Felgar wrote:I disagree about Microsoft though. Server 2003 is pretty impressive software when you consider stability, scalabity, and useability.
Yeah, it's probably like Linux, Mac, or BSD 5 or 10 years ago, in terms of stability and scalability. I'm guessing for a distro like SuSE useability is comparable. I haven't run any servers with either OS, though. And compare the price tag to Linux or FreeBSD!
Felgar wrote:Microsoft boxes can stay stable without reboot indefinately now.
Unix has been doing that for like 20 years, with Linux/Mac/BSD following in its footsteps. Looks like Microsoft is finally catching up in this respect! What took so long?
Hey, ever seen
these?
Felgar wrote:Also most other Microsoft software leads the pack in terms of general functional usage, and most other solutions are usually playing catch-up, coming out on par at best. And I don't care if Emacs never does crash, it still sucks as a text editor, and has no value as a word processor.
I don't use Emacs, I use OpenOffice.org Writer and sometimes KWrite, so your argument is a straw man

. The price is usually better for open source stuff, often free! But Richard Stallman is scary, just read some of the articles
here.
I actually find no advantage of the Microsoft products over what I use for anything I do.
Internet Explorer is the worst of Microsoft. It's at least 5 years
behind the pack and still riddled with security issues. It's probably the least CSS compliant of all common browsers. Outlook/Outlook Express is down there as well. I use Konqueror and Kontact/KMail myself, though I think quite highly of Firefox and Thunderbird.
Felgar wrote:Edit: And oh! Welcome to forum, officially.

Thanks.
