|
Re: Bad Ubuntu
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:15:22 -0700, Frank wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>
>> Mike wrote:
>>
>>> In article <lZmdncHHjvqqAQrbnZ2dnUVZ8vidnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>> Stephan Rose <nospam@spammer.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Here is the release policy:
>>>>
>>>> LTS Releases are supported for 3 years (5 years server). All other
>>>> releases
>>>> have 1 year support. When the current LTS expires, a new release is made
>>>> available with LTS support.
>>>>
>>>> What's so terribly difficult to understand about this?
>>>
>>>
>>> Nothing actually. What it means is Ubuntu is not something to run a
>>> business on. 3 years?!?! 1 year?!?! Wow, and people complain
>>> about the "MS upgrade treadmill"! MS is still supporting Windows
>>> 2000 after 8 years and XP after 6 years.
>>>
>>> No business wants OS upgrades forced on them every 3 years in order to
>>> stay supported. If MS did that you would be screaming "monopoly"!
>>> Mike
>>
>>
>> Ubuntu upgrades are totally painless. If you're a business, you back up
>> your data. Installing a new version of Ubuntu is a nice walk in the park
>> compared to Windows which could be likened to taking a walk in South
>> Central LA at 3AM on a Sunday morning.
>>
>> Alias
>
> If you're a business (a real business) you're not using a toy os like linux.
> Period!
Frank, come on now. Tell that to the company that produced Shrek 3 on
Linux based render farms just to name one very public example.
Tell that to me who does real business just fine on linux machines.
Tell that to the thousands of server companies that host linux servers on
a daily basis and make their living from it.
I could go on...
Both operating systems have their pros and cons. Both operating systems
have their uses. Both have their place in the business world.
--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6
君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから
|