Poll: As a typical desktop computer user, have you ever considered Linux to be your main OS?

[n0cmonkey]

<< n0cmonkey Linux has trailed behind even in the server segment. When was it Linux added support for more than 2 processors??? How long has than been a part of NT server pacakges??? >>



No clue, but how often do most small to midsized businesses need 4,6,16,32,64,128 processors in one machine? And if they do Sun makes a better product as did dec/compaq.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<<

<< Linux has trailed behind even in the server segment. When was it Linux added support for more than 2 processors??? How long has than been a part of NT server pacakges??? >>


Well since nOc stepped out I'll respond here :0)

Where do you get the idea linux ever trailed in the server segment? Granted support for 2 procs is nice, but this has only become popularized recently, and even so in may instances two seperate boxes will serve you better than one dual (for server issues).

Anyway, as any admin will tell you stability is paramount. If the system goes down thats wasted money, irrate customers etc. Linux has been stable since before NT was even released. As for when NT finally became stable, that would be when they changed the name to 2000. A lag of what, 8 years? >>



He said more than 2 processors. Which I have no clue about and nor do I care. I am sure NT cannot handle 4+ processors all that well.

 

[thraxes]

I want to have a Linux machine running in my home network... not as my main OS but for a tsk that Linux is actually meant for: Server. It's gonna be my PHP testbed and should share out my MP3s with Samba, nothing more nothing less.

For my 2 other main machines I use Win2K... mainly because of Homesite, Dreamweaver, Photoshop, 3DS-MAX... can't run those on Linux (NO I'm not gonna run them in wine!)


BTW: I use anything that works for a specific task... including Linux AND Microsoft

 

[Psychoholic]

<< Where do you get the idea linux ever trailed in the server segment? Granted support for 2 procs is nice, but this has only become popularized recently, and even so in may instances two seperate boxes will serve you better than one dual (for server issues).

Anyway, as any admin will tell you stability is paramount. If the system goes down thats wasted money, irrate customers etc. Linux has been stable since before NT was even released. As for when NT finally became stable, that would be when they changed the name to 2000. A lag of what, 8 years? >>


Stability, I also guess you would be refering to recovery and data protection, correct??? Who had file integrated journaling first???

FWIW the early versions of Linux were not as stable as you would like to believe. Don't confuse Linux with Unix, which has been around for much longer than Linux.

 

[skace]

Sort of funny story but uhm, awhile back we had a big presentation. The presentation was done in MS Powerpoint but somehow became corrupted due to one of the people adding too many high-res pictures that the powerpoint slide couldn't handle. During some testing with the file it would take nearly 1 hour for most machines running MS Office to open specific slides. Finally our local Unix/Linux guru said &quot;let me see the CD&quot;. He promptly stuck it in his linux box and was able to get through the entire presentation without any delay on any of the slides. At first I thought it was incredibly odd... but then I realized the difference - his StarOffice was smart enough to disable the graphic that had been causing trouble. So where MS Office continually tried to open this graphic for nearly an hour, causing memory errors up the wazoo, Linux popped it open and smiled happily.

People constantly trash on Linux without trying it and continually praise microsofts software stability above it. But then they don't remember what a truly stable product is like, they don't remember what a world without DrWatson and his sidekick BSOD were like.

Now we are rolling out Linux workstations. Why? Because they beat price/performance on anything else. We can buy a High-End PC a lot cheaper than a Sun and then just slap Linux on it. Granted they are only for our engineers right now and not secretaries or the like, the engineers love them. They continually ask for more applications for linux, does it have this - does it have that and we continually find that it does.

Don't even start implying that NT servers are better than Linux servers. If it were my way those compaq NT-trashservers would be giant paperweights. Man the way compaq rips you off on those things is hillarious compared to how cheaply you can put together Linux machines to do their job better.

Our local Unix guru always laughs at me when I have to fix people's NT profiles because of how retarded NT is with profiles.

Linux isn't perfect....but then people grade it a lot harsher than they do windows. Things they put up with in windows get swept under the rug while things that happen to them in Linux get posted on billboards for everyone else to see.

Psych, Linux isn't right for you. You've already made it clear that you work with some pretty native applications to windows, meaning you don't really have a choice. Perhaps if your applications ran on linux and not on windows your opinion would be different.

