|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Whether or not Linux turns out to be better than NT or anything else remains
to be seen, but there are numerous examples from the past where "better"
software took a back seat to the MS juggernaut, or simply died from lack of
support.
DR-DOS was far superior to MS-DOS and available ahead of MS-DOS 5.0, (which
was a leap to a better DOS by MS) -- Ever heard of it?
OS/2 from IBM (not a small insignificant company) was seen by many as far
superior to the DOS/Windows platform -- also had a fervent support and
promotion team that -in some cases- would even send someone out to your
house or business -free of charge- if you had problems installing it.
Anyone using OS/2 today? -- yes, but only a few.
Lotus 1-2-3 and Ami-Pro -- Ami-Pro was the first word processor written
specifically for Win 3.1 just after it came out in April '92 -- Flew off the
shelves for months. All other word processors were being kludged over from
DOS programs to run under Windows. It was quite some time until MS caught
up, but they did.
I heard a rumor that MS Internet Explorer finally surpassed Netscape in
market share a week or so ago.
I realize that there are many MS haters on the List who won't like to see
this-- but it is fact and there are numerous other examples.
Difficult to imagine Gates being broad-sided or rolling over and playing dead.
_____________________________________
At 08:41 AM 10/4/98 -0700, you wrote:
>There has been considerable disucssion about the advantages of using an
>open-source development platform like Linux. Some have even stated that it
>"probably represents the only way
>to produce complex, reliable software." This implies that those who have
>used both Linux and NT consider Linux to be a superior platform and that
>alternatives like NT are not as reliable due not only to their archetecture
>but also development model. This I find hard to believe for a few reasons.
>
|