[ale] "What's So Bad About Microsoft?"

[Steve Nicholas]

I have not had a problem with MS on my wife's PC.  I keep it patched, a
she's smart about attachments.  Win 2K.  That being said....

What is the problem with MS ?

In my case, both Linux and MS require constant patching.  OK, that's a
given.  Linux has virtual desktops.  I have to do upgrades on up to 20
libraries. Each library requires at least two windows.....
one for the upgrade and another to tail the results.  No, I don't do all
at the same time, but I've done 4 at a time.  Do the math.  Not a problem
on my home pc. Plus, The memory management is a lot better.

Try running THAT many windows under MS.  Works for me under Linux. It can
take up to 16 windows on 4 virtual desktops to do this.  I've done this on
a P233 w/64MB without a problem.  Does not work under MS.

Steve

=======================================================
| Steve Nicholas             |                        |
| Software Systems Engineer  |  A risk is not a risk  |
| Georgia State University   |  until it is taken.    |
| snicholas at gsu.edu          |                        |
| 404-651-1062               |  BBROYGBVGW            |
=======================================================


On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, Greg wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org]On Behalf Of David
> > Corbin
> > Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 9:01 PM
> > To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts
> > Subject: Re: [ale] "What's So Bad About Microsoft?"
> >
> >
> > "Their product is unsafe."
>
> No, their product doesn't take into account user error.  There are plenty of
> MS networks that are relatively safe just as there are plenty of Unix
> networks that have been cracked to death.  PC's are like guns - they are
> inanimate objects until a person picks one up.  With proper firewalls,
> practices, and usage MS products are what you make of them. No more no less.
>
>
>   or "Their products only work when the
> > moon is in
> > proper alignemnt"  (both points that any daily user will generally agree
> > with).
>
> My Windows 2k box is up for weeks running 3-4 open browsers each with about
> 8 different windows and lots of other crap.  I keep it up because I can, and
> I haven't had any more problems than I have had with a *nix box.  But
> overall I would say yes, they (MS) are less on the uptime then *nix.
>
> >
> >
> > On Sunday 14 March 2004 20:18, Jeff Hubbs wrote:
> > > I need a short, succinct, answer to this question.  "Twice-convicted
> > > illegal monopolist"
>
> you can as it is the truth (IBM was also convicted of monopoly I think)
>
> is a phrase I'd plan on using, but I want to be able
> > > to back even that up with the facts and I'd also like to remain factual
> > > enough not to come off as a frothing-at-the-mouth zealot but general
> > > enough to make it a good answer for non-techies or Microsoft-only
> > > techies.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
>
> Why waste time with zealots of any ilk ?  Zealots turn off anyone to
> anything, and you are *never* going to win them over or win an argument with
> them.  I am so tired of these "my os/blah blah blah is better then yours
> arguments."  I would rather spend my time learning more about what's out
> there. <sigh>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ale mailing list
> > > Ale at ale.org
> > > http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> >
> > --
> > David Corbin <dcorbin at machturtle.com>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ale mailing list
> > Ale at ale.org
> > http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>