On Wed, 2006-15-02 at 15:28 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: > Especially I have seen statements > about Windows being a CPU hog, when I know it is not. It is, in fact, > slightly less CPU intensive than the versions of Linux I have tried > (on an unloaded machine) and noticeably faster for loading the programs > I use. So I take some time to correct incorrct statements. My experience is completely the opposite: Linux is less CPU intensive than Windows on the desktop or on a server. All of my clients have said the same thing. It's strange...I've seen similar claims made directly by Microsoft and Microsoft's friends. I smell something fishy. > > I am absolutely astounded by some of your statements, so I have to ask: > > why do you stay here if you have dislike Linux so? > > BTW, I talked my girlfriend > into replacing Windows XP with Debian Linux. Linux is more secure for > web browsing, simply because there is less of it. Do you see what I said above? I am absolutely astounded by some of your statements, including this latest one. If you want to fool yourself into thinking that Linux distros are more secure because they're less widely spread, go right ahead. > I don't hate GPL. But it has its definite drawbacks, and I shall never > use anything GPLd for commercial software. Okay then. Stop beating everyone over the head with it then. > Wiondows is a tool. It has its uses. Windows is most certainly a tool. Again, I ask: what in the world are you doing on this mailing list? Regards, Ranbir -- Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu Linux 2.6.15-1.1830_FC4 i686 GNU/Linux 16:40:32 up 9:40, 2 users, load average: 0.44, 0.53, 0.54
