richardjennings
April 27th, 2007, 11:20 PM
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199201179&pgno=8&queryText=
what do you think?
I thought - on the whole it was quite fair, although reasons for discrepancies where not described as they probably should be.
"but that is not Vistas fault" - seems to convey a preferential air.
For example, I thought the mention of Ubuntu's device manager was completely founded. It is - as far as I can tell - pointless.
They did not however make a note of the fact that Ubuntu does not support as default 'shadow copies'. IMO they are unnecessary seeing as an Ubuntu install is not likely to fail. The failing of the OS is user input as apposed to malicious or badly written code. This was cited as a failure for Ubuntu. As I see it - the lack of support for automatic system recovery is a possitive. It shows just how unnecessary the feature is. I am sure lots of people would disagree.
what do you think?
I thought - on the whole it was quite fair, although reasons for discrepancies where not described as they probably should be.
"but that is not Vistas fault" - seems to convey a preferential air.
For example, I thought the mention of Ubuntu's device manager was completely founded. It is - as far as I can tell - pointless.
They did not however make a note of the fact that Ubuntu does not support as default 'shadow copies'. IMO they are unnecessary seeing as an Ubuntu install is not likely to fail. The failing of the OS is user input as apposed to malicious or badly written code. This was cited as a failure for Ubuntu. As I see it - the lack of support for automatic system recovery is a possitive. It shows just how unnecessary the feature is. I am sure lots of people would disagree.