|
-
November 10th, 2001, 07:43 PM
#31
Member
Well I've never used linux but im about to try it out. I have to agree with buddy who said that windows was "user friendly", I perfer to say pretty. But the whole thing with windows is, that those 98.999999% people that dont know anything about computers, software or hardware, all have windows. They have no idea what is under the interface.
Technology is suppose to make your life better not more complicated, that is why every one uses (meaning bussinesses and families) use one OS, because it is easy to go from one computer to the next and just click a welcoming start button.
The reason im thinking about switching over is for one......... the crashs....... two, i want something new......... three i want to know what all the hype is about.
Remember this, most people get on computers for
1) work
2) porno
3) entertainment (love chating etc..........)
4) gaming
Who cares about protection and OS (other than us)? Its all about how will this benifit me.....
How much would linux cost by the way (red hat?)
-
November 10th, 2001, 07:44 PM
#32
Member
opppssss wrong jpg.......... this one i ment.........
-
November 10th, 2001, 08:58 PM
#33
usage
(now don't flame me for this, but: )Windows is excellent. That is, if your only a normal person who just wants to surf the web or write docs, spreadsheets, etc., or play games. Windows is made for people like that. Linux on the other hand, as stated by most here, is for the more advanced users who want alot if not total control of their system. It's purpose is to provide more power to the user who actually know's what they're doing.
The point is, if you only going to use it for normal stuff and don't really care how it works, get windows, but if you do/want to know how it works, and you want more control than windows, get linux (or some other non-windows OS).
Preliminary operational tests were inconclusive (the dang thing blew up) 
\"Ask not what the kernel can do for you, ask what you can do for the kernel!\"
-
November 11th, 2001, 01:57 AM
#34
Member
That guy is funny. I have been running Unix and Linux servers for a long time. I also had the opportunity of running NT/2000 servers. Out of all this time I never had to reinstall Unix or Linux.
-
November 11th, 2001, 03:37 AM
#35
Ummmm.......not quite
"Most really large systems run on big iron. No flavor of Unix, and certainly not Windows"
Really large corporations DO run a Flavour of Unix. (IBM AIX is huge in the Banking industry.) I think they qualify for large. Just a few thousand dumb terminals.
How about the Railways ? They are kinda large. They run IBM and AIX. (the ones that I have personal knowledge of)
And the Steamship Lines ? With worldwide offices ?
I can go on, if you like to medium sized companies.
And, (chuckle) ever seen the OS/2 boot disk for a bank machine ?
-
November 11th, 2001, 03:45 AM
#36
Member
-
November 12th, 2001, 04:50 AM
#37
I agree.
Free is good. Linux is free. Therefore, Linux is good... even though I paid for my copy... which I felt the makers of my distribution deserved.
-Mandrake 7.1 User
Welcome to Hell , where we have served more than all of the fast food chains put together! And the number grows everyday! Stay tuned!
-
November 12th, 2001, 07:18 AM
#38
Free is good. Linux is free. Therefore, Linux is good
I dont like that logic. Somebody gave me a free ass kicking once, but that didn't make it good. Also you can get a good product for free, but you can get a great product when you spend money. Nobody ever complains that hardware costs money. I think all hardware should be free. Intel is a big greedy company that should give me their processors for free.
FREE HARDWARE WILL RULE THE WORLD!!!!!!
DOWN WITH INTELSLOTH!!!!!!
Wine maketh merry: but money answereth all things.
--Ecclesiastes 10:19
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
