> As a long time user of both (Windows long before Mac) on the desktop, > and of Windows and various *NIX's on servers (*NIX's before Windows), > I would say the below sounds about right, substituting HPUX, AIX, > Solaris, BDS, etc. for Apple on the server side.
Your experience notwithstanding, this is not the point of discussion. You're missing my point (or making it). When a bug or security exploit is patched by Apple, or an .x version upgrade is released, well, sing the hosannas for their brilliance and foresight. They're being utterly proactive. When Microsoft does the same, well then, sharpen the pitchforks and light the torches. We must kill the monster and avenge the latest victim of its callous bumbling. I think you can spot the difference. > Unless and until MS writes a kernel that is multi-user and networked > from the core out, and ditches some of the legacy kludges that get in > the way (and here I won't pretend to be an expert, I just doubt you > can keep everything), they will have problems that in my opinion will > render Windows unstable. I agree that MS should do this, but I too doubt that they will. They don't have a charismatic leader (quite the opposite) to calm the seething masses of discontent. Apple got through this only because of its use base's seemingly limitless ability to ultimately forgive Apple's sins. Unstable? That's a matter of perspective and need. ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
