|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
On Fri, 04 Jan 2002, M. Simms wrote:
> Yeah, well I am no M$ lover and I run RedHat Linux in a server
> configuration.....
> and all I can say is that Linux and the Gnome GUI interface are really
> DIFFERENT than Windows.
> Keep in mind there are not a lot of great applications to run under Linux
> either....
Depends on what you're interested in.
> recent reviews of the MS Office counterpart called KOffice label it as
> "primitive" compared to MS Office. Also, Sun's Office 6.0 is starting to
> show some promise.....however, it is much S L O W E R than MS Office on the
> same hardware.
Though vi(1) is faster than both of them.
> Upgrading Linux versions is a total nightmare.......each upgrade between
> Redhat 5.x, 6.x, and especially the latest 7.x was horrible beyond belief.
> Configuration files must be restored as it overwrites existing ones by
> default.
Which is why I keep two machines. Upgrade one and make sure all is well,
then fail over to it as the production machine. Then upgrade the original
as the new standby and backup server.
> Technical support for Linux is spotty-at-best.....I discovered the
> knowledgebase at Redhat.com was about one-thousandth the size of Microsoft's
> KB. It was totally worthless.
I use usenet news for most of my answers. It goes back over ten years and
have thousands upon thousands of archived messages.
> Answers to tough problems can only be found word-of-mouth and thru 3rd party
> user-group websites; otherwise, you must pay for support. Expect to spend a
> lot of time in newsgroups as well.
above
> Even technicians knowledgeable in Unix are not of great assistance
> either.....I use one regularly, but usually end-up fixing it myself as Linux
> internals are quite different from other Unix variants like Solaris, HP/UX,
> etc.
The linux internals are different from the internals of other OSs, but
then a unix is unix, except when its not.
> For purposes of running a server, it's OK. For desktop applications, not
> quite ready for prime time.
I run both on my box. It is both server for my home, and desktop for all
my research and development.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Phil [mailto:rhodes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 7:02 PM
> > To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: MS vs. Linux
> >
> >
> >
> > Glad to see that a company is keeping an eye on the competition.
> > Some companies don't and they usually don't last too long.
> >
> > Don't hate or love either one.
> > But because my time is worth a lot. I use Microsoft.
> > Free is not usually free. Time is money.
> > Which up untill XP, windows was always free on the computers I bought.
> > Times are a changing.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ron Augustine" <RonAug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 12:13 PM
> > Subject: OT: MS vs. Linux
> >
> >
> > > Some candy for the MS haters and Linux lovers...
> > >
> > > http://www.usatoday.com/money/tech/2002-01-04-microsoft.htm
|