Hi On Fri, 07 Jul 2000, you wrote:
Advocacy. If someone asks "why, specifically, is Linux better designed than Windows?" I want the answers to hand.
On the desktop, NT is pretty stable. Everyone's got horror stories, but for the most part it'll run for days or weeks just doing Word, Excel and IE. W2K is supposed to be better, and after a few patches - sorry, service packs - it will be. So stability is a drum the Linux community will not be able to beat much longer.
Not at all. Most folks don't run NT or W2k. Win98 is still the dominant desktop for home users. 98 isn't that stable. You are right about NT being more stable, as long as you don't try to do too much with it at once. My job force me to switch to NT. This is on a P133 with 32meg. It's slow, and a genuine pain. I've been told that we will get new computers, but when, I have no idea. Until then, I do very regular backups.
Desktop usability is largely subjective and people will argue until blue in the face about which is better. Same with extend and embrace over openness. Windows is now a network enabled OS. The implementation might be a kludge, but the GUI hides that to most desktop users. No clear Linux advantage here.
What you say is true. But I am so darn tired of that putrid Windows background color, and the startup music. We are not supposed to change this on the class lab computers. So when 25 kids log in, the sound is horrid, and i usually leave the room.. ;-))
The "it runs on older hardware" is wearing thin too, at least on the desktop. Have you tried KDE or GNOME on a 486? We have the choice, which is a good thing, but in practise the low end window managers don't realistically compete with Windows.
While you say that trying to run KDE or Gnome on a 486 is bad, there are alternatives. Some of the other Window managers run just fine. Icewm, Sawmill, and Windowmaker come to mind. This is not true with NT or W2k. What you see is what you get. You don't have a choice.
But no one can argue that the modularised and network transparent design of X is worse than the kernel level graphics of Windows and the horrific Terminal Server kludge, so that's one thing we can push. The ability to connect and disconnect both local and remote disks to your directory tree at will is another thing: no doubt that that's better than tying devices to C:, D:, etc
I was pondering the question, and my responses dried up there. Hence the question.
Where is this question leading ?
I have no idea. But I'd much rather work with linux that Windows anything. I like the freedom of choice. I guess that's why I started using it. Mike -- -------------------------------------------------------- for a great linux portal try http://www.freezer-burn.org home: http://www.an-netz.de/home/bcomber -------------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq