Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously? - Linux

This is a discussion on Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously? - Linux ; On 2008-09-29, Paul Montgumdrop wrote: > alt wrote: >> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:35:22 +0000, ray wrote: >> >> >>> Those would seem to fit your definition of 'serious' work even though >>> scientific analysis to defend our country ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 73

Thread: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

  1. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    On 2008-09-29, Paul Montgumdrop wrote:
    > alt wrote:
    >> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:35:22 +0000, ray wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Those would seem to fit your definition of 'serious' work even though
    >>> scientific analysis to defend our country (which I've done using Linux)
    >>> seems not to - interesting concept of 'serious'.

    >>
    >> It's a straw man. It's easier for him to define "serious" using an
    >> extremely limited criterion than to address the fact that truly serious
    >> work is done on unix-like platforms and Microsoft platforms are relegated
    >> to handling mundane office work and file sharing.
    >>

    >
    > What is your opinion worth in the grand scheme of things?


    I am sure he can provide some rationale for his.

    Really, what is more important? Shuffling some papers around
    or providing the document repository where those documents
    will be stored or provide the source of data for those
    documents or provide everyone's inhouse vertical applications
    or make sure that everyone gets paid.

    What systems if they fail will prevent you personally from
    getting paid? What kind of hardware and software do they run?

    --
    NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club! |||
    / | \
    That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  2. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    alt wrote:

    > It's a straw man. It's easier for him to define "serious" using an
    > extremely limited criterion than to address the fact that truly
    > serious work is done on unix-like platforms and Microsoft platforms
    > are relegated to handling mundane office work and file sharing.


    Aren't you Donovan Hill, Linux User and All Around Dumb Guy?




  3. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    "DFS" writes:

    > alt wrote:
    >
    >> It's a straw man. It's easier for him to define "serious" using an
    >> extremely limited criterion than to address the fact that truly
    >> serious work is done on unix-like platforms and Microsoft platforms
    >> are relegated to handling mundane office work and file sharing.

    >
    > Aren't you Donovan Hill, Linux User and All Around Dumb Guy?


    Careful. He routes 1000s of people a day using mysql terminal on linux
    or something.

    --
    "I am not worthy to wipe your pee-pee "
    -- Liarnut in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  4. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 06:59:12 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:

    > I'm interested in finding out who uses Linux for serious work,


    How many times are you going to ask the same question before the answers
    finally sink in?

    Many of us use Linux for serious work. I use it to keep *thousands* of
    users up and running - web servers, mail servers, routing, caching, you
    name it.

    Maybe *you* don't consider keeping several thousand users online
    "serious" but I guarantee *they* regard it as serious.



  5. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    [snips]

    On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:17:37 +0200, Richard Rasker wrote:

    > raylopez99 wrote:
    >
    >> I'm interested in finding out who uses Linux for serious work,
    >> seriously

    >
    > Is it me, or do all these Wintrolls have the long-term memory of the
    > common housefly? DooFuS keeps trotting out the same dozen or so "Linux
    > freezes" tales of woe, and now mr. 99 reposts his "Serious Linux" for
    > what must be the tenth time within six months. I wonder what's causing
    > this rather serious mental condition.
    >
    >> I define "serious" work as work that is not specialized,

    >
    > Ah yes. The stupidest definition of "Serious Work", ever. Again.


    Indeed. I worked as a software engineer for years, and our products
    generated revenues of millions of dollars per year - but hey, that's not
    _serious_ work, right?

    The only thing serious about raylopez is the scope of his derangement.


  6. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 08:32:37 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:

    >> All of which can be done on Windows too. So nothing compelling here if
    >> that was your objective.

    >
    > That was never the required criteria.
    >
    > Goalpost moving noted.


    Well said.

    I might add (or restate) that I have had very, very minor problems
    interoperating with other OS's, not unlike those that Mac users have
    interoperating with MS-Windows.

  7. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Phil Da Lick! belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >> And if they have some use, they might be beneficial to build, but until
    >> you can define what the benefit might be, it is silly to build one if
    >> the investment can be better put to use elsewhere.
    >>
    >> "A pessimist sees a cup as half empty and an optimist sees it as half
    >> full. An engineer sees it as an opportunity to cut the cost of cups."

    >
    > Its that kind of half arsed thinking thats kept windows in the ****ter
    > quality and security wise for the last ten years.


    Speaking of cost-cutting cups:

    Microsoft -- The makers of the "dribble glass" operating system.

