On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 05:50:32PM +0100, Jose Celestino wrote: > What? You must be trolling. Fortunately, I can vouch--Les is no troll. Trust me; have I ever steered you wrong? > More dependable? More like more predictable, you can always predict > there will be troubles. I've wrestled with MS for, literally, decades; sitting to my left is the (over-priced, buggy) copy of Microsoft Z-80 CP/M Assembler I bought in the late 1970's on 8" floppy. I still think the most honest release they ever came out with was Windows 2000; XP was a hack that added in crap for Microsoft, not us as users. Neverhteless, built on Win2K, it *has* been infinitely more stable than any other relase. By following strict rules on what clients can and can't load, I can keep a WinXpSP2 client farm running under Windows Server 2003 for long periods of time. I don't have to *like* it' but it's the reality we have to work with. > And if your experience is from the last 5 years I bet you've had ME and > 98 ubber troubles to some extend. Who didn't? > What are talking about? Is it dificult to install or use Fedora? What's > the dificulty, I don't get it. Could you elaborate? Fedora is an experimental OS. Things break when new releases come out. It shouldn't be used for production. But it's got all the latest coolstuff. So? What's the problem? Cheers, -- Dave Ihnat President, DMINET Consulting, Inc. dihnat@xxxxxxxxxx
