By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
vizunary said:

I seriously have to question this comment. XP is indeed better than most of what MS churns out, and a damn sight better than Vista, which is appalling, but MORE STABLE than Linux? I seriously do not think this is the case, i have not had to restart my Linux server in two years, I would have to say that THAT is very stable. You're right about issues with new hardware, but then again you don't need new hardware to handle everything you need on a Linux based system.

I have Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 server(dedicated, no dual boot) on that one and another server(my roommate's) running Windows NT2000, we both have 2nd and 3rd PCs running with XP, Yellow Dog Linux, and he has one with ME on it just to piss me off. I still haven't partitioned my PS3 HD to add Yelllow Dog to it, I'll probably just set it up on my external HD for it.

I guess I need to check out Ubuntu, the name is just too funny so i haven't messed with it yet.


Ah, but you've ignored the immediately following sentences:

EEPiccolo said:

The stability issue may be a function of the software, though. In general, Windows developers are more disciplined that Linux developers, which isn't saying much, but oh well.

You may be right about the OSes themselves, but when I start trying to use a variety of the software that's developed for Linux, I run into all sorts of problems.  This includes OpenOffice, and many of the programs you can rpm onto your system.  Linux does not seem to recover from program crashes very well.  And that applies to both Ubuntu and Red Hat (there are some Red Hat computers at work that I use), though I don't remember what version of Red Hat it is.  



-Manella: Yeah... sux0rz! I hate missing out on food...
-Maya: Nick... what does "Sucksores" mean?
-Phoenix: No idea...