"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dgek56$2sat$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> -Once you are _experienced_ with Linux, you can truly understand how
> much
> Windows lacks.
>
Put you all seem so awestruck that you cannot explain the phenomenon to
others! LOL!!!
>
>> (2) several of the UNIX filesystems can be mounted read-only in a
>> runtime environment, which Windows does not allow;
>
>
> -A Windows user would often raise the question "why would you want to
> do
> that?". This implies that (s)he has not any experience handling more
> than
> one machine, as opposed to distributed environments.
>
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.
>
>> (3) Gnu/Linux comes with all the tools for configuring and tweaking
>> your
>> system, and allows you the freedom to do that. Windows comes as it
>> is,
>> and if you want anything special, you're gonna have to pay extra for
>> that;
>
>
> -That's due to the differences in ideaology.
>
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.
>
>> (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. Changing /glibc/ doesn't even require a
>> reboot if you manually run /ldconfig/ afterwards. Windows... Well,
>> we
>> know how that works...;
>
>
> -Poor us... we never have a reason to take coffee breaks.
>
Windows has the same physical constraints as unix and linux in this
regard. You are behind the times.
>
>> (5) In UNIX-style operating systems, all application software is
>> integrated into the operating system itself, forming one big toolbox
>> with multiple tools to do the same job, from which you take what you
>> need or what suits you best. In Windows, the only integration is
>> that
>> every configuration option is stored inside the Registry, which
>> contains both human-readable and non-human-readable information,
>> along
>> with lots of unnecessary and economy-related keys and leftovers;
>
>
> -This often requires re-installation of the operating system. O/S
> restoration and data overhaul is /extremely/ time-consuming to those
> who do
> not just purge mail once read and surf the 'Net by banging in
> addresses in
> the address bar.
>
You are babbling here, roy. What do you think of as "often"? Every 5
years? Every 3 years? Every 10 years?
>
>> (6) When the Linux kernel pages out memory to the disk, it does so to
>> a
>> dedicated partition which is formatted so that it resembles the
>> layout
>> of the physical memory. In Windows, memory is paged out to a
>> swapfile,
>> which is treated like any other file and therefore occupies a place
>> in
>> the cache memory again. Quite nonsensical!;
>
>
> -Probably the remains of an antiquated mechanism dating back to
> Windows 3,
> if not earlier. With huge memory capcity at present, it is high time
> Windows was redesigned.
>
No meaning here.
>
>> (7) UNIX systems do not make the distinction between the computer and
>> every storage device attached to it. There is one root directory,
>> from
>> which everything else stems. Data is stored on the computer, not on
>> a
>> /sea-drive./ Windows uses drive denominations which date back to the
>> days of CP/M, when microcomputers could only handle floppy disks and
>> switching disks around was an everyday task;
>
>
> -Very much so. The Windows system hierarchy is irrational, with the
> desktop
> at the top (bottom depending how you perceive it) of the tree, which
> might
> make sense physically (computer on top of your desk), yet be confusing
> to
> anyone but people who have /always/ used (an illegal copy of) Windows.
>
>
>> (8) UNIX systems are the systems of choice for distributed computing.
>> Windows can't even control its own underlying hardware very well and
>> will fail grossly once it tries to access defective or unresponsive
>> hardware, because it didn't bother to index and test the hardware
>> during the boot process.
>>
>> Do you need me to go on?
>
>
> -I see how my colleagues try to run experiments effectively on Windows
> machines. The most they can ever handle is one computational server
> using
> VNC. Nobody else can remotely log in to dozens of machines and collect
> results of overnight experiments. Windows is not stable and remote
> access
> is in its diapers in terms of power and flexibility.
>
Windows allows for multiple remote logins, too. Where have you been
sleeping?
>
>>>> Either way, anyone who has any IT experience and who has been at
>>>> the
>>>> helm of both UNIX and Windows *knows* that Windows is a poor excuse
>>>> for an operating system and an awful waste of computer resources
>>>> (and
>>>> money).
>>>
>>> So why do they continue to buy more Windows each year? The facts
>>> are
>>> not on your side, aragorn.
>
>
> -Marketing does not necessarily reflect on the quality of a product.
> Look
> who is running your country at the moment...
>
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.
>
>>>> But I'll give you this one: I am yet to see Windows running on an
>>>> IBM
>>>> S/390 though...
>>>
>>> Well, if/when I get myself an S/390 I'll look into what it needs to
>>> run.
>>
>> You were asking about something Windows couldn't do. You got what
>> you
>> asked for. Gnu/Linux runs quite well on the S/390.
>>
I'm not so sure I know what that means, either, but if you have an s/390
to run, then maybe you should choose linux.
>
> I would only add the fact that people in the backroom know their field
> and
> use the best that is available. They are less susceptible to the
> 'cattle
> effect' just as a politician is less likely to call for a nuclear
> strike
> than Average Joe.
>
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.
>>
>> They feel the breath of the penguin and they are scared beyond their
>> wits, so they engage in the battle, using the same, proven techniques
>> as before: spread FUD, spread more FUD, threaten, bribe, etc.
>
>
> Right on point.
>
Keep hoping it's true, roy! But are you really, really, sure?
>
>> Come again?
>
>
> It is not a question of momentum either. Momentum affects the mind of
> the
> people only, but not the state of the O/S. While the majority of
> people in
> this world only know of one operating system (most do not know the Mac
> either), you could never argue that Windows won (note: you used the
> term
> "lose").
>
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.
|
|
