Re: [TCLUG:16719] The NVidia license

[kyle matteson <kmatteson@talkware.net>]

linux netscape never crashes on you???? you must not browse very much

Daniel Taylor wrote:

> Well, my heavily biased and opinionated comments follow ;)
> Of course I like to believe that my opinions are correct
> because they are based on facts, but people who disagree
> with me think the same of their opinions.
>
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 Nick.T.Reinking@supervalu.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Performance ->
> >
> > Linux is no doubt fast on the CLI, but the bloat of X slows
> > it down in a GUI environment.  Windows's GUI is slow,
> > but not as slow as X.
> >
> > Result: Tie (Windows for GUI desktop, Linux for CLI server)
> >
> Hmmm, is this what WindowMaker gets you, a slow GUI?
> Admittedly Linux's Quake framerates under X could be better,
> but fvwm2 is so snappy that I haven't noticed any performance
> improvements on the base GUI over several major system upgrade.
>
> > ----------------------
> >
> > Stability -->
> >
> > While traditional thought would side with Linux on this one,
> > especially on Win9x, those who have run Windows 2000
> > will know that it is just as stable as Linux.  Its biggest cause
> > of instability is *still* poor quality video card drivers, and off
> > brand chipsets.  Linux is a bit different - most of the mainstream
> > video cards are pretty stable under X, and I've never had
> > chipset support be an issue under Linux (although sometimes
> > it is a bit slower because it doesn't optimize for some chipsets).
> >
> > Result: Linux, by a little bit.  However, running Windows 2000 with
> > Microsoft certified drivers is just as stable as Linux.
> >
> Windows 2000 (released) has not been in the field long enough to
> make this comparison. Period. Linux servers can have multi-month
> uptimes without missing important security upgrades! If you need
> to patch up sendmail or wu-ftpd none of the other functions of the
> system are effected (NFS or Samba file service, web service, &c.).
>
> The only upgrades that require reboots are kernel upgrades and init.
>
> >
> > Ease of use -->
> >
> > Well, that same configurability that makes Linux so powerful
> > in the hands of the advanced user *really* hurts it here.  Windows
> > applications have a fairly consistant look and feel to themselves.
> > If someone is having problems with something on their Windows
> > box, I can sit down and usually fix it right away.  With Linux, I may
> > be able to fix a WindowMaker problem, or an Enlightenment
> > problem, but I would probably be just as confused as they are
> > if it was running E on Gnome, or KDE, or pwm, or any of the myriad
> > of styles that I've never seen before.  Additionally, Windows applications
> > tend to work better together.  Copy-and-paste usually always works
> > perfectly on Windows, but is basically text-only, or in-application for
> > Linux, and that hurts it a lot.
> >
> > Result: Windows is still much easier - applications just aren't
> > consistant in Linux.  That's really going to hurt people trying to learn it.
> >
> Yeah, but tell the cashiers at any of the retail establishments out
> there currently running Linux (or any other Unix) what their *incredibly*
> easy to use cash registers are running and watch their jaws drop.
> (Most _large_ retail operations run their registers off Unix, some have
> migrated to Linux recently).
>
> Ease of use is an illusion, not even skin deep.
>
> > ----------------------
> >
> > Resource requirements -->
> >
> > Sure, Linux only "requires" 8MB of memory, but if you're going to be
> > running X, you'll want at least 128MB.  The same can be said of
> > Windows 2000.  128, at least.
> >
> > Result: Tie, unless you only run Linux in CLI mode.
> >
> Sounds like WM again, my laptop runs Enlightenment in only 32M
> respectably. My server has 64M, but that is for other reasons.
> Give me a Linux box with 128M RAM and I'll build you an Oracle server;)
>
> > ---------------------
> >
> > Price -->
> >
> > Well, for the advanced user, Linux is much cheaper (free), but for the
> > beginning user, hooking themselves up to say, Corel Linux Deluxe,
> > will cost them almost as much as a Windows upgrade.  But still it isn't
> > nearly as much.
> >
> > Result: Linux, but the margin is shrinking.
> >
> Linux is available for as much as you want to pay for it. Mostly with
> Corel, Caldera, or RedHat you are paying for additional applications,
> not the OS itself (I could point to $1000+ applications that use Linux
> as a somewhat hidden base, but that doesn't make Linux cost $1000).
>
> > --------------------
> >
> > Security -->
> >
> > This is interesting.  Both Windows 2000 and Linux *can* be set up to be
> > very secure.  However, neither one are secure "by default".  Break-ins
> > to Linux boxes are far more common than Windows 2000 boxes (because
> > there are so many newbies setting up Linux boxes), but the Windows 2000
> > break-ins tend to be a bit more publicitized (ie on the sensationalist /.)
> >
> > Result: Both suck, look at OpenBSD.
> >
> All popular Linux distributions suck. There exists a market for
> secure OS's, but the popular Linux vendors don't want that market
> because it is too small for them. It costs BIG money to verify security
> (consider how much the time the OpenBSD developers put into securing
> their OS is worth).
>
> > --------------------
> >
> > "Open Sourceness"
> >
> Well, duh.
> >
> > --------------------
> >
> > Productivity -->
> >
> > I think Windows wins out here, if just for the fact that Office 2000 is the
> > still the
> > best office suite out there.  Other OSS/commercial ones are out there, but
> > they're
> > not at Office caliber, yet.  Perhaps in 5, 6 years.  But we'll probably have
> > Office
> > for Linux by then, so the competition should be really fierce.
> >
> > Result: Windows (if just for Office)
> >
> If you like MSOffice.  StarOffice seems adequate to me, though my wife
> did complain about the German spell checker :(
> Corel seems to be putting considerable effort into making this
> a non-issue as well.
>
> > --------------------
> >
> > "Grandma factor" -->
> >
> > Well, normally, I'd say Macintosh here.  But that's not what we are comparing.
> > I'd have to say that I would rather give my grandma a Windows box than a
> > Linux box at this point.  She would probably just want to check her e-mail and
> > surf the web anyway, and I wouldn't want to have to call up my grandmother
> > and explain to her how to delete the .lock file every time that Netscape
> > crashes.
> > And I certainly don't want to listen to her complain about how the fonts are
> > too
> > small for her non-20/20 eyes to read.
> >
> > Result: Windows
> >
> Of course if "Grandma" lives halfway across the country you can't just
> telnet into the Windows box if something breaks and fix it yourself.
>
> > ------------------
> >
> > Hardware support -->
> >
> >
> > Web browser -->
> >
> > I don't think there's any argument out there that Windows has the better web
> > browser.
> > Be it IE5 (which is great) or NS4.72 (why would you run this on Windows with
> > IE5 around?),
> > both are better.  Maybe when Mozilla gets there, but it ain't there yet.
> >
> Eh? I would disagree here, but then Netscape never crashes on me, and my
> favorite browser ever is w3m!
>
>
> Daniel Taylor
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tclug-list-unsubscribe@mn-linux.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tclug-list-help@mn-linux.org
begin:vcard 
n:Matteson;Kyle
tel;pager:6127167875@airtouch.net
tel;cell:612.716.7875
tel;fax:612.843.6707
tel;home:651.767.6700
tel;work:612.843.6707
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.talkware.net
org:Universal Talkware Corporation
version:2.1
email;internet:kmatteson@talkware.net
adr;quoted-printable:;;10 2nd St. N.E.=0D=0ASuite 400;Minneapolis;MN;55413;
x-mozilla-cpt:;-26048
fn:Kyle Matteson
end:vcard