Re: For those in need of some amusement.....

[Adam Williams <adam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 From          : klug>klug-request
 To            : adam
 Subject       : Re: For those in need of some amusement.....
 Date          : 10/14/99 11:17


>>I think this is getting a little out of hand.  I see less and less
>>"factual" comments with each reply.  If you prefer Linux then use Linux,~
>>if you think Windows is easier/faster/better than use Windows.  Just~
>>don't turn your opinions into truth.
>may have misinterpreted was my statement that Windows is basically stable,
>but is very susceptible to bad apps and hardware/drivers.  I don't think
>that is too "off-base".

This is true, I agree 100%.

>>Oh yes I can, I have 130 non-techie users sitting in front of Linux boxes
>>doing what users do: openning invoices, typing e-mail, etc...  The DEFAULT
>>Linux desktop may not be what a user needs,  but it certainly CAN BE what
>>a user needs.
>Sure, with proper training.  However, my point was that if you took two raw
>newbies, gave one a Linux box and one a Windows box, the Windows user has a
>much better chance to get things working straight.    I don't see where the
>argument is here.

The solution was to make a Linux desktop look almost exactly like Win95,~
a rather trivial task.  Those with PC at home were comfortable and could~
advise those with no computer experience as regards basic computer
operations.

>>>and points to your company not having an experienced hardware/Windows
>>>person.  The only app at my current job that I see die on a regular basis
>>>Outlook 97, which is an utter piece of sh*t.  Nothing to do with Windows
>>Your very lucky.  This evidence is ancidotal.
>My experience with Outlook 97 is anecdotal, but my many experiences with
>Windows are not.  Luck has nothing to do with it; the type of hardware used
>and application compatibility are the "master" secrets to having a useful
>Windows install.

I certainly agree with this as well.  The only problem is that one does not
always have freedom to choose the application mix,  and then your simply
screwed.~

>>An APP should NOT be able to kill the OS, ever!  That is the point.
>It does, though, and not just on Microsoft products.  I've seen Linux freeze
>in X several times (vapor lock, not just "oh, I'll telnet in and kill the
>session" lock).  Those darn GUIs...~

A buggy device driver can crash any system,  X has direct access to the~
hardware.  A buggy server can take down the machine,  as can a bad SCSI~
card,  which has been my experience.  Bad device drivers apply to Windows~
and Linux equally.  I've never had an application (netscape, star office,~
gcc, or postgreSQL take down a machine).

>As for Netscape, I don't doubt you've had good luck with it, and I'm sorry I
>wasn't more clear talking about it and did an actual apples-to-apples
>comparison.  For example, let's take the way the U.S.'s most popular
>distribution, RH6, shipped with Communicator.  It was ludicrously broken and
>did dump core like I stated; Windows shipped with IE, which was very stable.

Ok.  Never used the "default" netscape install.  If I recall correctly it~
was a font server related issue,  so my use of xfstt (a true type font~
server, not in RH), must have insulated me from that problem.

>Anyway, I'm ready to let this topic die.  If anyone else wants to continue
>this discussion, I'd be more than willing to over e-mail.

 Signing off.