Xah Lee's Unixism

[John Thingstad]

On 07 Sep 04 09:44:24 -0800, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs at kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> In article <20040904.0140.57670snz at dsl.co.uk>, bhk at dsl.co.uk
> (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) writes:
>
>> On Thursday, in article
>> <slrncjf52a.oa.amajorel at vulcain.knox.com> amajorel at teezer.fr
>> "Andre Majorel" wrote:
>>
>>> Are you arguing that the stability comes from the API, not from
>>> the implementation ? If so, why has NT become more stable over
>>> the years, since its API has not changed ?
>>
>> I'd like to imagine that it's because there are fewer fuckwits using
>> it; BICBW....
>
> Does this mean that XP is getting less stable?
>
> --
> /~\  cgibbs at kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
> \ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
>  X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
> / \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
>

As you may know XP is not particularly good as a server.
Exchange server (email) has always sucked,
you can disengage the windows interface,
the system still wants to warn you on the screen forcing you to have  
access to the screen at all times,
so the function as a server it leaves something to be desired.
I would go for some Unix implementation (perhaps free-BSD)
As a workstation XP seems OK.
I hear a lot of complaints about XP's stability.
Since I have not administered a XP network, yet, I cant comment on that.
But in my personal experience it is a stable system.
I frequently let my computer run 24 hrs. a day for more than a month  
without
a need to reboot. So for me it is adequate.

-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/