[ILUG-BOM] Linux is not reliable . Windows Still rulez

[Amish K. Munshi]

Hi,

	Yes I agree with you, but I most of the work that we require to
do is available as a GUI toolkit. And however integrated we are to the
Linux systems, we would love to use the graphical version of linuxconf
rather than the text version. 
	Anyway Linux is always better since all of have used both of
them (Win and Lin). And not many people who say that Win is better have
just used Win. 

Bye.
-----Original Message-----
From: linuxers-admin@mm.ilug-bom.org.in
[mailto:linuxers-admin@mm.ilug-bom.org.in] On Behalf Of Philip S Tellis
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 1:40 PM
To: linuxers@mm.ilug-bom.org.in
Subject: RE: [ILUG-BOM] Linux is not reliable . Windows Still rulez

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Amish K. Munshi wrote:

> 	I have realized that these OS's do a great job but Linux is
> difficult to configure and windows is simple to configure but then it
is

Actually, many people (me included) would argue that linux is easier to 
configure.  All configuration files in linux are text files.  All 
options are well commented.  The ability to have comments right in the 
configuration file is great.

In windows, you've got to search around n dialog boxes (for acceptable 
values of n), search through tabs, and figure out what weird terms 
mean.  If windows doesn't start (even in safe mode), then there's no way

you can reconfigure things.  I've seen it happen.

You don't have to be a linux guru to be able to configure, you just need

to know where the configuration files are, and how to read them.

If there aren't inline comments, it is very likely that the 
configuration file has a man page of its own.  eg. man xinetd.conf

-- 
"If you don't want your dog to have bad breath, do what I do:  Pour a
little
 Lavoris in the toilet."
-- Comedian Jay Leno

_______________________________________________
http://mm.ilug-bom.org.in/mailman/listinfo/linuxers