That's a qn you should ask the MS fanboys.
Why confine yourself to one os.
Login to Account Create an Account
What does your desktop look like?
Posted 15 February 2004 - 06:06 AM
Posted 15 February 2004 - 06:40 AM
I like them all, use them all. The "war" is pointless for me.
Posted 15 February 2004 - 07:23 AM
1. Stable software does not contain bugs like buffer/heap overflows. XP had a bunch of them. One of which was exploited by worms like Blaster. The most recent one (http://www.eeye.com/...PR20040210.html) is a timebomb waiting to go off on an unpatched system.
As for the Linux issue...
Well, Windows XP is a good OS. ME was terrible... 2000 had bugs. You see, Bill Gates tries to make each version of Windows less dependant on MS-DOS because he hates the fact that he can't have Windows without DOS (since he just bought DOS and didn't make it himself like Windows). That's why ME was so bad. But in XP he must have given up or something because it runs very stabily. There are lots of security flaws to let you get hacked, but Linux is even worse... although only hackers use Linux so nobody is stupid enough to hack someone on Linux anyway.
There's no reason to run Linux on a newer machine though. Linux is better for programming and hacking, but from my experience, the older your computer is the better Linux runs on it, as long as it's like 5 years old or newer than that.
2. All software contain bugs. The reason why Linux or opensource software appear to have more flaws is because the code is publically auditable, and hence any bugs are more frequently and quickly rectified. Patches have been known to appear hours after a flaw is discovered. Compare this with MS, with a poor track record in addressing their bugs. Take the above link for example, the vulnerability was actually discovered 6 months ago, but a patch was only made available in the last week. Go to CERT's web site and do a search for all vulnerabilities rated severe/critical or above, and count which ones are for Linux and which for Windows. I don't know about you, but I know which system I want to host my mission critical data on.
3. Linux was no longer a hackers' toy as far as 4 years ago. Together with the opensourced BSDs, they have overtaken the server market share from proprietary Unixes. Today, many organisations and governments are considering (or have already) giving the finger to Bill Gates and making the switch to opensource alternatives like Linux.
4. Most of the servers end PCs in my workplace are purchased < 3 yrs ago, and they are all running Linux. Hell, even our NT/XP Domain Controller is a Linux box running Samba.
Posted 15 February 2004 - 07:43 AM
Posted 15 February 2004 - 08:02 AM
Hate is a strong word. I'm not religious about my OS, it's not even alive. But I have to be realistic and weigh the pros and cons in my computing choices. Windows, for me is really Wintendo, a machine for game emulation and nothing more. All my "serious" stuff, I do on Linux.
Seems like you really hate windows ugenn
Posted 15 February 2004 - 08:21 AM
Posted 15 February 2004 - 08:44 AM
Dont be offended, its a inside joke I got going with my friend and what I saw on Family Guy.
K' Dash... Your Recycle Bin... NOT COOL.
Posted 15 February 2004 - 09:25 AM
Dont take too much offense to it.
Posted 15 February 2004 - 09:45 AM
tomiko van. =) other than that, pretty standard. boring i kno.
Posted 15 February 2004 - 09:51 AM
i works fine for me. it gives it a lil more zing to ur desktop. a lil change from our usual xp or defaults. =)
i just have the default windows xp theme
i always wanted to try out windows blinds, but my friend warned me and told me not to get it, cause he said it fcuks with your comp. anyone experince anything bad with windows blinds?
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users