Recently I took a position as an analyst in a NT Server group... (a server admin by another title). I figured I could pick things up pretty quickly... My experience is pretty well rounded, including some previous NT experience. And Linux has been a hobby for a while now. After all, if I can pick up Linux, NT should be no sweat, right?
Hah!
It seems they start on opposite ends of the spectrum. Linux is stable by default, and you've got to pretty well screw it up to make it unstable. NT starts unstable, and you've got to add hotfixes and tweaks and service packs to make it stable. Then it's nice and stable... until you install another application.
Now, every day little tasks might actually be easier in NT than Linux... but troubleshooting is so much easier (and less necessary) in Linux than NT. Linux usually gives me a clue what the problem is. NT often gives a generic error, and leaves no trace of what the problem actually is. Despite being a relative newbie to Linux, Linux has never left me scratching my head, completely clueless the way NT frequently does. Sometimes it seem like NT ought to have a "I just didn't feel like it" error.
NT is easier to use like an automatic transmission is easier to use than a manual. Sure, you may not have to do as much, but you've got less control, less flexibility, and you're never REALLY sure what's going on in there...
Blood is thicker than water... Or at least it ought to be. It's one thing to take on Microsoft as the enemy. But when the fighting is internal, it's Linux that loses, not M$. Let KDE and GNOME take on M$ together, and give us a choice. How can we fault M$ for not giving us a choice, and then tear down one of our DEs because we have one too many? Once Linux has beaten M$, or at least achieved parity, then perhaps let the best DE win!
Slashdot Mirror
Recently I took a position as an analyst in a NT Server group... (a server admin by another title). I figured I could pick things up pretty quickly... My experience is pretty well rounded, including some previous NT experience. And Linux has been a hobby for a while now. After all, if I can pick up Linux, NT should be no sweat, right?
Hah!
It seems they start on opposite ends of the spectrum. Linux is stable by default, and you've got to pretty well screw it up to make it unstable. NT starts unstable, and you've got to add hotfixes and tweaks and service packs to make it stable. Then it's nice and stable... until you install another application.
Now, every day little tasks might actually be easier in NT than Linux... but troubleshooting is so much easier (and less necessary) in Linux than NT. Linux usually gives me a clue what the problem is. NT often gives a generic error, and leaves no trace of what the problem actually is.
Despite being a relative newbie to Linux, Linux has never left me scratching my head, completely clueless the way NT frequently does. Sometimes it seem like NT ought to have a "I just didn't feel like it" error.
NT is easier to use like an automatic transmission is easier to use than a manual.
Sure, you may not have to do as much, but you've
got less control, less flexibility, and you're never REALLY sure what's going on in there...
Jase
Blood is thicker than water... Or at least it ought to be. It's one thing to take on Microsoft as the enemy. But when the fighting is internal, it's Linux that loses, not M$. Let KDE and GNOME take on M$ together, and give us a choice. How can we fault M$ for not giving us a choice, and then tear down one of our DEs because we have one too many? Once Linux has beaten M$, or at least achieved parity, then perhaps let the best DE win!
Blood is thicker than water...