> ... however the point of the original thread
> (I think) was pointed towards the *server*
Yes, that was my area of interest in the original post. The desktop battle is lost for UNIX, so there is no point in discussing it.
Until and unless the desktop scene changes dramatically in some way, the server market is the market where UNIX has the advantage.
> There is a certain uncomfortability a developer
> has when developing for Windows...you sometimes
> just don't know what's going on behind the
> scenes...and have no way of finding out.
Very true, and that is something that has always irritated me. It's especially irritating when something doesn't work, as there is
often absolutely no way to investigate the problem. You're dead in the water, then.
However, for Windows desktops, you don't have much choice for development tools. The same is true to some extent of UNIX.
> Plus the operating system's design itself is
> inferior to Unix-type OS's.
That depends on the purpose to which the OS is applied. Windows is superior on the desktop from a design standpoint, for the most
part. UNIX is superior as a server, in most respects.
> I wouldn't ever use anything by BSD for any web
> or ftp serving...and very quickly the open souce
> databases are catching up.
That will also be true for application servers of other types, as described in this CNet article:
> The old saw is sad but true...Windows measures
> uptime in days; Unix measures uptime in
Actually, that is not true. Windows NT servers often run for years as well. It all depends on what you are running on the machine.
Desktop versions of Windows (9x) are much less stable, but nobody keeps a desktop running for years, anyway.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message