Equivalent operation in Linux? - Linux

This is a discussion on Equivalent operation in Linux? - Linux ; Frank Stallone wrote: > On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:06:57 +0200, Hadron wrote: > >> Why tell lies? There are problems with all SW. Linux is no exception. >> People don't make up these issues you know. >> >> > ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 23 of 23

Thread: Equivalent operation in Linux?

  1. Re: Equivalent operation in Linux?

    Frank Stallone wrote:
    > On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:06:57 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Why tell lies? There are problems with all SW. Linux is no exception.
    >> People don't make up these issues you know.
    >>
    >>

    > Of course no software is perfect but the nice thing about Linux is
    > rarely will a crash take down the whole system which can't be said
    > for Windows.


    What do you mean "rarely"?

    Hundreds and hundreds (maybe thousands) of Linux crashes, most resulting in
    lost data and hard boots. And this is just one distro.

    http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=412125

    http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.p...ghlight=freeze



  2. Re: Equivalent operation in Linux?

    On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:13:17 -0500, Tom Shelton wrote:

    > Based on your statement, the last windows version you could have
    > possibly used was Windows ME. Applications on NT based systems, almost
    > never crash the entire system. Most crashes on Windows now are issues
    > with device drivers.


    My laptop and work desktop have XP on it because my company won't allow
    me to use Linux based on the fact I can't install McAffee on it.

    Of course XP is going to look better compared to ME. :P

    But the fact is a crash is more likely to affect Windows as a whole than
    a crash on Linux.


  3. Re: Equivalent operation in Linux?

    On 2008-04-19, Frank Stallone wrote:
    > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:13:17 -0500, Tom Shelton wrote:
    >
    >> Based on your statement, the last windows version you could have
    >> possibly used was Windows ME. Applications on NT based systems, almost
    >> never crash the entire system. Most crashes on Windows now are issues
    >> with device drivers.

    >
    > My laptop and work desktop have XP on it because my company won't allow
    > me to use Linux based on the fact I can't install McAffee on it.
    >
    > Of course XP is going to look better compared to ME. :P
    >
    > But the fact is a crash is more likely to affect Windows as a whole than
    > a crash on Linux.
    >


    We had a programmer who made some mistake in an app and allocated all
    available memory. It BSODed Windows, but Linux survived, though it was
    in a very bad shape for a few minutes when everything was swapped
    out. Then it killed the app with oom-killer and continued happily.

    i

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2