    --
    Change the Social Contract? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
    -- Branden Robinson

  8. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    amicus_curious wrote:

    Classic. You start with:

    > You postulate too much without offering any supportive reasoning or
    > factual evidence.



    Then go on to offer this:

    > Windows and DOS before it were created to suit the
    > needs of a "personal computer" user. At the time that they became
    > popular and the market segment was established, there was no real need
    > for much security since everyone had absolute personal control of their
    > own devices. As to the quality claim, the MSDOS and early Windows OS
    > were every bit as reliable as anything else in that timeframe and
    > applicable to that market niche.


    Thus confirming the security aspect of my statement. We'll leave the
    quality side of it as an opinion piece.


    > These products have evolved over the
    > years to be as secure and generally more useful than non-Microsoft
    > alternatives.


    After I picked myself up from the floor from laughing so hard I have to
    point out that Linux does not reuire reams of third party security software.


    > Unix had its own set of growing pains as I remember, but it was intended
    > to be an operating system for multiple users and incorporated sufficient
    > security measures so as to meet that intended usage. The security
    > requirements for a shared system is arguably more difficult to use than
    > what is minimally needed, i.e. nothing, for a personal, controlled
    > machine. Everything stems from that simple fact.


    Yes very interesting. Microsoft were aware of all these facts when they
    made Dos. And windows 3. And windows 95. And windows 98. And windows
    2000. And windows xp. And windows vista. So. When we gonna get a proper
    security model to fit the multi user model that started early on in this
    cycle?

  9. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Phil Da Lick! belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > Yes very interesting. Microsoft were aware of all these facts when they
    > made Dos. And windows 3. And windows 95. And windows 98. And windows
    > 2000. And windows xp. And windows vista. So. When we gonna get a proper
    > security model to fit the multi user model that started early on in this
    > cycle?


    Good question, especially since the foundation for such is present in
    Windows these days.

    --
    When I heated my home with oil, I used an average of 800 gallons a year. I
    have found that I can keep comfortably warm for an entire winter with
    slightly over half that quantity of beer.
    -- Dave Barry, "Postpetroleum Guzzler"

  10. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Phil Da Lick! belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> Yes very interesting. Microsoft were aware of all these facts when they
    >> made Dos. And windows 3. And windows 95. And windows 98. And windows
    >> 2000. And windows xp. And windows vista. So. When we gonna get a proper
    >> security model to fit the multi user model that started early on in this
    >> cycle?

    >
    > Good question, especially since the foundation for such is present in
    > Windows these days.
    >


    I dont think they went far enough in vista, which means another painful
    security-caused incompatibility in the next version, or the one after.
    They should have stuck to their early guns, sandboxed and priviledged
    everything and got it all out of the way in one big hit.

  11. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?


    "Phil Da Lick!" wrote in
    message news:WqOdnbSObNnyrX_VnZ2dnUVZ8g6dnZ2d@posted.plusn et...
    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    > Classic. You start with:
    >
    >> You postulate too much without offering any supportive reasoning or
    >> factual evidence.

    >
    >
    > Then go on to offer this:
    >
    >> Windows and DOS before it were created to suit the needs of a "personal
    >> computer" user. At the time that they became popular and the market
    >> segment was established, there was no real need for much security since
    >> everyone had absolute personal control of their own devices. As to the
    >> quality claim, the MSDOS and early Windows OS were every bit as reliable
    >> as anything else in that timeframe and applicable to that market niche.

    >
    > Thus confirming the security aspect of my statement. We'll leave the
    > quality side of it as an opinion piece.
    >
    >
    >> These products have evolved over the years to be as secure and generally
    >> more useful than non-Microsoft alternatives.

    >
    > After I picked myself up from the floor from laughing so hard I have to
    > point out that Linux does not reuire reams of third party security
    > software.
    >
    >
    >> Unix had its own set of growing pains as I remember, but it was intended
    >> to be an operating system for multiple users and incorporated sufficient
    >> security measures so as to meet that intended usage. The security
    >> requirements for a shared system is arguably more difficult to use than
    >> what is minimally needed, i.e. nothing, for a personal, controlled
    >> machine. Everything stems from that simple fact.

    >
    > Yes very interesting. Microsoft were aware of all these facts when they
    > made Dos. And windows 3. And windows 95. And windows 98. And windows 2000.
    > And windows xp. And windows vista. So. When we gonna get a proper security
    > model to fit the multi user model that started early on in this cycle?


