Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:24:54 12/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2000 at 19:52:03, David Rasmussen wrote: >On December 18, 2000 at 11:11:05, David Rasmussen wrote: > >>On December 16, 2000 at 09:26:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >> >>>Windows NT was very reliable. Windows 2000 seems a tad less so. I consider >>>windows 95/98 to be trash. I don't have any ME machines so I can't comment >>>there. If I had to run windows, it would definitely be NT 4, as we have had >>>that up in our labs for several years with no problems of any kind. Linux is >>>all I personally run on the machines I use, and it is also rock-solid and >>>doesn't crash, period. >> >>I find Windows 2000 to be a tad MORE reliable than NT 4, actually. >>The stability of the Linux kernel is good, but as much as I like Linux, I really >>have to say that I think it is useless for anything else than server OS and >>development OS. It has louse harwaresupport and lacks standards in various areas >>that are extremely important, if you're not only using development tools and >>server software. I'm looking forward to the day when the rest of Linux is as >>good as the kernel. I would disagree with the "lousy hardware support". I haven't found anything it doesn't support in years. The most common problems are the various video accelerator cards, but most of those are well-supported today. Sound? works fine. SCSI? the same. RAID cards? Ditto. USB? there. As far as following standards goes, I can't imagine a POSIX-compliant system being called "non-standard". TCP/IP works perfectly, for example. The X-windows system has been around for years and is certainly a stickler for standards support. I have zero problems taking programs from linux to Solaris, for example...
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.