Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 28th Jul 2006 01:34 UTC
Permalink for comment 146995
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-06-29
"What Ballmer ought to be scared about is the increasing STABILITY of say Linux."
That's something Ballmer has always had to keep in mind. One of Linux's claims to fame was stability, during the days of Windows 9x and Me I'd have to deal with some computers that you could wager on crashing a certain number of times a day.
As far as stability goes, Linux has never been at a disadvantage. Windows on the other hand has had to clean up it's act, and with XP I have to say it's come a long way.
"The idea of perpetual change, perpetual bugs, perpetual job-security is what his employees want to hear, not his CUSTOMERS !"
I share your sentiment when it comes to the target Windows release frequency Microsoft hopes to attain. Every two years is unattractive to me. Linux has releases every six months for some distributions, every year for others, and some take several years. But despite the fast releases many of them are free and there's no pressure to upgrade.
I was very happy with the longer life span of XP, I'd probably regret that it's going to end soon, but I primarily use Linux :-) .