    Well I think you are being deliberately obtuse. How many people use your
    computer other than yourself? No one else uses mine. I have several of
    them, too. My wife has her own and I do not use it. There is certainly an
    opportunity for multiple people to use a single computer, of course, for
    example school laboratories, libraries, even retail demonstration areas. I
    think that it would be folly to use Windows for anything that needed secure
    access and numerous people who were not guaranteed to be honest had access
    to the system console. I am sure that occurs, and many third party products
    exist to enhance such access security methods.

    But my own machine in my own hands is protected as thoroughly as I need it
    to be.


  12. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?


    "Phil Da Lick!" wrote in
    message news:VvydnVgFged_zH_VnZ2dnUVZ8q2dnZ2d@posted.plusn et...
    > Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, Phil Da Lick! belched out
    >> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> Yes very interesting. Microsoft were aware of all these facts when they
    >>> made Dos. And windows 3. And windows 95. And windows 98. And windows
    >>> 2000. And windows xp. And windows vista. So. When we gonna get a proper
    >>> security model to fit the multi user model that started early on in this
    >>> cycle?

    >>
    >> Good question, especially since the foundation for such is present in
    >> Windows these days.
    >>

    >
    > I dont think they went far enough in vista, which means another painful
    > security-caused incompatibility in the next version, or the one after.
    > They should have stuck to their early guns, sandboxed and priviledged
    > everything and got it all out of the way in one big hit.



  13. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?


    "Phil Da Lick!" wrote in
    message news:VvydnVgFged_zH_VnZ2dnUVZ8q2dnZ2d@posted.plusn et...
    > Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, Phil Da Lick! belched out
    >> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> Yes very interesting. Microsoft were aware of all these facts when they
    >>> made Dos. And windows 3. And windows 95. And windows 98. And windows
    >>> 2000. And windows xp. And windows vista. So. When we gonna get a proper
    >>> security model to fit the multi user model that started early on in this
    >>> cycle?

    >>
    >> Good question, especially since the foundation for such is present in
    >> Windows these days.
    >>

    >
    > I dont think they went far enough in vista, which means another painful
    > security-caused incompatibility in the next version, or the one after.
    > They should have stuck to their early guns, sandboxed and priviledged
    > everything and got it all out of the way in one big hit.


    Look at the server systems. Windows Server 2008 is the current release.


  14. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    On 2008-09-30, Phil Da Lick! wrote:
    > Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, Phil Da Lick! belched out
    >> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> Yes very interesting. Microsoft were aware of all these facts when they
    >>> made Dos. And windows 3. And windows 95. And windows 98. And windows
    >>> 2000. And windows xp. And windows vista. So. When we gonna get a proper
    >>> security model to fit the multi user model that started early on in this
    >>> cycle?

    >>
    >> Good question, especially since the foundation for such is present in
    >> Windows these days.
    >>

    >
    > I dont think they went far enough in vista, which means another painful
    > security-caused incompatibility in the next version, or the one after.
    > They should have stuck to their early guns, sandboxed and priviledged
    > everything and got it all out of the way in one big hit.


    Well... they should have done that about 13 years ago.

    The longer they try to avoid this the more painful it gets.

    Legacy stuff just gets more and more entrenched the more you
    let it linger.

    --

    Unfortunately, the universe will not conform itself to
    your fantasies. You have to manage based on what really happens |||
    rather than what you would like to happen. This is true of personal / | \
    affairs, government and business.


    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  15. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    amicus_curious wrote:

    >
    > "Phil Da Lick!" wrote in
    > message news:WqOdnbSObNnyrX_VnZ2dnUVZ8g6dnZ2d@posted.plusn et...
    >> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >> Classic. You start with:
    >>
    >>> You postulate too much without offering any supportive reasoning or
    >>> factual evidence.

    >>
    >>
    >> Then go on to offer this:
    >>
    >>> Windows and DOS before it were created to suit the needs of a "personal
    >>> computer" user. At the time that they became popular and the market
    >>> segment was established, there was no real need for much security since
    >>> everyone had absolute personal control of their own devices. As to the
    >>> quality claim, the MSDOS and early Windows OS were every bit as reliable
    >>> as anything else in that timeframe and applicable to that market niche.

    >>
    >> Thus confirming the security aspect of my statement. We'll leave the
    >> quality side of it as an opinion piece.
    >>
    >>
    >>> These products have evolved over the years to be as secure and generally
    >>> more useful than non-Microsoft alternatives.

