🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <DD0G75.8K6@news.cis.umn.edu>, Jeff Halverson
<halv0019@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:

> jlp@cheeta.inesc.pt (Jaime Lares Rebelo Pinto) wrote:
> >Chad Irby (cirby@news.gate.net) wrote:

> 
> Okay.  Fine.  Why doesn't your brother buy a Typerwriter?  (What?  You say a 
> typewriter is not as flexible???  Yeah.  Thats my point.)

But how much more flexible is UNIX over a Mac? A list, perhaps?

> My Linux box has _NEVER_ crashed due to misbehaving software.  Yes, I've had 
> poorly written programs crash, but _NEVER_ has it taken down the system
with it.  
> The Mac IIsi at work, on the other hand, crashes under MacTCP at least once 
> every day.

Then it was not configured properly - same argument as a UNIX system. I've
never had MacTCP crash. It's all configuration.
 
> I don't care for any of these marketing words (Preemtive Multitasking)
created 
> only to PROVE one system is better than the other (ie.  Preemtive
Multitasking, 
> RISC, etc.)  You can toy with syntax all you want.  When I concider my 
> experience with MacOS, Linux, Windows, etc, I _know_ what does what I
want it to 
> do w/ the least pain.  I also know what system has the most potential to
support 
> future developments!  (Open systems and community built/designed
freeware is a 
> much faster development model!)   

And most Mac users know what system does what they want to do with the
least pain. I also know what system has the most potential to support
future developments! (Primarily closed systems and systemwide support of
technologies reduces redundent development and increases
interoperability).

It all depends on how you look at it.

-- 
Bob Cassidy
UC Irvine