best OS 15128

B

Please note that this is by no means an authorative web site. The author doesn't even list his credentials. Is he experienced in UNIX? Linux? Windows Server programming? Large scale projects? For all we know, he might be some high school kid using his parents' Credit Debt card to register his domain name.

As for the references, very out of date. Very carefully selected to compare only those conditions in which Linux is known to be at a disadvantage. Yes, FreeBSD will run much faster on an Intel 80486 box with 32 meg of RAM than Linux will. FreeBSD will not run on multiprocessor machines very effeciently, and the kernel hasn't been upgraded significantly in many years. There are many sites who have run FreeBSD for over 4 years without a reboot, because there is no compelling reason to upgrade to a newer kernel.

past :

When? 5 iears ago? 2 weeks ago? On hardware DESIGNED to run Linux? or on hardware Designed to run Windows ONLY, but could be brute-forced into running Linux?

How much time? A week? A month? A year? How many hours? 40 (less than one staff-week), 160 (less than one staff month), or 2000 hours (one staff year).

I've spent over 8,000 hours using Linux in development and production environments. I've used Linux as my secondary desktop machine, I've used Linux as my primary servers, I've used Linux to prototype clusters and multi-organization B2B solutions.

so-called

Sounds to me like you didn't really do anything useful. You didn't actually USE Linux for anything. You just launched a few applications waited what seemed like an eternity for them to come up, twiddled with them for a few seconds, then closed them and moved on to the next one.

Wintroll problem number one. You did not install Linux on a machine DESIGNED for Linux. There are many machines that are actually DESIGNED to be Linux compatible out of the box. Several models such as certain IBM thinkpads (T-20, T-40, R-50) Aptiva, and Intellistation, Dell Dimensions, and HP Pavilions, were all configured to run Linux "out of the box". The plug and play technology of contemporary versions of Linux (those released shortly after the initial release of the hardware or later) will auto-configure themselves with little or no intervention.

On the other hand, most Compaq desktops, most Gateway low-end laptops and desktops, and most low-end IBM laptops, will not run Linux very nicely because they were designed to run Windows, including Windows-only hardware.

cryptic.

Funny, Red Hat, SuSE, and Mandrake all have GUI tools for doing this, and you can do it once you've started X11 in "default" resolution. resolution of your monitor and graphics card, and set this to be the default resolution. For example, both Red Hat Enterprise Workstation and SuSE professional figured out the resolution on my T40 SXGA and A30 SXGA laptops and set the resolution accordingly. I could have chosen lower resolution, but was quite happy with what I got. I spent an extra $1000 for the higher resolution, I expect to have it with Linux.

its

Very true. Linux doesn't cripple it's users and force them to spend thousands of dollars for developer tools in addition to the thousands spent on the core hardware and operating system.

The advantage of this is that applications which would cost hundreds of dollars on Windows are available for Linux as part of the standard installation. Applications that would cost thousands of dollars are available via download for just a few hundred dollars. Server applications that would cost as much as 1-4 million dollars on Windows, can be obtained for as little as $1,000 for limited scope hardware (limited number of processors and-or users).