🚀 go-pugleaf

Adrian Powell (awp@cray.com) wrote:
:      Hi,
:          Although I'm a big Unix advocate, I can see why experienced 
: computer users might choose WIN95 over Linux, and that is reliability.
 Reliability? Is that what you call crashes every few minutes, word
processors overwriting the FAT, word processors gobbling up
confidential data into their proprietary formatted files, network
services spying on their users, installation messing up other OS'es,
deceptive marketing, etc ...

: In my experience, although Linux runs well on more common machines,
: when you through in a Pentium with some of the latest h/w, things start
: to play up. It recently took me ages to fault fine a problem with a disk
: configuration which worked well under Win95. 
 Now, try using that same disk configuration for a year with Winbloze,
and use Word 4.0 on it. When Word will overwrite your Fat, I hope
you'll have backups, or else you can kiss a year' work goodbye.

: And, this last weekend I
: suffered a kernel paniced which wreaked 10 Linux filesystems. This shouldn't 
: happen.
 The difference is that when the Linux filesystem crashes, it can be
recovered in 99.99% of the cases by fsck (You DO run fsck in your
/etc/rc, I hope?). On the other hand, when Word decides to overwrite
the FAT, it is almost impossible to recover the situation, and many
recovery tools may even make it worse.

: I really still see linux as rather an experimental enviroment, but 
: hopefully we should see some stability  in coming years, which would be great.
 And what do you call Micro$ofts cruft? Early early Alpha? Really, in
a properly designed OS, user programs such as word processors
SHOULDN'T have the possibility to overwrite crucial metadata. And this
is just one example.

:    Adrian

--
 Alain