RE: why linux?

| -----Original Message-----
| [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Scott Klement

| Windows also crashes regularly...  Linux, BSD and OS/400 do not.

I sure hope you are not implying a comparison of Linux and BSD to OS/400,
because they're not in the same league.

|
| Every time I read one of these "religious wars" where people adamantly
| defend Windows, I always find myself thinking "What would Microsoft have
| to do in order for these people to lose faith in them?"   And, I can't
| imagine anything!

I ask the same question about RMS, ESR, Linus Torvalds and Lawrence
Lessig...  Same conclusion!

| I mean, if the OS being unstable doesn't do it --

I've heard plenty of comments that Linux and BSD are just as stable as
OS/400.  But these comments invariably compare apples and oranges because
the workload is so different.  Compare the stability of OS/400
simultaneously running Windows, Linux, and a VAST MULTITUDE of different
applications..
.. to these other OS, if they can (HA!), and then let's compare stability.


| and the security being
| an afterthought doesn't do it

That would be all flavors of *nix, if I understand correctly.  OS/400 was
designed with security in mind FROM THE BEGINNING in the late seventies...
*nix...???

| -- and the almost continual compatibility
| problems don't do it --

I can't comment on OS/400 *nix on compatibility, so it may be just as bad.


| and the fact that they make up new standards
| instead of following existing ones doesn't do it....

See previous discussion on standards.  (Especially the part about how
useless a lotta standards are.)


| what will?

Probably nothing, in both the case of people who adamantly defend *nix as
well as those who adamantly defend Windows.  These mostly being non-issues
with OS/400.



| And then I wonder why I enter these discussions.  Since if Windows being a
| piece of junk doesn't convince you to try something else, certainly
| nothing that I say will.

Well, I'm sure you'll be glad to admit that *nix is junk compared to OS/400,
right Scott?...;-)

Well.. I'll be glad to admit that OS/400 is junk when it comes to graphical
interfaces other than as a web-server (and the fact it runs either flavor of
"poison", Linux or Windows...;-).  Just as I'm glad to "admit" that OS/400
is superior to either Windows or any flavor of *nix that I've ever heard of,
at least in most respects...  Or rather, in those respects that I put a
higher priority on.  Like stability, security, SOFTWARE and WORKLOAD
scalability (as opposed to hardware scalability) and primarily: TCO.

Of course, if one's priority is taking a stand on a moral crusade then Linux
fits the bill nicely.  And if running on a desktop is a high priority, then
OS/400 just plain sucks (at least 'till a few years out, I would imagine).