Freebsd vs. linux

[Anthony Atkielski]

Ramiro Aceves writes:

> Yes, but some OSes are famous for their "blue screens"

None that I'm aware of.  Blue screens are more of a popular myth
invented by people who hate Microsoft than a reality.  I saw occasional
BSODs long ago when there were driver problems or hardware problems on
servers, but I haven't seen a blue screen in years now.

> One day FreeBSD 5.3 completely crashed when doing something in X-window
> System on an old pentium 75MHz.

I've had FreeBSD hang while trying to use X servers, but I never could
establish whether the OS itself had frozen or whether it was just the
interface.  It happened often enough that it was one of the reasons why
I abandoned any attempt to use a GUI.

> Sometimes I get my Debian box crashed in my 1200 MHz AMD when I watch TV
> card in X-window and move windows (I do not know if it is a matter of 
> bttv driver or X-window System bug, but it is anoying).

Notice that these both happen with GUIs.  One reason is that GUIs put
hooks into the operating system that destabilize it.  It's a very high
price to pay just to see pretty pictures on the screen, in my view.

> On the other had, when I used Windows I had daily crashes :-)

Every instance of daily crashes I've seen in NT-based versions of
Windows has been the result of bad drivers, bad hardware, or user
errors.

> Cant find this on my english dictionary( I do not know what it means)

Hype is exaggerated promotion without fact-based, objective
justification.

> I choosed Linux cause I think it was better than the windozes.

It's hard to believe how this could be true for desktop use.  Each time
I ask for specifics, I'm given a list of things that aren't true, such
as the recurring claim of "daily crashes," when in fact it's extremely
rare for NT-based versions of Windows to ever crash at all.

> If an OS does not have the "third party apps", it is not useful for
> most of us.

That alone is one reason why Windows will probably remain king for the
forseeable future.

-- 
Anthony