question about microsoft and linux

[Igor Gueths]

One of the big problems with Microsoft is that they completely scrapped
Dos for Windows. Since then, everything has been expand expand on, instead
of rewriting code. Take winblows 95. The thing crashed all the time, and
most of its code was notorious for being buggy. Then came w98. Same ui,
same layout, what did they add? A few extra features here and there to
"facilitate ease of use." And what happened as a result? More crappy code
got added to the already nice mess they had to deal with back when 95 was
popular. So they kept doing this and still are doing the above right now,
the exception to this being w2k and wxp, which are based on a different
kernel. What they should have done is keep expanding on dos. Similar to
the Linux development strategy. If you think about how Linux compares to
Windows, let's all us Linux users think about the amount of code vs
quality. For the most part, the amount of code is managable, because in
Linux you are allowed to deal with small chunks rather than in windows
someone having to deal with many components daisy-chained together. Like
if one dll isn't found, there goes that prog and possibly the entire
system! The conversation is entirely different in Linux. Root at root$#
modprobe modulename. Modprobe: Modprobe: Unable to locate module
modulename, no such file or directory. And guess what? Modprobe terminated
without bringing down the entire system similar to what w98/95/me would
have done. What I'm trying to say by all this is that Linux is far better
than windows in many if not all asspects of modern computing.

microsoft dialogue
   This company has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down.
   If the problem persists, delete winblows and install linux
   close button

On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, charles crawford wrote:

> Heh heh.  Microsoft should drop Windows and expand DOS.  Never happen eh?
>
> -- charlie.
>
>
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Aaron Howell wrote:
>
> > Microsoft did actually try to move Hotmail from Solaris to Windows NT,
> > and it died in a horrible way.
> > Apparently even they didn't have the hardware required to scale Windows NT to that sort of application.
> > Interestingly enough, they then successfully moved from Solaris to FreeBSD on the same Intel hardware.
> >
> > Another case of the same thing,
> > Cisco, after signing a deal with Microsoft, told their employees that Linux was to be removed from all their servers, and that they were to run Windows instead.
> > They caused a company wide uproar. Their employees refused to do it, and management was left with a decision of renigging on their deal,
> > or having to discipline the entire technical staff.
> > Cisco is still running Linux.
> > The biggest problem Microsoft faces is that their is no public access to their source code,
> > meaning that it doesn't undergo the constant community improvement that opensource operating systems like FreeBSD and Linux do.
> > Microsoft's best strategy at this stage would probably be to take the approach of Sun and IBM,
> > opensource their operating systems and concentrate on making money of support and bundled packages.
> > Though that'll never happen.
> > Regards
> > Aaron
> > On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 02:03:00PM -0400, Sunfire wrote:
> > > i didnt know if i would get in trouble for asking but a really odd thing i
> > > noticed er well i saw it anyways... if microsoft says that their ms windows
> > > servers are some if not one of the best ones out there... my question is why
> > > are they going against their own theory and using unix/linux for their
> > > servers..??
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Speakup mailing list
> > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>