3 ms·
> I don't see this as a problem; I like the stability of MS vs. Linux (having watched the rise and fall of devfs and hal now, along with the death of gnome-moun
by jcromartie 16y ago
> I don't see this as a problem; I like the stability of MS vs. Linux (having watched the rise and fall of devfs and hal now, along with the death of gnome-mount, gconf, gdm theming and xdmcp serving, etc.)
The problem that I see is that "stability" in the Microsoft world is entirely conditional on your willingness to upgrade everything all of the time since the whole toolkit is in a constant state of flux. Sure, you get working and officially-supported frameworks, but the goalposts are always shifting further down the field, and I think that's intentional on Microsoft's part.
- sapphirecat 16y agoI don't think you can say Linux is better in that regard. Every 6 months, there's a new Ubuntu or a new Fedora, and within a couple of years (except for Ubuntu LTS releases, which last three! years on the desktop) they're gone again.
- runjake 16y agoCould you clarify what you mean by: "upgrade everything all of the time" and "the whole toolkit is in a constant state of flux"? What toolkit, and what upgrades? And how is it different to you than the Linux side of things?