____/ waterskidoo on Sunday 05 August 2007 18:51 : \____
> On 2007-08-05, Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>> Linux is more secure, stable, and less expensive. Once you put KDE on top of
>> Windows, then you need to learn a new environment anyway. The only advantage
>> then might be the ability to run Windows applications natively.
>
> Well said! Linux's claim to fame if you will is the infrastructure that
> it is built upon although I admit I am addicted to the eye candy.
Really? I'm always afraid of installing /anything/ that might sip resources,
awn included. I'm still using a 1.8Ghz box and a lot of resources are drained
when indexing (in RAM) 120,000 USENET posts, running Firefox with dozens of
plugins, and using Thunderbird which can be made equally 'fat'. At the moment,
I maintain a fairly minimal KDE desktop. It used to be the opposite, with lots
of panels all over the place and maximal eye candy.
> Putting a Linux face on Windows is like building a mansion upon
> the sand. It will look good until it starts to sink due to
> the collapse of the underlying infrastructure.
The thought of running a KDE desktop with KDE apps and having Norton anti-virus
underneat is just bizarre (and resource-draining). Then you have the system
updates with forced reboots, WGA, and the rest of these deficiencies. Registry
bloat, defrag, and so forth...
Weird...
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | GPL - Global Programmer's Law
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 127 total, 1 running, 126 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
|
|
