Re: sick of Linux bias

From: Mike (nospam_at_notherematey.com)
Date: 01/07/04


Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 18:25:55 -0000


"Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a65e69b448c81398a064@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <oa3ovv470jviv3grpt9juv57fafjrau9v1@4ax.com>,
> cashdj@hotmail.com says...
> > On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 22:39:11 -0500, Jim <me@mail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >So Linux never crashes, locks up or has any problems? Wow. That is
> > >amazing. Now I see what all the fuss is about. That so so cool.
> >
> > As a matter of interest, have you ever installed and used linux?
> >
> > I don't mean, installing it, and seeing what it was like, and then
> > reformatting after a few hours because you didn't know what to do, I
> > mean, have you ever actually *used* linux?
>
> We had a Linux server running at one clients location - we got the job
> because the IT chap that installed it could not keep it running. This
> system would crash at least twice a week. It was setup as a large NAS
> device - all their files were on it. A reboot would bring it back online
> until it crashed again.
>
> After a couple weeks of trying different things we wiped it, installed
> Windows 2000 Server Standard and it's been up every day since.

Interesting.. I suspect that I also could do a bad install of Windows 2000
which would be unreliable and then someone else could come along later and
do a perfect install of Linux. Does that make either operating system bad?