Les Mikesell wrote: > >Of course. 40,000 viruses can't be wrong about windows as the platform >of choice... > > Right, but that's besides the point. Again, I emphasize that I am not advocating the use of Windoze. I wouldn't be using Linux if I was convinced that Windoze was a more secure OS, would I? I've seen a couple of reviews on the upcoming Windows Vista, and it seems like they're modeling it after Linux in some ways. > > >Ummm, yes. X includes it on the console screen if you enable it >in the X config. But, you don't need vnc for remote access anyway >unless you want it for some reason. X by itself has always been >able to work remotely, either with a full desktop or individual >windows from remote machines. Most Linux distributions do include >vncserver (for additional sessions besides the console one) and >vncviewer. No windows distribution includes VNC - it is always >a 3rd party addon. > > If your talking about remote X, it does have its limitations. Linux, in its strictest sense, is only an operating system. Having said so, X is an addon to Linux - It's not part of it. I'm sure that U command line advocates would strongly agree that Linux doesn't require X to run. My initial assertion was an answer to whether the "Aaron Konstam miracles" are possible on Windoze, and I said yes. It's plain and simple. > >Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Sort of like a videophone being >more useful than just voice. You don't always need the moving pictures. >Sometime you might prefer to just talk/type. > Yes, and more often than not, it is more accurate to simply take my words literally rather than try to read between the lines, as my words contain no special hidden meaning.
