Scratch

jvvg wrote:

conbot wrote:

jvvg wrote:

If you have any decent anti-virus, it is actually pretty safe. It also crashes at most once a month for me.

Still too much. This is why most IT companies depend on Linux for their servers. They can't risk a server crashing for some odd reason.

And, Linux is better for servers because it can be used for just about anything (because it is open-source).

And can run on just about anything. There are a huge amount of platforms that Windows never supported.

jvvg wrote:

conbot wrote:

jvvg wrote:

And, Linux is better for servers because it can be used for just about anything (because it is open-source).

And can run on just about anything. There are a huge amount of platforms that Windows never supported.

True, but Windows supports enough problems that it works for most things.
However, for special purposes, Linux does work better.

You know, Hotmail wasn't always owned by Microsoft. Before MS acquired it, Solaris ran Hotmail's servers. Once MS took it over, they rid Solaris and installed Windows NT. The problem was, Hotmail was one of the most popular e-mail suppliers in the world, and Windows NT couldn't handle such traffic. Embarrassingly, Microsoft had to switch back on the ole' Solaris servers.

conbot wrote:

jvvg wrote:

conbot wrote:

And can run on just about anything. There are a huge amount of platforms that Windows never supported.

True, but Windows supports enough problems that it works for most things.
However, for special purposes, Linux does work better.

You know, Hotmail wasn't always owned by Microsoft. Before MS acquired it, Solaris ran Hotmail's servers. Once MS took it over, they rid Solaris and installed Windows NT. The problem was, Hotmail was one of the most popular e-mail suppliers in the world, and Windows NT couldn't handle such traffic. Embarrassingly, Microsoft had to switch back on the ole' Solaris servers.

I never disagreed with your point that Linux is better for servers.
I personally use Linux for the server I run.

jji7skyline wrote:

Linux is great for servers. Mac is too :3

Windows is pretty bad for servers 

I would beg to differ on the Mac part. I tried hosting a server with my Mac, didn't work so well.

However, it worked great when I used Linux.

slinger wrote:

jvvg wrote:

conbot wrote:

You know, Hotmail wasn't always owned by Microsoft. Before MS acquired it, Solaris ran Hotmail's servers. Once MS took it over, they rid Solaris and installed Windows NT. The problem was, Hotmail was one of the most popular e-mail suppliers in the world, and Windows NT couldn't handle such traffic. Embarrassingly, Microsoft had to switch back on the ole' Solaris servers.

I never disagreed with your point that Linux is better for servers.
I personally use Linux for the server I run.

Solaris isn't Linux xD

Actually, yeah it is.

jvvg wrote:

BOBBYBOB3 wrote:

jji7skyline wrote:

You're definitely less likely to get malware on Mac as long as you have safety stuff on.

I added onto jji7skyline's post.

Yeah. Remember my reason that Macs don't get as much malware a while back? If not, I'll include it here.
http://i.imgur.com/RaP9i.jpg
That is a market share chart.
As you can see, Windows has a significant portion of it.
If you wrote a virus, would you rather attack about 85% of people or 6% of people? Think about it.

WAHOOOOOO!!!!!! keep up the good work, Apple!

jvvg wrote:

slinger wrote:

jvvg wrote:

I never disagreed with your point that Linux is better for servers.
I personally use Linux for the server I run.

Solaris isn't Linux xD

Actually, yeah it is.

Nope, Unix.

jvvg wrote:

veggieman001 wrote:

jvvg wrote:

Actually, yeah it is.

Nope, Unix.

It uses the GNOME shell (or at least used to), and I think that that is a shell for Linux.

GNOME runs on X11, which can and is run on most Unix/Unix-like systems with a GUI.

jvvg wrote:

slinger wrote:

jvvg wrote:

I never disagreed with your point that Linux is better for servers.
I personally use Linux for the server I run.

Solaris isn't Linux xD

Actually, yeah it is.

Sigh. Solaris doesn't use the Linux kernel, it is based off of the original UNIX, version SVR4.

jvvg wrote:

BOBBYBOB3 wrote:

jji7skyline wrote:

You're definitely less likely to get malware on Mac as long as you have safety stuff on.

I added onto jji7skyline's post.

Yeah. Remember my reason that Macs don't get as much malware a while back? If not, I'll include it here.
http://i.imgur.com/RaP9i.jpg
That is a market share chart.
As you can see, Windows has a significant portion of it.
If you wrote a virus, would you rather attack about 85% of people or 6% of people? Think about it.

I agree, but if it was me I'd rather attack all 91%. xP

veggieman001 wrote:

conbot wrote:

jvvg wrote:

It uses the GNOME shell (or at least used to), and I think that that is a shell for Linux.

Solaris 11 comes installed without a GUI, although you may choose to install one, which I have done. Solaris 10, however, didn't Solaris 10 used the Java Windows Manager, and Solaris 9 did use GNOME. Prior to version 9, Solaris used either the Common Desktop Environment or OpenWindows. Prior to Solaris, SunOS used SunView, which truly is ancient. GNOME isn't a shell, it's a desktop environment. An example of a shell is BASH, which is the command line command interpreter.

They're actually both shells; one is a command line shell and one is a GUI shell

Well noone in the *nix community calls it a shell. We cal it a desktop environment. If we called it a shell too, things will get confusing.

veggieman001 wrote:

conbot wrote:

veggieman001 wrote:

They're actually both shells; one is a command line shell and one is a GUI shell

Well noone in the *nix community calls it a shell. We cal it a desktop environment. If we called it a shell too, things will get confusing.

I never suggested otherwise, merely that it's a proper term in general and that he wasn't incorrect.

agreed

Mokat wrote:

Pricewise, PCs are better.

This "discussion" isn't just about prices, though.
We are also comparing functionality, interface, ease of use, reliability, security, etc.