 

[Psychoholic]

<< Sort of funny story but uhm, awhile back we had a big presentation. The presentation was done in MS Powerpoint but somehow became corrupted due to one of the people adding too many high-res pictures that the powerpoint slide couldn't handle. During some testing with the file it would take nearly 1 hour for most machines running MS Office to open specific slides. Finally our local Unix/Linux guru said &quot;let me see the CD&quot;. He promptly stuck it in his linux box and was able to get through the entire presentation without any delay on any of the slides. At first I thought it was incredibly odd... but then I realized the difference - his StarOffice was smart enough to disable the graphic that had been causing trouble. So where MS Office continually tried to open this graphic for nearly an hour, causing memory errors up the wazoo, Linux popped it open and smiled happily. >>


I've had some employees that have developed some big Powerpoint presentations. Never seen that, but I guess it's possible. I also could cite similar things from others I know that the reverse has happened. That's points to an application not the OS. You know graphics can be disabled, automatically if necessary.



<< People constantly trash on Linux without trying it and continually praise microsofts software stability above it. But then they don't remember what a truly stable product is like, they don't remember what a world without DrWatson and his sidekick BSOD were like. >>


Whoa buddy, you need to step back. I've heard more trashing from the Linux crowd about Windows in the last few years. Do I need to point out all the threads in this forum where somoen asks a Windows question and a Linux user gives a smart-ass reply of use Linux. If the person who asked the question wanted to use Linux he would. I don't see to much of that coming in the other direction.



<< Now we are rolling out Linux workstations. Why? Because they beat price/performance on anything else. We can buy a High-End PC a lot cheaper than a Sun and then just slap Linux on it. Granted they are only for our engineers right now and not secretaries or the like, the engineers love them. They continually ask for more applications for linux, does it have this - does it have that and we continually find that it does. >>


Good for you, it's nice to know you can afford the downtime necessary to impliment such a system and retrain employees. You're also in the minority, most organizations can't afford to do that. This ignores the fact that there are a lot of organizations out there who are pleased with the stability of Windows. If you think W2K can't compete with Linux in stability, you're fooling yourself. If Windows 2000 is as bad of an OS as you seem to think why does it power NASDAQ???



<< Don't even start implying that NT servers are better than Linux servers. If it were my way those compaq NT-trashservers would be giant paperweights. Man the way compaq rips you off on those things is hillarious compared to how cheaply you can put together Linux machines to do their job better. >>


Did you have a Compaq server??? If so maybe it was poor administration, or you were using a Presario as a server. Anyone I know who has used Compaq servers has been pleased with them. That's a lot more than I can say about their home line of computers which has nothing to do with NT/W2K.



<< Our local Unix guru always laughs at me when I have to fix people's NT profiles because of how retarded NT is with profiles. >>


I have no problem with profiles. Exactly what issue do you have???



<< Linux isn't perfect....but then people grade it a lot harsher than they do windows. Things they put up with in windows get swept under the rug while things that happen to them in Linux get posted on billboards for everyone else to see. >>


Again as I said before, people are harder on Windows than Linux. This is due to the bad reputation Windows got from Win9x. Win9x deserved the reputation, NT/W2K doesn't. Once again look at all the trash talking by Linux users in threads by Windows users asking questions, don't try and hand me the &quot;Linux is graded harsher&quot; BS.



<< Psych, Linux isn't right for you. You've already made it clear that you work with some pretty native applications to windows, meaning you don't really have a choice. Perhaps if your applications ran on linux and not on windows your opinion would be different. >>


You're right about Linux not being right here. However even if is was I would have to see something that offered more than I have now. How can you have greater stability when you don't have those issues to begin with???

 

[Southerner]

<< I believe so, Southerner. That's why I say 'maybe yes for the future'. It looks like that you are Linux's best friend. How long have you been using Linux? Which distribution do you use? >>


I keep coming back to it.

I first played with it back in '91 when all you could do with it was log into virtual terminals and ls the contents. Since then I've periodically installed the current Debian or RedHat to see where things were going, then moved on.

Right now my primary machine is running Redhat 7.1; a secondary machine is running a freshly installed copy of e-smith.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm an MCSE whose day job involves working on Windows boxes as a network consultant/systems engineer. I'm also the guy with the most unix talent at my firm (this isn't to say I'm a guru, just that I'm competent enough to fix the problems we see), and am trying to get more *nix deployed at client sites.

