Linked by Anthony Hicks on Tue 8th Apr 2003 16:17 UTC
This (quite long) article has been written by me for two primary reasons: One, to hopefully save someone else the time and hassle associated with trying out various Linux distributions, and two, to promote some discussion and feedback regarding what a modern Linux distribution should be, and of course to contrast this with what is currently available. I am exploring the offerings of MS Windows, BeOS and MacOSX, and then taking on a number of well-known Linux distributions.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
I find it funny how people are willing to defend Microsoft on security. Microsoft has come out and stated that it's products weren't designed for security. This was less than a year ago. A tenent of computer science is that a system must be designed for security from the very beginning, or it doesn't work. To believe that Microsoft has turned around a 37 million line (which doesn't include non-Windows MS products like SQL Server) is just silly. Microsoft announced some security initiatives last year. If it can stop the feature kick* and concentrate on security and stability, in a few years you might be able to trust them on security issues. Until then, it's just pointy-haired marketing-speak (like the word "initiative").
*> I honestly thought MS had changed when Win2K came out. Win2K was a remarkable advance in stability and performance. Then XP came out and they backslid again. It's okay on the desktop, but WinXP isn't really suitable for a high-load mission critical server. Now, talks of shoving SQL Server (WinFS) and the .NET CLI into the kernel leave me with little faith that MS will ever resolve it's security/stability issues.