Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on March 02, 2006 01:15 AM
As a reply/response to everyone, let me reiterate. I thought I made it quite clear what my statement was. I have in no way insulted Linux as an OS/Kernel or otherwise. Linux (its myriad distributions) is an incredible OS. At home, I run XP Pro on my laptop because I haven't found a Linux distro with sufficient hardware support, and it's simply easier to travel with Windows. I think we can all agree that Windows (unfort.) is much more broadly supported in terms of connecting a mobile system through various means.
On my desktops at home, I run mostly dual-boots of XP and Ubuntu and a single Server 2003 machine. Linux is amazing, and truly is more reliable and more powerful in general than Windows (and than OS X). A Windows box can be run very effectively, possibly close to as well as a Linux box, but as someone said it takes a lot of work. For a Linux machine, you just use it, a Windows machine you have to babysit - constant virus checks and updates, spyware protection, ms updates, and a potpourri of other fixes.
My dispute is NOT that Windows is better than Linux in any way. Quite the contrary. However, I disagree wholeheartedly when you compare a 300mhz machine to what was originally stated as new Mac boxes. That's just ludicrous. If you had two machines of similar power, sure the Linux machine would most likely outperform the Windows machine on most levels. Your surrealism, however is destructive to the Linux community. Prospective Linux users will see your overzealous attitude as mere insanity and won't buy the hype. Or they will put Linux on their P4 and be upset when it doesn't fly to Mars out of pure speed.
In reference to the Smoothwall response, am I incorrect in using smoothwall (lowercase) for a generic term? It's a term that I have often heard and used for a box being used essentially as a firewall. We were using a linux box just outside of our router, so that any incoming attacks would essentially see an unpregnable box instead of a faulty Windows machine. If my terminology is incorrect, I apologize. This machine, however, did come under attack and was infected. I apologize for not having the virus logs to provide you, but I laughed at your response - "Prove it, or you're full of shit!! -<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....calm down tiger.
I am not attacking your community, nor am I backing down from my original statement. My original statement was simply that you were overinflating the performance of your machines.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Reply to all
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 02, 2006 01:15 AMOn my desktops at home, I run mostly dual-boots of XP and Ubuntu and a single Server 2003 machine. Linux is amazing, and truly is more reliable and more powerful in general than Windows (and than OS X). A Windows box can be run very effectively, possibly close to as well as a Linux box, but as someone said it takes a lot of work. For a Linux machine, you just use it, a Windows machine you have to babysit - constant virus checks and updates, spyware protection, ms updates, and a potpourri of other fixes.
My dispute is NOT that Windows is better than Linux in any way. Quite the contrary. However, I disagree wholeheartedly when you compare a 300mhz machine to what was originally stated as new Mac boxes. That's just ludicrous. If you had two machines of similar power, sure the Linux machine would most likely outperform the Windows machine on most levels. Your surrealism, however is destructive to the Linux community. Prospective Linux users will see your overzealous attitude as mere insanity and won't buy the hype. Or they will put Linux on their P4 and be upset when it doesn't fly to Mars out of pure speed.
In reference to the Smoothwall response, am I incorrect in using smoothwall (lowercase) for a generic term? It's a term that I have often heard and used for a box being used essentially as a firewall. We were using a linux box just outside of our router, so that any incoming attacks would essentially see an unpregnable box instead of a faulty Windows machine. If my terminology is incorrect, I apologize. This machine, however, did come under attack and was infected. I apologize for not having the virus logs to provide you, but I laughed at your response - "Prove it, or you're full of shit!! -<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....calm down tiger.
I am not attacking your community, nor am I backing down from my original statement. My original statement was simply that you were overinflating the performance of your machines.
#