On Tue, 1 Jan 2002, Shaun Oliver wrote: > I'm in agreement with you. > the shell is not for everyone. > but having said that, if people think that lthe x-windows system is > going to be like ms windows, they have another thing coming. > they'll be both pleasantly surprised and in for a nasty shock. > in as much as with linux there isn't as many crashes as there is with > windows but by the same token, it pays to learn as much about your > machine as possible because linux isn't going to hand hold anybody > either. First, I want to challenge the notion that the sighted world all uses X. Many of us (I am a sightling) don't. I will say the majority due. Perhaps an overwhelming majority do. But the impression I have gotten when I last went to a Linux User Group in the Dallas area is that many still use a command shell window within X. As for the stability factor, I haven't tried X in about 2 years. But 2 years ago X had a long way to hve the stability of WIndows 9.x. I know that is blasphemy, but it is the truth. Perhaps the latest version are much better. I know that XFree has moved into the 4 series. But don't think that for a minute XFree 3 is as stable as Windows. I simply isn't, the good news being that you don't have to take the entire system down to recover. But if you have to restart the Windows, you have still lost everything that was running in that session. And it is still unstable. I would compare XFree version 3 with Windows version 3. ======= Kirk Wood Cpt.Kirk at 1tree.net One of the most overlooked advantages to computers is... If they do foul up, there's no law against whacking them around a little. -- Joe Martin
