Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 16:00:46 +0100 From: Anthony Atkielski <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Freebsd vs. linux Message-ID: <27964692.20050212160046@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <420E0164.7090300@wanadoo.es> References: <200502112313.28082.hindrich@worldchat.com> <823196404.20050212105644@wanadoo.fr> <420DE422.3020102@wanadoo.es> <1546398643.20050212123202@wanadoo.fr> <420E0164.7090300@wanadoo.es>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ramiro Aceves writes: > Yes, but some OSes are famous for their "blue screens" None that I'm aware of. Blue screens are more of a popular myth invented by people who hate Microsoft than a reality. I saw occasional BSODs long ago when there were driver problems or hardware problems on servers, but I haven't seen a blue screen in years now. > One day FreeBSD 5.3 completely crashed when doing something in X-window > System on an old pentium 75MHz. I've had FreeBSD hang while trying to use X servers, but I never could establish whether the OS itself had frozen or whether it was just the interface. It happened often enough that it was one of the reasons why I abandoned any attempt to use a GUI. > Sometimes I get my Debian box crashed in my 1200 MHz AMD when I watch TV > card in X-window and move windows (I do not know if it is a matter of > bttv driver or X-window System bug, but it is anoying). Notice that these both happen with GUIs. One reason is that GUIs put hooks into the operating system that destabilize it. It's a very high price to pay just to see pretty pictures on the screen, in my view. > On the other had, when I used Windows I had daily crashes :-) Every instance of daily crashes I've seen in NT-based versions of Windows has been the result of bad drivers, bad hardware, or user errors. > Cant find this on my english dictionary( I do not know what it means) Hype is exaggerated promotion without fact-based, objective justification. > I choosed Linux cause I think it was better than the windozes. It's hard to believe how this could be true for desktop use. Each time I ask for specifics, I'm given a list of things that aren't true, such as the recurring claim of "daily crashes," when in fact it's extremely rare for NT-based versions of Windows to ever crash at all. > If an OS does not have the "third party apps", it is not useful for > most of us. That alone is one reason why Windows will probably remain king for the forseeable future. -- Anthony
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?27964692.20050212160046>