From: Jeff Bone (jbone@jump.net)
Date: Thu Jul 27 2000 - 22:24:48 PDT
Dave Winer wrote:
> In my experience, NT is every bit as stable as Linux. I've had the same
> experience you report with Linux, with NT. Very stable OS. We run both Linux
> and NT servers. Obviously your mileage varies. Dave
Undoubtedly, NT is more stable than 95/98. Ran NT for dev boxes, servers up at
the office for years; it got better over time, but still never the uptime I was
used to from old SunOS / BSD boxes. Then again, we were Java, which undoubtedly
contributed greatly to our lack of uptime. ;-) :-)
Per the home Win box, I run 98, and that primarily for the purpose of the
occasional game. (Though I've gotta say IE is a damn fine browser, much better
than moz; MS always does good work when they have competition.)
Still, it's an impressive statement in itself for you to say a decade-long, very
expensive commercial development like NT is *every bit as stable as* an
anarchically-developed freebie like Linux. I think that pretty much counters
Adam's "unpaid = low quality" equation.
jb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 22:41:55 PDT