Note that I'm a big fan of unux in general ever since I was the student admin in college (HP-UX, VAX VMS) over ten years ago. Personally, I like FreeBSD as a sturdy, fast, well-designed x86 OS, but I've been burned by going with the &quot;best&quot; in the past (OS/2 anyone? Delphi?), so I'm being pragmatic. Best general purpose open-source OS? FreeBSD. Best Linux distro? Probably Debian. Which one to master? Redhat.

As for desktop OS of choice? IMHO Windows strength is its userbase and availability of office apps. Its weakness is sloppy design/implementation. I've worked help desk at a firm with 1,300 users banging away at Office (97 then 2k) all day -- I know something about the build quality and reliability of Microsoft's bread-and-butter.

IMHO, a user with a competent install of Linux (say Redhat for the purposes of this discussion) and Star Office or comparable (Abiword + Gnumeric -- whatever) will see a lot less frustration and lost data than the same user on Win98/ME + MS Office. Office is great if you know it (I use it myself), but most users don't do more than basic word-processing chores and would be better served IMHO with a sturdy, basic word-processor than with a feature-rich semi-stable comstantly-changing platform.

IMHO of course (which in print doesn't look so humble, I suppose...)

 

[fow99]

The big reasons why I still can't use Linux as the only OS are:
1. gaming
2. movie
3. word

 

[n0cmonkey]

<<

<< Where do you get the idea linux ever trailed in the server segment? Granted support for 2 procs is nice, but this has only become popularized recently, and even so in may instances two seperate boxes will serve you better than one dual (for server issues).

Anyway, as any admin will tell you stability is paramount. If the system goes down thats wasted money, irrate customers etc. Linux has been stable since before NT was even released. As for when NT finally became stable, that would be when they changed the name to 2000. A lag of what, 8 years? >>


Stability, I also guess you would be refering to recovery and data protection, correct??? Who had file integrated journaling first???

FWIW the early versions of Linux were not as stable as you would like to believe. Don't confuse Linux with Unix, which has been around for much longer than Linux. >>



2.2 kernel was stable. I dont have enough experience with 2.0 (just started using linux then) to say much about it. 2.4 is promising to be wonderful. And when did NT start having a journaled file system? Just curious, I dont know dates. My bet would be on one of the big iron unixes.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< The big reasons why I still can't use Linux as the only OS are:
1. gaming >>



Whatever



<< 2. movie >>



tv/dvd/vcr/movie theatre



<< 3. word >>



staroffice, abiword, tex, koffice, word perfect, etc, etc, etc

 

[skace]

<< I've had some employees that have developed some big Powerpoint presentations. Never seen that, but I guess it's possible. I also could cite similar things from others I know that the reverse has happened. That's points to an application not the OS. You know graphics can be disabled, automatically if necessary >>


Even window's stripped down version of powerpoint, specifically designed for viewing corrupted .ppt files, would not view it without hanging the entire system up for an entire hour at the least.



<< Whoa buddy, you need to step back. I've heard more trashing from the Linux crowd about Windows in the last few years. Do I need to point out all the threads in this forum where somoen asks a Windows question and a Linux user gives a smart-ass reply of use Linux. If the person who asked the question wanted to use Linux he would. I don't see to much of that coming in the other direction. >>


I wasn't talking about lame forum responses, I was talking about the fact that people consider stability based on a standard that windows set. They consider certain things windows does as accepted where Linux wouldn't put up with them, thus why I brought up BSOD and Dr Watsons.



<< Good for you, it's nice to know you can afford the downtime necessary to impliment such a system and retrain employees. >>


The downtime was exactly the same as replacing any piece of hardware. Their old machines were removed - their new Linux machines were installed. Done! The interface was setup very nicely so that even those without any Unix background could grasp it.



<< If Windows 2000 is as bad of an OS as you seem to think why does it power NASDAQ??? >>


I never said Win2K was a bad OS, don't put words in my mouth - I actually gave praise to Win2K in another thread. Also, like good ol mom useda say - if NASDAQ jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?



<< Did you have a Compaq server??? >>


Yes, you must assume that because I like Linux I am retarded or something because you then stated, &quot;or you were using a Presario as a server&quot;.



