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

Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
Tue Feb 16 11:02:45 EST 2010

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

More information about the MIMEDefang mailing list