On Sunday 04 December 2005 10:33, Ken Elliott wrote:
> Agreed. All OS's have their strengths and weaknesses. To slam one doesn't
> really get us anywhere, and is an unproductive use of bandwidth.
>
> I use both Win2K, FC3, Suse and Debian, so I'm a bit agnostic as far as the
> OS is concerned. It all boils down to this: What problem are you trying
> to solve, and what tool will you use? Pick an OS that makes sense for that
> solution.
On a more serious note, I actually would like to put it to you that it's not
simple a matter of the best O/S for the job. Sure, technically it is the best
for the job, at least for the short term.
Then it depends on what you do with it. If it's for business use you are going
to invest more money into it. Be more dependent on it. It's going to become a
matter of dollars vs production.
Investing into an O/S that has other costs. Lock down for example, will affect
differently over time. Look at what Disney, was it(?), who rewrote some
graphics tool to work under Linux so they could be more productive.
The point being is that the formula is maybe not as simple as it used to be.
The added "hidden" costs are higher than expected, if at all even expected.
> And of course, there's FORTH. Who needs a stinkin OS?
Now there's an interesting laguage. Not heard much about it lately, you've
seen it?
--Steve Szmidt
"They that would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:03:38 EDT