<< I have no problem with profiles. Exactly what issue do you have??? >>


Since windows copies profiles down from the server - instead of just reading the data from the server - it is prone to multiple problems. Example: someone logs in while the servers are down and it tells them it is using their local profile, since their profile is no longer on the network - several things break. Shortcuts get remapped if the client tries to run a network app, Netscape will create a new profile on the local machine since it cannot reach the network, people will get frustrated and log out. Now the earlier things were to be expected, here is the suprise, when they log back in windows will ask THEM which profile they want because the one on the local machine will be newer. The default choice is to use the local one. Most people choose the default even after being advised not to, once they have chosen the default it will continue using all the changes it made when the network wasn't down and when they log out it will save those changes to the network. Even worse is when a profile becomes to big - Windows won't wait to save the profile it will just log out with it half saved.

 

[Bremen]

<< 2.2 kernel was stable. I dont have enough experience with 2.0 (just started using linux then) to say much >>


FYI 2.0 was stable. Even today many linux installs are still happily chugging away running a 2.0.x kernel, many with multiple years of uptime.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<<

<< 2.2 kernel was stable. I dont have enough experience with 2.0 (just started using linux then) to say much >>


FYI 2.0 was stable. Even today many linux installs are still happily chugging away running a 2.0.x kernel, many with multiple years of uptime. >>



Thats disheartening... There have been a couple KERNEL level security holes in linux since 2.0...

 

[Shuxclams]

<< Poll: As a typical desktop computer user, have you ever considered Linux to be your main OS? >>




[/b]YES





SHUX

 

[Noriaki]

Considered it yes.

But there is not (at this time) enough incentive to go through with the hassle.

We'll see how XP pans out...by XMas I may be a Linux-only person.

 

[Psychoholic]

<< I wasn't talking about lame forum responses, I was talking about the fact that people consider stability based on a standard that windows set. They consider certain things windows does as accepted where Linux wouldn't put up with them, thus why I brought up BSOD and Dr Watsons. >>


Are you talking about stability based on Win9x, or NT/W2K??? You act as if the two platforms are the same. They're as different as night and day.



<< The downtime was exactly the same as replacing any piece of hardware. Their old machines were removed - their new Linux machines were installed. Done! The interface was setup very nicely so that even those without any Unix background could grasp it. >>


It's good to know that some companies can accomplish this. It's not they same everywhere, unless you want to be called every 5 minutes by a user asking &quot;how do I print to xxx&quot;, &quot;how do I save this file to xxx&quot;, etc. Most end users cannot handle to much change without being a serious burden on administration.



<< I never said Win2K was a bad OS, don't put words in my mouth - I actually gave praise to Win2K in another thread. >>


You always seem to think it doesn't measure up, and you find it hard to believe that it can be stable. Wouldn't that make it a bad OS in your eyes???



<< Also, like good ol mom useda say - if NASDAQ jumped off a bridge, would you do it too? >>


Maybe, depending on how much my stocks fall.



<< Yes, you must assume that because I like Linux I am retarded or something because you then stated, &quot;or you were using a Presario as a server&quot;. >>


I just wondered why you're the only person I've heard trash Compaq's servers. I woun't give their home line the time of day but I've heard a lot of praise about their server. However even if the server sucks that really isn't the fault of the OS now is it???



<< Since windows copies profiles down from the server - instead of just reading the data from the server - it is prone to multiple problems. Example: someone logs in while the servers are down and it tells them it is using their local profile, since their profile is no longer on the network - several things break. Shortcuts get remapped if the client tries to run a network app, Netscape will create a new profile on the local machine since it cannot reach the network, people will get frustrated and log out. Now the earlier things were to be expected, here is the suprise, when they log back in windows will ask THEM which profile they want because the one on the local machine will be newer. The default choice is to use the local one. Most people choose the default even after being advised not to, once they have chosen the default it will continue using all the changes it made when the network wasn't down and when they log out it will save those changes to the network. Even worse is when a profile becomes to big - Windows won't wait to save the profile it will just log out with it half saved. >>


I haven't seen this, but I will have to admit that the server has never crashed during the time anyone is using it, and if I've had it down it wasn't during working hours. So I really can't elaborate on this.

 

[OREOSpeedwagon]

No. I prefer cheaper internal winmodems to more expensive external linux-compatible modems. I have used Windows for 6 years, and am so used to Windows I can't see how I'd switch.

