__/ [ samir.ribic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] on Sunday 18 June 2006 16:24 \__
> The comparision between Linux and Windows (I mean NT/2000/XP series)
> often rises to flame war. Linux users often point to bad and buggy
> Internet Explorer, and tell that it is the main reason why Windows is
> crap. When someone points that Konqueror and Firefox under Linux can
> crash very often, the counter argument is "They are not integral part
> of Linux, you are not forced to use them". When someone points that
> Linux is slower, the answer is "Do not use KDE, and Linux will be fast"
Firefox under Linux crashes? When? Show me. The last time I used Internet
Explorer was about 4 months ago and it crashed quite regularly, on SP2...
Not to mention the fact that it could not handle CSS properly. The
administration panel of a CMS rely on was not usable. Literally. It is
heavily standards-based, but I could not do anything because widgets were
not rendered.
> But, if Linux is just a kernel, should be more fair to compare Linux
> kernel with NTOSKRNL.EXE file? They are both fast, very stable and
> useless without user level programs.
In Linux, the /user/ can *CHOOSE* what goes on top of the kernel. How does
one, let us say, get a lightwight Windows Vista? Or an Apache server on
Windows, which actually serves pages with command-line mode?
Best wishes,
Roy
--
In an Open world without walls or fences, who needs Windows or Gates? --anon
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 157 total, 4 running, 146 sleeping, 0 stopped, 7 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
|
|
