…Yeah, it is less stable than XP

I was hardly able to finish any decent work or major tasks on my Ubuntu install. It still exists, it works, and I might get back to it one day. But I never was able to maintain an advanced system state like in windows – with all the plugins, media software, flash- and mp3 codecs, etc.

I will continue booting into Ubuntu every other day. But right now I just enjoy the benefits of commercial software.

Okay. After working through all the comments, I see that someone has pointed out that BSODs are mostly a thing of the past in Windows computing. And I very rarely reboot my Vista machine. I’d say I reboot about every other month and that’s usually becuase I’ve installed some update or application.

I have an email correspondent that I periodically spar with about Macs. It’s not Macs per se that I have a problem with, it’s the cult-like attitude of the people that buy Apple/Mac products. That being said, I wouldn’t mind trying a version of OS X for the PC. If it really is so much better, and ‘just works’ like so many culti – er, users claim, let the Cupertino boys try engineering it for the massive hardware base that Windows is compatible with.

Alain

Unfortunately, I chucked the install disk after I used it. I would’ve been interested to see the results of the test, too.

I think your argument that Window is Unix based because it was VMS influenced which in turn was Unix influenced is a bit of a stretch.

Out of curiousity and engineering OCD run the Ubuntu verification and see what it says.

Focusing on the OS seems like a good way to waste a lot of time. Which I have. But I’ve repented. Unfortunately, I keep feeling compelled to try Linux because MIT makes some software site licenses only available on Linux. Also, I suffer from a bad case of engineering OCD, which means when something breaks, I have to try to fix it. So Linux is like a bad drug, except without all the productivity.

I don’t care what an OS is based on – it’s not my problem, I don’t ever use the command line for anything, and all I am doing is checking email and making music recordings and facebooking and such. I just need something that stays on, doesn’t crash much, plays well with peripherals, etc. Hence I am now fully committed to XP pro, and done with the tinkering w/Ubuntu phase until further notice.

….
NO No no.

I give you good reasons why an error-free install is sufficient verification (e.g. checksums on the packages) and you quote “Because it worked?” My conclusion was entirely consistent with the reasons I gave. Do you have any information to the contrary? I’d like to know, because I always assumed errors would be detected, at the very least, during install.

Windows is based on UNIX, too

—-
Have you completely lost your mind?

Nope. The initial design of Windows NT was based on DEC’s VMS (written by the same group), and VMS was a bastard stepchild of UNIX. With Windows XP, all Microsoft consumer operating systems are based on Windows NT. True there’s not a shred of AT&T code in Windows, but neither is there any in linux. Both operating systems have rock solid kernels built on the UNIX model, though. Windows does a lot of high level stuff wrong, but their low level stuff is damn good. A lot of people in the FOSS community spend their time creating free versions of Microsoft products, like Office and .NET. Nobody argues Microsoft doesn’t do a lot right, they just hate the company and have an ideological problem with paying for software.

….
NO No no.

Windows is based on UNIX, too

—-
Have you completely lost your mind?

Windows is based on UNIX, too. VMS, I believe. Windows can go forever these days, too. And Linux and SunOS don’t share a shred of kernel code in common, so that’s a meaningless comparison. The question is how long you can run desktop Linux without some component of Gnome going to shit. (Same with Windows, too, but at least when parts of Windows die, they are smart enough to restart themselves.)

I agree paying financial weenies doesn’t matter. They’ll fuck up either way. But paying engineers for their time is often the only way to get them to do something boring like actually properly test an install script. Linux has brilliant elements, but its development is marked by nearly zero discipline.

As far as thinking Windows is more stable than Linux, that is completely insane. Linux systems routinely run for years without needing a reboot. I had a Unix sparc-station at Tech which was never rebooted in the 4 years I was there.

“Paying people” in no guarantee of results either. If it were, Fannie Mae would be one of soundest financial institutions in America.

It has been my experience that hackers are the best engineers.

I disagree that Windows is as much hassle or less stable. I suppose it comes down to anecdote, but Windows goes through far more testing and has far more resources to be used for development, and in my experience they get something for it. I’ve never had a Windows install go badly. Never had Windows get corrupted to the point where things wouldn’t start.

In some ways, Linux is pretty cool, because you can really tweak things. In some ways, it’s a terrible idea, because you can really tweak things. I actually like Linux, but I don’t think using it to save money is a good idea. I like actually doing things with a computer, not to it, and in my experience you get a lot more done with Windows or OS X, partly because there is actually software available for it. If you could get a better product by not paying people to build it, I’d be really surprised, and a bit worried about my job prospects.

The nice thing about Ubuntu is once you getting it working after alot of hassle, its solid and secure. Windows requires just as much hassle and will never be stable or secure.