[aclug-L] Re: Linux Time-Table

[Anne McCadden <ironrose@xxxxxxx>]

I agree that linux makes a great server and much more stable than 
windoze.  I also think that linux makes a good desktop OS also, it comes 
with various internet programs, games, word processing, presentation, 
and spreadsheet software.  For the office environment and people who 
mostly want to use the internet to see web pages, check email, various 
other programs, plus not be vunerable to viruses and at a very cost 
effective price.  Windoze policy editor is a bear when things go wrong.

I didn't think that I was debating anything, just stating a personal 
opinion.  ~Anne

Jonathan Hall wrote:

>That depends on what you're trying to compare.  If your debate is about
>Desktop OSes (as ours has been), then IIS and SQL are completely
>irrelevant--as are any "server" daemons you have running on the Linux
>machine.
>
>As a server, I think most will agree that Linux wins hands down against
>Windows.
>
>-- Jonathan
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Anne McCadden" <ironrose@xxxxxxx>
>To: <discussion@xxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 7:50 PM
>Subject: [aclug-L] Re: Linux Time-Table
>
>
>>Maybe the comparision is desktop OS to desktop OS, linux seems to run
>>slower than most versions of windoze.  I'm not sure as to why, but I
>>have a lot more apps running in the background on the linux machines
>>also, so it isn't a very fair comparision.
>>
>>A fair comparision is if I was running Win2k server, with IIS and SQL
>>running, then the speed that the apps launch would be about the same as
>>linux, but linux is much more stable than win2k server.  (Apples to
>>apples) If I compare Win-xp pro with linux, then Win-xp pro is faster,
>>xp pro isn't running any server or any other apps in the background.
>>(Apples to oranges)  ~Anne
>>
>>John Goerzen wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 10:05:17PM -0600, Jonathan Hall wrote:
>>>
>>>>Free software, maybe.  I don't think Linux should do it.  Call me
>>>>old-fassioned... but I like Linux on my servers.  It's doesn't make an
>>>>effecient desktop OS though.
>>>>
>>>What do you think makes it inefficient?
>>>
>>>>Perhaps if we get away from X, that could change.
>>>>
>>>XFree86 is really a pretty slick system these days.  Applications running
>>>atop a modern XFree86 installation will do a lot better than those
>>>
>running
>
>>>on a plain vanilla X11R6 installation.
>>>
>>>Of course, XFree86 is now doing more to advance the state of the art of X
>>>than the X Consortium / TOG is.
>>>
>>>The GNUstep people are also making a lot of nice progress.  GNUstep does
>>>
>run
>
>>>atop X, and yet it achieves a lot of the advanced rendering capabilities
>>>that are available on NeXT and MacOS X environment.  Sorta a best of both
>>>worlds thing.
>>>
>>>-- John
>>>-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
>>>visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi
>>>
>>>
>>
>>-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
>>visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi
>>
>>
>
>-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
>visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi
>
>


-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi