🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <408sd4$m3b@steel.interlog.com>,
   daveacg@interlog.com (Dave Glue) wrote:
>Curtis Bass <cbass%intmeds1.utmb@mhost.utmb.edu> wrote:
>
>
>True, didn't word it very well.  Enough of 95's architecture has
>changed, especially with resource limits, multitasking and crash
>protection, that any minor bugs are minimal when compared to Windows
>3.1 major flaws.  The fact is, through my experience and every review
>I've read, I've never heard anyone claim 95 is _less_ stable than 3.1,
>and quite the opposite.  It is substantailly more solid, perhaps
>surprisingly so.  Staying away from 95 for fear of "bugs" simply isn't
>rational at this point if you're used to dealing with 3.1.
>

The problem with Linux as used as a personal operating system is the fact that 
there is not a lot of applications for it. For instance, I want a good email 
program for X. I may be able to find a workable program, but not a good one. 
Go to the MS-Windows, and you have a wide variety to pick from.

Also in X, lets say I do find an email program, now I want a Usenet program. I 
may find one of those even, but my Usenet program will work nothing like my 
email program. The only thing they have in common is that they can use the 
mouse, interfaces have changed, keyboard has changed (del/bksp/arrows/etc). 
Its just not an OS system that a person could use for a productive system.

Another, I want a good database program, then a call tracking program, a 
information manager, a client tracker, a billing system, a check book program, 
etc. Although I cannot complain cause all the programs for Linux is free 
(most), but I would rather pay some money and get one that I like, and will 
adapt to what I do, not me adapt to the program.


Jeremy Cowgar
BBS One OnLine Service