Understanding Unix, was Re: [plug] Cron scheduling

[Christian]

John Summerfield wrote:

> > Systems that continually crash or require massive reprogramming to do
> > things that aren't built into the system are also unproductive in many
> 
> That's completely irrelevant to my point.

Actually, it's not.  But never mind.

> > situations and thus a waste of employers' money.  Unix solves both of
> > these problems.  Just like any powerful and/or specialised machine it
> > requires an investment of time and effort to learn.  You may see this as
> > a disadvantage, and in some ways it is, but I believe it's mostly a
> > reflection of the power of the system - the more powerful, flexible and
> > sophisticated a machine is the more time it takes to learn.  Employers
> 
> It does not have to be hard to START to use it. OS/2 is reasonably easy to
> START to use. Within its design  limitations (single user system), there's
> not much I can do on Linux that I can't do on OS/2. I've not benchmarked
> the two, but I would expect OS/2 to outperform Linux on some applications;
> certainly Warp Server Advanced on a multiCPU box (4-16) would leave Linux
> standing.

It does - if you'd understood my previous point you would probably see
this.  And there's no way you can possibly compare OS/2 to Linux. 
Besides, what good does it do for a dead/dying operating system to
outperform one that is rapidly increasing in user-base by the day?

> > Most properly set up Linux systems don't require very much time
> > investment to keep running well.  I virtually never have problems with
> > mine while I often have people coming to me about problems with their
> > Windows machines.
> 
> As I said before, I've never advocated Windows. Windows is irrelevant to
> the argument (except it's easier to learn).

More relevant an example than OS/2.  (What isn't?)

Regards,

Christian.

-- 
Information, no matter how expensive to create, can be replicated and
shared at little or no cost.
						    - Thomas Jefferson