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

Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
Tue Feb 16 11:51:21 EST 2010

On 2/16/2010 10:33 AM, Ben Kamen wrote:
> On 2/16/2010 10:02 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> 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.
> So what MS gives us now is a modern OS in which they STILL patch
> regularly to fix things that should have been fixed a long time ago....

As does every supplier of complex code.  It's a feature.

> (and I'm not saying Linux is immune, but there's a level of pride for
> producing solid code that comes with the personally driven contributers
> of the OSS community than any company worried about the bottom line.)

I take it you don't read the changelogs on linux distribution updates to 
see the historic bugs that are still being found and fixed.  You should.

> But even more offensive is the level of control that was attempted in
> Vista that has lost its fanfare and is probably successfully implemented
> into Win7. (and now with MS inserting the new version of WGA which
> caused a lot of false positives last time in a fashion even more
> deceitful than that with WGA.)
> As an example: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
> Sigh.

Vista is irrelevant. If you read any trade literature at all you would 
never have touched it in the first place.  Just like any X.0 version of 
a linux distribution.  But realistically, the problem in Vista was 
changing the driver interface, something that Linux does with every 
re-compile and enterprise distributions have to work around by 
backporting some of the updates into old kernels without breaking them.

   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell at gmail.com

More information about the MIMEDefang mailing list