On 2005-09-16, billwg <billw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> (2) several of the UNIX filesystems can be mounted read-only in a
>>> runtime environment, which Windows does not allow;
>>
> Well pat yourself on the back, roy, but look foolish in the process!
> Windows provides for remote management of machines, too, and also
> provides for installable file systems that allow anyone that actually
> needs such a capability to do that too.
"Read-only" and "runtime" are kinda the key phrases there, which you
cheerfully ignore. Ah, well.
>>> (3) Gnu/Linux comes with all the tools for configuring and tweaking
>>> your system, and allows you the freedom to do that.
> No one seems to be able to name any specific instance of this claim by
> way of example. It is true that many Windows tools, which Microsoft has
> determined to not be of practical use to most Windows product consumers,
> are not shipped with the installation media, but they are available at
> no additional charge to anyone who wants to access them.
But they don't work. There's a multiple-desktop feature for Windows,
for example, but it doesn't work with multiple monitors.
>>> (4) UNIX systems do not require reboots _during_ the installation of
>>> either the operating system or any application software - unless you
>>> plan on changing the kernel.
> Windows has the same physical constraints as unix and linux in this
> regard. You are behind the times.
Lie by omission. So much is tied into the operating system in Windows
that is not in Linux that in practice a reboot is required vastly more
often. E.g. the HTML parser or the video driver, off the top of my head.
> Windows allows for multiple remote logins, too. Where have you been
> sleeping?
Not terribly well. I know I've had some real trouble working with the
test clusters our product monitors. It really only works reliably if
one person at a time uses it.
> Well I didn't vote for him myself, but you are a jive turkey to think
> that GB got re-elected due to marketing. GB got re-elected because the
> full story on Iraq had not yet surfaced and the churchy crowd liked the
> way GB called on the Lord for help. Women didn't like Kerry's wife much
> either and that hurt him.
This paragraph is so inane, and self-contradictory, that I left it in
for sheer amusement value.
> But that very group is the one that is reponsible for the huge success
> of Windows server editions. They have come from nowhere to over 50% of
> the shipping server rate in barely 10 years.
And Linux is doing pretty darn well after only about 7 (1998 is when
businesses really got serious about Linux). We'll see where things are
after three more years.
> It's not how you play the game, roy, it is whether you win or lose. I
> think Vince Lombardi said that. Windows has won. There has not even
> been a game on for quite a while.
Boy, I hope Microsoft shares that sentiment.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"SCSI is not magic. There are fundamental technical reasons
why you have to sacrifice a young goat to your SCSI chain
every now and then." - John Woods
|
|
