On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 04:53:03PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > (Forgive the top-posting)
Why? > > Your assertion that "linux is both low end unix and low end windows > replacement" is factually wrong: As a high end unix I think it's earned it's > stripes, currently dominating the top 500 supercomputer systems in the world, > some no other unix has managed to accomplish this time round. Notably, when > compared to freebsd it offers support for virtualisation where bsd is nowhere > close to doing, just one example of high end unix feature it provides. As a > gui desktop, I'm certain kde is a superior interface to windows in many ways. > While I agree that, without some kind of supporting argument, the statement that Linux systems are "low end" Unix replacements are kind of spurious sounding, I don't think that market share is really an effective metric for determination of the quality of a replacement for a given class of OS. I'm also not sure I see how virtualization makes or breaks the quality of any Unix-like system, or qualifies it as "high end". -- Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ] Zat was zen, dis is tao. http://tao.apotheon.org
pgpat2uiW7mAn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