    >>
    >> After I picked myself up from the floor from laughing so hard I have to
    >> point out that Linux does not reuire reams of third party security
    >> software.
    >>
    >>
    >>> Unix had its own set of growing pains as I remember, but it was intended
    >>> to be an operating system for multiple users and incorporated sufficient
    >>> security measures so as to meet that intended usage. The security
    >>> requirements for a shared system is arguably more difficult to use than
    >>> what is minimally needed, i.e. nothing, for a personal, controlled
    >>> machine. Everything stems from that simple fact.

    >>
    >> Yes very interesting. Microsoft were aware of all these facts when they
    >> made Dos. And windows 3. And windows 95. And windows 98. And windows
    >> 2000. And windows xp. And windows vista. So. When we gonna get a proper
    >> security model to fit the multi user model that started early on in this
    >> cycle?

    >
    > Well I think you are being deliberately obtuse. How many people use your
    > computer other than yourself? No one else uses mine. I have several of
    > them, too. My wife has her own and I do not use it. There is certainly
    > an opportunity for multiple people to use a single computer, of course,
    > for
    > example school laboratories, libraries, even retail demonstration areas.
    > I think that it would be folly to use Windows for anything that needed
    > secure access and numerous people who were not guaranteed to be honest had
    > access
    > to the system console. I am sure that occurs, and many third party
    > products exist to enhance such access security methods.
    >
    > But my own machine in my own hands is protected as thoroughly as I need it
    > to be.


    What part of "the OS itself is already several users" needs to be explained
    more to you?
    Windows has security problems exactly because MS never epected to run as
    anything with total control.
    --
    Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I can not change,
    the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the
    bodies of those I had to kill because they pissed me off.


  16. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    On 2008-09-30, amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    > "Phil Da Lick!" wrote in
    > message news:WqOdnbSObNnyrX_VnZ2dnUVZ8g6dnZ2d@posted.plusn et...
    >> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >> Classic. You start with:
    >>
    >>> You postulate too much without offering any supportive reasoning or
    >>> factual evidence.

    >>
    >>
    >> Then go on to offer this:
    >>
    >>> Windows and DOS before it were created to suit the needs of a "personal
    >>> computer" user. At the time that they became popular and the market
    >>> segment was established, there was no real need for much security since
    >>> everyone had absolute personal control of their own devices. As to the
    >>> quality claim, the MSDOS and early Windows OS were every bit as reliable
    >>> as anything else in that timeframe and applicable to that market niche.

    >>
    >> Thus confirming the security aspect of my statement. We'll leave the
    >> quality side of it as an opinion piece.
    >>
    >>
    >>> These products have evolved over the years to be as secure and generally
    >>> more useful than non-Microsoft alternatives.

    >>
    >> After I picked myself up from the floor from laughing so hard I have to
    >> point out that Linux does not reuire reams of third party security
    >> software.
    >>
    >>
    >>> Unix had its own set of growing pains as I remember, but it was intended
    >>> to be an operating system for multiple users and incorporated sufficient
    >>> security measures so as to meet that intended usage. The security
    >>> requirements for a shared system is arguably more difficult to use than
    >>> what is minimally needed, i.e. nothing, for a personal, controlled
    >>> machine. Everything stems from that simple fact.

    >>
    >> Yes very interesting. Microsoft were aware of all these facts when they
    >> made Dos. And windows 3. And windows 95. And windows 98. And windows 2000.
    >> And windows xp. And windows vista. So. When we gonna get a proper security
    >> model to fit the multi user model that started early on in this cycle?

    >
    > Well I think you are being deliberately obtuse. How many people use your
    > computer other than yourself? No one else uses mine. I have several of


    Don't be so speciously simpleminded. A modern "personal" computer
    isn't just about running a single copy of Dazzle Draw. Even for a single
    user, quite a bit will be going on even inside of one single WinDOS
    machine. The one nearby claims to have 93 "processes" and I am not even
    doing anything interesting with it.

    I don't have be 5 different people. Just the desktop programs I am
    running right now will do fine. They will fight amongst themselves easily
    enough. If they're not reigned in properly they will do something stupid.

    In the case of Windows driven worm infestations that cripple the
    entire internet, they are pretty much doing nothing more than running
    simple "single user stuff".

    This stuff is driven by people thinking that they are an island
    and their stupidity can't impact anyone else. Infact, the personal
    computing world is HIGHLY interconnected these days and Windows itself
    has been highly networked since before the Internet explosion.

