Re: [PLUG] LBF (Linux Business Forum): Top Arguments FOR and AGAINST using Linux in Business

[Paul <paul@dpagin.net>]

> Not really ... NT has been pushed as MS's "business" OS since ... 1994 or
> so (NT 3.1). Linux wasn't all that advanced back then, either. 
>
> And I can recall using Win3.1 in 1991/92. And yes, that is longer than
> Linux. We were doing desktop publishing of the forms we used in the bank I
>  
None of the modern M$ OSes are based on Win 3.1.  How much of Win95 or 
98 is in XP or 2000?  NT may have the longest surviving code, and you 
said that has only been around since 1994 or so.

Linux started in the early ninties, right?  It is still Linux.  It has 
become more advanced and things have been built on top of it.  Same with 
DOS, except DOS stopped advancing.  New things have been built on top 
and around DOS.  Being new things, how can they claim to share the long 
history of DOS?

> worked at back then. And so, in the minds of a business person, Windows
> does have a longer history of being productive in a business environment
> than Linux.
Like you said, "in the minds of a business person".  That doesn't make 
it so.

> What would you say the first release of a Linux distro with X-Windows that
> you could do desktop publishing effectively with was?
Don't know, but I do know that Macs could do it before M$ could.  Come 
to think of it Macs might have the longest life span of a desktop OS 
until just recently when they switched to OS X.

One thing that makes M$ seem evil is the fact the others have been 
around longer, have done things better, and yet, M$ still comes out on top.

_________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group        --       http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  --   http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug