[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: How stable is fedora?



On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 02:36, Jack Bowling wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 10:12:15PM +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> > McKeever Chris wrote:
> > 
> > > I know this topic has come up before, especially when FEDORA was first
> > > introduced, but now after months of implementing, tweaking and CORE2, how
> > > secure and stable is FEDORA??
> > 
> > I find the use of the term "stable" today rather odd.
> > All distributions of Linux are completely stable, in my experience,
> > as is Windows-2000 and Windows-XP.

Getting very OT here, but can't resist.

Have experienced some serious stability problems with Linux SMP machines
recently due to low-latency patch problems, then of course there are the
NVidia problems - yes closed source, but if you want the performance... 
I can hardly be accused of being a Bill Gates fan (have been running
Linux since 0.98-pl12 or so, and Coherent before that, used Sun
workstations in the Motorola 68k days, and have lately managed to pretty
much eliminate M$ OSs from both home and work machines thanks to OOo and
Wine); however, XP is better than W2K which was FAR better than W98 (Me
was an abomination), etc.

> Oh, please. I can bring XP to its knees just by opening JPGs for 30
> minutes. Its VM sucks rocks. Linux is light years beyond anything MS has
> available.

It's my preferred OS, and has developed amazingly, but some users,
particularly non-technical desk-top types are still better off on
Windoze (or Mac - at least OS X is Unix-based) for now.  Changing fast,
so hopefully this will no longer be true in the not-so-distant future.

Just my $0.02. ;^)

Phil




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]