On 2/11/2011 10:39 AM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>> Be careful with saying such things. A lot can be said about Windows as
>>>> an operating system and Microsoft as a company. But be very careful
> about
>>>
>>> Yes, there can, and has been, a lot said. A *LOT* of it has not been
>>> positive (at least since WinDoze 95). I can go on for a while, though
>>> it's OT, as to their *lousy* design decisions, and then there's all the
>>> lawsuits that they lost, where they paid to cut out competetors.
>>
>> But those have next to nothing to do with their current products. If
>
> They have *everything* to do. Look, I *said* this is OT, but since you
> insist, the overwhelmingly *bad* design decision was to put the GUI into
> ring 0, instead of the way Windows 3, and X on *Nix, and *everybody* else
> did, resulting in a GUI error bringing down the *entire* system.
> <snip>
Yes, but with Linux and many, many, many combination of shipping
software and existing hardware you actually have GUI errors. With the
combinations of windows drivers and hardware I've used, I haven't seen
any such error in years. While I agree that even running a GUI at all
on a server is a waste of resources, in practice it is not something
that matters. My company runs about 10x the number of windows servers
as Linux. Not my choice of course, but we don't see OS-related
differences in reliability, just different quirks you have to work around.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
