🚀 go-pugleaf

Joseph Bissot <bissot@deltanet.com> wrote:

>> Like Linux, I presume? What the advocates of 95 and NT forget is that the 
>> shit costs a lot of money, especially the NT. And you can't rule out the 
>> RAM costs, no matter how carefully one shops around. Let's face the ugly 
>> fact. Some people can't afford the requirements of NT. While the cost of 
>> the RAM will surely continue to fall, it's apparent to me that M$ will 
>> make even more bloated software demanding even more computing power 
>> faster than it can become affordable.
>> 
>> Cost is the number 1 reason I use Linux.

>Very true... but my time is worth far more than the cost of my hardware. 
>People who have important things to do can't afford the extra time. Linux is 
>a time intensive OS by comparison to NT. Never mind the fact that nobody will 
>build a turn-key anything on Linux. 

Oh, by the way, I spent the entire last week trying to keep NT from
crashing.  I wasn't entirely successful... it's run all weekend
without crashing *by* *itself*, but if I run the System Resource Meter
and actually try to look at any resources, down it will go.

This is NT 3.51 with two updates.

Tell me again about time-intensive OSes.