be released. Look at the average time between kernel releases and service pack releases. Windows 98's service back was due to be released in December, but it was pushed back. Meanwhile, I got several new kernel sources. Linux is not only the kernel, but the additional software that actually does the networking, and serving, etc... Those have been updated countless times since, also. As for my personal experiences with Windows 95/98/NT4.0: They need to be reinstalled at least twice a year due to corruption. (Particularly in the registry. I'll post about that when the time comes.) The system itself is visibly slower than Linux on some occasions. Starting and stopping some services require a lot of waiting time. '98 crashes the most, NT is middle, Linux not once (unless I run Wine:) The reason I switched from NT4.0 to Linux was because I got tired from the above, and I have found sanctuary with Linux.
I guess I can keep going on about my Windows problems, but I'll save it for later.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps I'm dense.. but what is the point of this anyway?
What's NeoPlanet, a code fork?
What is the disadvantage of having 5 different window managers? None. If I get tired of one, I can switch to the other. This is the real strength of Linux--The customisability. In Win, I'm stuck with one crappy window manager.
Second, if browsers are so complex and that they were free in the past, why isn't MS charging for IE?
Seems like everytime MS says something, it gets "foot in mouth disease."
I understad that the people who read a huge number of posts may be using bots just so they can be eligible to be a mod. But, I think that being in the top 25% is not bad. Perhaps the top 5 percent or so should be blocked. Those are the ones with the bots.
If those two servers go down, it means Gates is finally getting is college degree, and is hacking them from the dorm :)
This is just another MS tactic to make us GNU and Linux (I dare not say GNU/Linux! It could be taken differently :) users feel bad. GNU is not um..Gates. Perhaps it's time to find a new home...
TeslaCoil
The statements that I will make are not biased. :)
I agree that Microsoft products are a little easier to setup. It takes a little less for me to install Windows 98/NT than Linux. (Of course I lose a lot of flexibility going MS.)
If so many Linux users claim that it is faster and more stable, then there must be _some_ kind of truth to that. Sure every OS has pluses and minuses and that MS has more resources because they are rich. MS might strive to make their product as good as possible, but there is a great deal of improvement. However, Because of the beuraucracy of such a large company, those service packs take a long time to be released. Look at the average time between kernel releases and service pack releases. Windows 98's service back was due to be released in December, but it was pushed back. Meanwhile, I got several new kernel sources. Linux is not only the kernel, but the additional software that actually does the networking, and serving, etc... Those have been updated countless times since, also.
As for my personal experiences with Windows 95/98/NT4.0:
They need to be reinstalled at least twice a year due to corruption. (Particularly in the registry. I'll post about that when the time comes.)
The system itself is visibly slower than Linux on some occasions.
Starting and stopping some services require a lot of waiting time.
'98 crashes the most, NT is middle, Linux not once (unless I run Wine
The reason I switched from NT4.0 to Linux was because I got tired from the above, and I have found sanctuary with Linux.
I guess I can keep going on about my Windows problems, but I'll save it for later.
TeslaCoil