Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 01:29:01 01/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 10, 2002 at 14:07:26, David Rasmussen wrote: >On January 10, 2002 at 11:40:49, David Hanley wrote: > >>On January 10, 2002 at 11:28:16, David Rasmussen wrote: >> >>> >>>Linux are vulnerable in other aspects. In practice, I experience at least at >>>many crashes in Linux as I do in Windows. I like both OS'es for different >>>reasons, but Linux certainly isn't more stable thatn Windows 2000, in my >>>experience, whether I run user level programs, or server software. >> >>Hmmm... We must be doing different things or running different versions of >>something. My work machine runs 2000, and i crash it all the time ( we have >>buggy software, heh ) but it's an event for me to crash linux ( once in the past >>year ). >> >>Oh well, more datapoints. >> >>dave > >My windows almost never crashes, and I don't reboot it for months. On the other >hand, I have had way more than 1 crash with linux, in the past year. I don't >know if I've had more with Linux than with Windows 2000, but certainly not less. > >/David I fully agree, windows 2000 has been much more stable IMO than linux has ever been (I used redhat 5.2-6.1 for ~2 years). I think maybe it was gnome and KDE that hung, especially the first versions were very unstable. However windows ME and the 9x series were just as bad, consumers should ask for a refond;) -S.
This page took 0 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.