Tim: >> Now that's just laughable. I've yet to see one that I'd call stable. >> If "Windows is stable", they'd all be stable. It's not. It's only >> stable under some circumstances, ones I don't get to see. I won't >> claim Fedora is any better, but I certainly won't agree with Windows >> earning the monika of being stable. >> >> This must be some new definition of being "stable" that I'm not >> familiar with. Craig White: > I find Windows XP pretty stable...probably more stable than FC-4 that > I'm using on my desktop but that was an upgrade from FC-1 to FC-3 to > FC-4 and I am gonna wipe it all out and install FC-5. I don't find Windows XP even "fairly" stable, while I do find FC4 so stable I can call it reliable. I'm reminded of a comment made while studying electronics, about poor design: "The output will remain constant, when adjusted to do so." I find an awful lot of tinkering is *required* with XP, but FC4 pretty much "just works", and keeps on doing so. And XP *still* hasn't gotten out of that "reboot required after minor configuration change" stupidity. -- Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
