-----Original Message----- From: Jack Barnett [mailto:jbarnett@axil.netmate.com] Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 9:36 AM To: Derek Fountain; SuSE English Subject: Re: [SLE] Fundamental differences
Advocacy. If someone asks "why, specifically, is Linux better designed than Windows?" I want the answers to hand.
First, what market are you talking about, the desktop or server market. They are differant and not one in the same. It is like "which is better a tractor or a car". Well now that depends if you are talking about driving an hour to work or plowing a field.
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.
1) Not everyone has $5000 bucks to shell out for a "desktop" operating system. No "normal consumer" is going to pay $2000+ bucks to get NT over 98. Sure in the server market, maybe. But not (in your words) "On the desktop".
Well, for the desktop Win2k only costs ~$150 for an upgrade and Win95, etc. are included in the upgrade path. Before I dropped MS products from my desktop completely I only used NT. The unsupported apps and hardware were a minor inconvenience compared to the benefits of the much greater stability of NT. But now I use an even more stable OS at home. Everyone complains about MS spreading FUD but 1) above is quite abit of FUD. Greg Because e-mail can be altered electronically, the integrity of this communication cannot be guaranteed. -- 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