On Thu, 27 Aug 1998, Haluk L. Aka wrote:
> Why are you people are so much concerned about an OS which you'll never use? If
For the simple reason that is MS had their way we would all be forced to
use it. They make their software completely incompatible with other
proven standards - the only concievable reason is to force everybody to
use MS crap if they want to remain compatible. That sucks.
> incomplete, as in my opinion a complete OS should have features like
> multiusership, a web and ftp server and all other networking capabilities,
web and ftp servers are *not* part of the OS. They are applications that
run on top of the OS. They exist for 'doze as well as linux, but are not
widely used because they are insecure and unstable, crippled by the OS.
> But NT on the other hand, has that great
> GUI interface that linux people were not able to get even close to yet and not
> all that terrible, at least have a http/ftp server built-in and buncha other
> networking stuff.
>
That is complete crap. The NT interface is ugly, dated and slow. I hate
it. But then it is a matter of opion. But if you don't like it, you
can't change it. IMO, interfaces like WindowMaker are miles superior to
NT. And if you don't like it there's litterally hundreds of
alternatives. Sayinh that "linux people" (whoever they are) were nor able
to get even close to it is complete crap.
Are the http/ftp servers really built in to NT? If so, that is absolutely
ridiculous. What happens if you don't happen to want one? If it is
really build in to the OS then you are screwed.
> I think the needs should be the number 1 concern here. Why is it you want a
> computer? What are you planning to do with it? What are your and your companies
> needs? The answers to these questions should lead a computer user to correct OS,
> and for the rest of us it is Win95/98/NT.
>
Agreed.
> If you're going to do some word processing, surf the web, need multimedia
> capabilities, home entertainment etc., it is Win95/98 you're looking for.
Possibly. As long as you don't give a damn about scalability or
stability.
> If you
> have some programming/networking needs and want a more stable OS go for NT. As
No fucking way. If you have programming/networking needs and want
stability, linux blows NT to the other end of the Universe and back again.
> these 3 OS are now industry standards, supported by all (major)hardware
The software should be supporting the hardware, not the other way around.
And are you saying that AppleMac isn't a major hardware company?
> companies out there, and there are sh*t load of software available for these.
At extrotionate prices. There is sh*t loads of free software available
for linux.
> I also think that we all should face the fact that it is only computer
> hobbiests(commonly called geeks) and computer professionals who have enough time
> to deal with linux. The rest of us want to get the things done without spending
> great deal of time. Because -well it may be hard to understand for some of you
> but, the time is most expensive for some.
>
It sure is. But as somebody (can't remember who) commented in linux
journal, linux actually *saves* time because you don't have to keep on
redoing what you just did because of Windows crashing.
--
Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Lead us in a few words of silent prayer."
-- Bill Peterson, former Houston Oiler football coach