 

[Raspewtin]

I would like to move to Linux, but I know little about Linux. When i go to the store there are too many choices, I don't know which package to buy. I wish they'd make a package oriented around those who know little or nothing about Linux, that came with StarOffice, Linux, and a graphical GUI, browswer, all in one package, along with any dual boot utilities. Then I'd buy that in a heartbeat.

 

[skace]

?Are you talking about stability based on Win9x, or NT/W2K????
I don?t use Win9x at home or work. WinNT does get BSODs (not too often) and Dr. Watsons (more common).

?unless you want to be called every 5 minutes by a user asking &quot;how do I print to xxx&quot;, &quot;how do I save this file to xxx&quot;?
Ask any 1st level NT support person and you will find they get these calls. Most people who come to these companies learn NT on the spot ? through a lot of calls to the help desk/etc. I bet if they had sat down at a Linux machine they would have learned that too. I know a lot of people at my work who don?t own a home PC.

? you find it hard to believe that it can be stable. Wouldn't that make it a bad OS in your eyes????
I am one who believes there can be something good and then something better. Just like there can be something stable and then something more stable. This concept allows me to believe that even though Win2k is stable, Linux is more stable.

?Maybe, depending on how much my stocks fall.?
Doh.

?I just wondered why you're the only person I've heard trash Compaq's servers.?
I guess the problem is not so much the OS ? but how the entire NT server business works. Buying a server is a ripoff, the native support is a ripoff, the software packages are ripoffs. The reason Linux makes an awesome server is because it can operate better at lower specs, doesn?t have any retarded support, and the software packages to running the server are all built in. I am probably not doing a good job at relaying this point, but lets just say that you can save a lot of money by using Linux as your servers and the only thing the end customer will see is possibly a greater uptime.

?I haven't seen this, but I will have to admit that the server has never crashed during the time anyone is using it, and if I've had it down it wasn't during working hours. So I really can't elaborate on this.?
Well, the problem can occur just by something the user does on their end, such as knocking their NIC cable out accidentally and then logging in. Also, I wasn?t talking about server crashing so much as I was scheduled outages for repair/upgrading. Even during our scheduled outages people still come in and work because they have something they need to get done. It is also hard to do things during non-working hours since SW Engineers love to come in at 6pm and work until 4am.

 

[Psychoholic]

<< Ask any 1st level NT support person and you will find they get these calls. Most people who come to these companies learn NT on the spot ? through a lot of calls to the help desk/etc. I bet if they had sat down at a Linux machine they would have learned that too. I know a lot of people at my work who don?t own a home PC. >>


If you have the end users oriented to a certain way of doing things you don't normally get these type of questions. Throwing a new OS and software into the works guarantees you will be playing help desk a hell of a lot more frequently.



<< I am one who believes there can be something good and then something better. Just like there can be something stable and then something more stable. This concept allows me to believe that even though Win2k is stable, Linux is more stable. >>


Okay you lose me on this one. If something is stable and you have no problems how can something else be more so??? You can't do any better than having no problems. Your statement defies logic.



<< I guess the problem is not so much the OS ? but how the entire NT server business works. Buying a server is a ripoff, the native support is a ripoff, the software packages are ripoffs. The reason Linux makes an awesome server is because it can operate better at lower specs, doesn?t have any retarded support, and the software packages to running the server are all built in. I am probably not doing a good job at relaying this point, but lets just say that you can save a lot of money by using Linux as your servers and the only thing the end customer will see is possibly a greater uptime. >>


I'll agree that buying a server in most cases is a ripoff. An administrator can do much better by doing something else than buying a &quot;cookie-cutter&quot; server. As far as the software packages being built in you can buy Windows Server in many different ways, standalone or with the packages you need. You can even buy Small Business Server, which contains everything that Back Office Server does, at a fraction of the cost. The only limtation is that it's limited to 50 users. However, even that can be upgraded to the full Back Office Server. The options are limitless, and in reality staggering when deciding what to impliment. Sure Windows server may recommend a higher spec. computer, but I've seen it run with much less.



