
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.

Your arguments still apply to proprietary software as well. We've all seen poorly tested patches or last minute fixes that don't quite work. We've also all seen high quality work come out of FOSS and standard big name companies.
Everything sucks on dialup, doesn't matter what software licensing you prefer.
I NEVER (not a single one time) got my distribution messed up when I applied security updates. I never apply updates to my mothers Linux PC because she is on dial up and is therfore highly invisible to the internet, additionally to having a fully closed firewall.
I hear different stories about updating and breaking things from the Windows users I know. The only ones who have no security problems have an additional router (running on Linux )installed between their computer and the internet.
That is MY perception of how things are, maybe you have different experiences in your social environment, and I would be looking forward to reading about them here.
Member since:
2005-07-06
i realy love the arguments in thes article.
linux is better because if a bug is found it is patched emediately (wich is a plain lie). but hey! who cares if the patch wasn't tested and breakes a load of other things, you didn't have to wait for it.
linux is better because you don't have to search for drivers on the manufacturer's homepage. you simply download new isos of your distribution of the week. At least you know how to spend your weekend when connected via dial-up.