I am by no means even close to being even a proficient Linux user, but I am well
schooled in DOS, Win, and NT. But for the most part I couldn't say which is
really more stable. My machines don't crash, lock up, etc. under Win(whatever
ver) or NT or Linux. Matter of fact , my web server (offline for the moment) Has
been an NT server that I tossed together and threw the OS on
the day I got my first release of 4.0. It has "blue screened" once on me, when I
was on vacation, natch.
But it was totally my fault. I hadn't left enough room for caching for users and
the hdd hit the wall. Since then it hasn't been a problem. Linux, although I've
only had it running for a week, seems stable and the install went easily. I
attribute most of my success with all the OS's to a basic principle "KISS"(keep
it simple silly(oe stupid)) I do what I call a "dummy install", not dummy in as
a test, but as a "no brainer"
type . This install of Linux was the same deal and I installed it on my main
machine without bothering to do a current back up. I install upgrades and
patches as I become aware of them, and I always check for hardware compatability
first. Minimal problems all the way round. Most problems I have with
users/clients are BSAT (between seat and terminal). Works the same with my own
network.
I usually have dummied out and done something or neglected to do something and
then down
we go.
Just my 'pinion (and we all know what that is worth<g>)
Bill Carling
Dan Ferris wrote:
> I have a question.
>
> After spending my day at work fixing some problems with Windows it lead me to
> think about this.
>
> Why is Linux more Stable than Windows???
> All I hear about is how great Linux is compared to Windows but none of my books
> really explain WHY except that it is free.
>
> Linux is multi-user preemptive multi-tasking, multi-threading, and has memory
> protection between applications.
>
> Windows is multi-user multi-tasking and multi-threading, and has memory
> protection between applications.
>
> Linux never crashes. Windows crashes all the time.
>
> Now before you anwser. I want REAL anwsers. Not anwsers like "Well, Windows
> sucks because Micorsoft is big and rich."
>
> Anwsers like "Windows sucks because applications don't check to see if they
> should give up the CPU for another application."(JUST an example) are more
> acceptable.
>
> I have run Linux for almost a year with no real problems at all. I have run
> windows for several years with nothing but grief.
>
> Just curious thanks.
> Dan
