Comment Re:64bits, fewer crashes... (Score 1) 426
"I find Gnome 2.8 to be just fine, thanks; on a server, if you need a "user interface", maybe you should be reconsidering what you're doing, or pay someone who knows what they're doing. (I work for a company that provides dedicated servers, and I've seen some people buy Windows dedicated servers, and be like "uh... now what?" - these are people who really should pay an admin...)"
So what you're saying is that the UI in XP is horrible but if someone points out that maybe Gnome or KDE isn't any better then of course, the UI isn't that important if you're using a desktop OS on a server, and you're obviously not 1337 enough to go near a computer if you're not using a command line interface.
We're talking about a DESKTOP OS. I can manage my own desktop OS well enough that I don't get infested with spyware and malware. Also, more than two years after I installed it, including constant installing and uninstalling of games, trying out browsers, playing with mail clients, hardware swaps (including remove PIII and m/board, replace with Athlon, turn machine back on and let the OS sort things out) XP Pro is still behaving itself. I don't need or want a sysadmin for my HOME machine.
I'm not bashing Linux by any means, it's a great OS, and, quite frankly, I like the fire that it lights under Microsoft (and Apple, if it comes to that). I'd happily agree with you if you were to simply argue that Microsoft have employed questionable business tactics and that some of their efforts with operating systems in the past have been iffy, but really, merrily smacking everything Microsoft is at best, peurile, and at worst, myopic. Likewise, comparing server and desktop requirements, especially with regards to issues like UI friendliness, demonstrates either a total lack of understanding of those issues, or lack of any desire other than to utterly distort any discussion on that issue.
So what you're saying is that the UI in XP is horrible but if someone points out that maybe Gnome or KDE isn't any better then of course, the UI isn't that important if you're using a desktop OS on a server, and you're obviously not 1337 enough to go near a computer if you're not using a command line interface.
We're talking about a DESKTOP OS. I can manage my own desktop OS well enough that I don't get infested with spyware and malware. Also, more than two years after I installed it, including constant installing and uninstalling of games, trying out browsers, playing with mail clients, hardware swaps (including remove PIII and m/board, replace with Athlon, turn machine back on and let the OS sort things out) XP Pro is still behaving itself. I don't need or want a sysadmin for my HOME machine.
I'm not bashing Linux by any means, it's a great OS, and, quite frankly, I like the fire that it lights under Microsoft (and Apple, if it comes to that). I'd happily agree with you if you were to simply argue that Microsoft have employed questionable business tactics and that some of their efforts with operating systems in the past have been iffy, but really, merrily smacking everything Microsoft is at best, peurile, and at worst, myopic. Likewise, comparing server and desktop requirements, especially with regards to issues like UI friendliness, demonstrates either a total lack of understanding of those issues, or lack of any desire other than to utterly distort any discussion on that issue.
