[Mimedefang] OT: Choice of desktop OS (was Re: watch-mimedefang)

[Les Mikesell]

On 2/16/2010 8:45 AM, WBrown at e1b.org wrote:
>
>> The frustration of having to run a Windows desktop would drive me insane.
>
> Making the switch caused some grief, but I think it was worth it in the
> long run.  If nothing else, patches don't eventual bog the system down like
> they do in Windows.  If you don't believe me, take a fresh machine and
> install Windows 2000 on it.  Time how long it takes to boot.  Then do
> nothing but patch it.  Alot.  Reboot repeatedly.  Burn most of a day doing
> so.  Time how long it takes to boot after all current patches are applied.
> Last time I did this, it took about 3 times longer to boot.

Windows 2000 is a decade old now - and was not even intended to be a 
desktop OS. And you need to defrag after making big disk changes. If you 
don't already see why this is a bad comparision, try installing a 
10-year old Linux server distro and try to update it to a current 
desktop piecemeal.

> Now when my laptop takes longer to boot, it's because I added something.

With windows XP, windows 7 or OSX on a laptop, you generally close the 
lid to sleep, open again to wake up nearly instantly with local 
networking established automatically and they've done that well for most 
of a decade - so you rarely need to reboot.  It's possible to make some 
of the current linux distros do this if you are lucky, but it's not a 
given.  Having said that, I prefer Linux on servers, but I'm perfectly 
happy to run the screens remotely with freenx/NX (easier than fighting 
with distros that don't included Nvidia drivers anyway) and to test 
experimental stuff under VMware where it is irrelevant what OS is 
hosting natively.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com