On 2/11/2011 10:39 AM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: >>>> Be careful with saying such things. A lot can be said about Windows as >>>> an operating system and Microsoft as a company. But be very careful > about >>> >>> Yes, there can, and has been, a lot said. A *LOT* of it has not been >>> positive (at least since WinDoze 95). I can go on for a while, though >>> it's OT, as to their *lousy* design decisions, and then there's all the >>> lawsuits that they lost, where they paid to cut out competetors. >> >> But those have next to nothing to do with their current products. If > > They have *everything* to do. Look, I *said* this is OT, but since you > insist, the overwhelmingly *bad* design decision was to put the GUI into > ring 0, instead of the way Windows 3, and X on *Nix, and *everybody* else > did, resulting in a GUI error bringing down the *entire* system. > <snip> Yes, but with Linux and many, many, many combination of shipping software and existing hardware you actually have GUI errors. With the combinations of windows drivers and hardware I've used, I haven't seen any such error in years. While I agree that even running a GUI at all on a server is a waste of resources, in practice it is not something that matters. My company runs about 10x the number of windows servers as Linux. Not my choice of course, but we don't see OS-related differences in reliability, just different quirks you have to work around. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com