<< Well, the problem can occur just by something the user does on their end, such as knocking their NIC cable out accidentally and then logging in. Also, I wasn?t talking about server crashing so much as I was scheduled outages for repair/upgrading. Even during our scheduled outages people still come in and work because they have something they need to get done. It is also hard to do things during non-working hours since SW Engineers love to come in at 6pm and work until 4am. >>


Not calling you a liar but I have never experianced that under NT 4.0. We are completely on W2K now and due to some office upgrades going on I have replaced some hubs and cables while people have been working. Several of these were labeled wrong from when the cable was originally run. The only problems I saw was when someone had IBM Client Access up and was accessing the AS400. Their AS400 session would have to be varied off and then on again so they could reopen their session. Never once did I see anything happen with Windows.



<< It is also hard to do things during non-working hours since SW Engineers love to come in at 6pm and work until 4am. >>


Even on the weekends???

 

[Charles]

I'm glad that I begun to see many users who actually use, understand and like Linux.

As a hardcore power user who knows very little about programming, I found Linux to be not so 'user friendly' compared to Windows. But Linux stability in server environment has been recognized by many people in the world. There's no doubt that Linux is one of the best server OS; servers are powerful computers operated by advanced operating systems and administered by advanced computer administrators; and I always see this as the objective of many Linux distribution; they always design Linux as a rock stable advanced OS, and only a few of distributors actually design Linux as a desktop computer OS. I hope there will be more and more people who design Linux with 'user friendliness' in mind.

Ximian Gnome is a very good start. I'm very amazed, and I'm sure if they keep the good work, they will rule!

I hope Red Hat will release version 7.2 which hopefully will include Ximian Gnome 1.4.

 

[JokerF15]

Raspewtin:

I suggest you try SUSE 7.2. It was the easiest intall every. Easier then windows 98, 2k, me. YAST2 rocks. You will be up and running in no time and it detects as much or more software then windows. Seriously give it a try. If you can't find it in the store, contact me ill burn yea a copy.

Original Topic:
YES! im doing it now. Not very good at linux, but ive gotten Half-life/counter-strike to work in linux using Wine and im perfectly happy with it. i seem to be spending more time on my linux box now...=) then my win2k box!

 

[fivepesos]

would i consider linux as my primary desktop? yes, i currently dualboot my main pc, and have linux installed on one or two others.

as far as the NT vs Linux flaming, let me toss my two cents in. before i criticize windows, i guess i most say a few things or else the microsoft sheep wont listen. stability on windows 2000 is good enough for the majority of small bussinesses and home users. but the problems i have are from the problems ive had with NT4 (we dont use win2k yet as our domain controller or file servers yet). our NT4 PDC would run for about two weeks before we would start having login problems and file retrieval issues. users couldnt do ANY work without their network accessible folders on our PDC. upon investigation, it turned out that our antivirus program was making thousands of small files which eventually fragmented our entire raid array. now i know youre gonna say the problem was related to your software not the OS. but with linux you can run the process as its own user and quota its file usage. windows doesnt offer this. we cant limit file space usage on specific applications in windows (that i know of). this was on a fairly new compaq proliant (very good server IMO) with experienced administrators.

now lets compare our NT4 PDC to our primary and secondary mail servers. both our mail servers ran linux on OLD hardware, like 200mhz pentiums with 64mb ram. they kept mirrored archives of corporate email (around 3-4gigs). they handled loads of traffic and mail with no interruption for around 6 months (we would upgrade kernel about that often). we had several security applications with horrendously large log files. we just quotad them, and deleted the old logs when we had a chance. so linux prevented a lot of the problems we could have had.

now for typical desktop use in our company, linux was never an option. we were natural gas transportation (pipeline and salt cavern storage) company and not programmers, scientists, or engineers. even though we could have deployed and supported linux, users (as any network admin knows) are dumb and ignorant sheep. any change would scare them and hurt our bottom line.

we use windows where we have to (desktop and domain) and linux where we can (mail server, RAS server, network security).

 

[fivepesos]

i liked compaq servers. they were fine for us.

but if i were running linux, id generally just custom build one of our servers. it justs seems to be easier to use off-the-shelf parts with linux. this is one of the big reason linux use is hard to track. with windows you buy the box with windows preinstalled from dell or compaq. but with linux you custom build the box and install the OS.

 

[Psychoholic]

<< but with linux you can run the process as its own user and quota its file usage. windows doesnt offer this. >>


Not in NT 4.0, but you can in W2K.