    A barrier against "me" and the rest of the system is a useful
    safeguard and one that is pretty trivial to implement if you don't
    have to worry about 20 years of crufty apps created under the old
    flawed model. Avoiding the trap of confusing code and data is also
    very handy.


    > them, too. My wife has her own and I do not use it. There is certainly an
    > opportunity for multiple people to use a single computer, of course, for
    > example school laboratories, libraries, even retail demonstration areas. I
    > think that it would be folly to use Windows for anything that needed secure
    > access and numerous people who were not guaranteed to be honest had access
    > to the system console. I am sure that occurs, and many third party products
    > exist to enhance such access security methods.
    >
    > But my own machine in my own hands is protected as thoroughly as I need it
    > to be.


    I doubt that. You're probably the sort of WinDOS user that's a meanace
    to the rest of us.

    --

    Unfortunately, the universe will not conform itself to
    your fantasies. You have to manage based on what really happens |||
    rather than what you would like to happen. This is true of personal / | \
    affairs, government and business.


    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  17. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    On 2008-09-30, amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    > "Phil Da Lick!" wrote in
    > message news:VvydnVgFged_zH_VnZ2dnUVZ8q2dnZ2d@posted.plusn et...
    >> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Phil Da Lick! belched out
    >>> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>>
    >>>> Yes very interesting. Microsoft were aware of all these facts when they
    >>>> made Dos. And windows 3. And windows 95. And windows 98. And windows
    >>>> 2000. And windows xp. And windows vista. So. When we gonna get a proper
    >>>> security model to fit the multi user model that started early on in this
    >>>> cycle?
    >>>
    >>> Good question, especially since the foundation for such is present in
    >>> Windows these days.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I dont think they went far enough in vista, which means another painful
    >> security-caused incompatibility in the next version, or the one after.
    >> They should have stuck to their early guns, sandboxed and priviledged
    >> everything and got it all out of the way in one big hit.

    >
    > Look at the server systems. Windows Server 2008 is the current release.


    Why should I have to run a Server OS to get a robust desktop system?

    Besides, it's the "server" systems that are more likely to be single
    purpose anyways. Ironically enough...

    --

    Unfortunately, the universe will not conform itself to
    your fantasies. You have to manage based on what really happens |||
    rather than what you would like to happen. This is true of personal / | \
    affairs, government and business.


    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  18. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 05:59:06 -0400, Paul Montgumdrop wrote:


    > What is your opinion worth in the grand scheme of things?


    I'm on the ground doing this work in the real world, so I think my
    opinion is worth a lot. I'm not sitting in some board room making
    decisions based on the four colour glossy some salesman gave me, I'm
    implementing these systems on the fly as my customers and employers
    require. That's why my opinion is actually worth something.


  19. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:19:57 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > "DFS" writes:
    >
    >> alt wrote:
    >>
    >>> It's a straw man. It's easier for him to define "serious" using an
    >>> extremely limited criterion than to address the fact that truly
    >>> serious work is done on unix-like platforms and Microsoft platforms
    >>> are relegated to handling mundane office work and file sharing.

    >>
    >> Aren't you Donovan Hill, Linux User and All Around Dumb Guy?

    >
    > Careful. He routes 1000s of people a day using mysql terminal on linux
    > or something.


    No. I route 1000s of simultaneous channels of voice traffic using mysql
    and postgresql as backends to other software. I'll give you a point for
    attempting to pay attention though.

  20. Re: Who *seriously* uses Linux for *serious* work, seriously?

    amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    > "Phil Da Lick!" wrote in
    > message news:VvydnVgFged_zH_VnZ2dnUVZ8q2dnZ2d@posted.plusn et...
    >> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Phil Da Lick! belched out
    >>> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>>
    >>>> Yes very interesting. Microsoft were aware of all these facts when
    >>>> they made Dos. And windows 3. And windows 95. And windows 98. And
    >>>> windows 2000. And windows xp. And windows vista. So. When we gonna
    >>>> get a proper security model to fit the multi user model that started
    >>>> early on in this cycle?
    >>>
    >>> Good question, especially since the foundation for such is present in
    >>> Windows these days.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I dont think they went far enough in vista, which means another
    >> painful security-caused incompatibility in the next version, or the
    >> one after. They should have stuck to their early guns, sandboxed and
    >> priviledged everything and got it all out of the way in one big hit.

    >
    > Look at the server systems. Windows Server 2008 is the current release.


    WTF are you on about? Windows' inherent weakness is and always has been
    on the desktop series. That's where all the major damage is being done.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast