all of these points concerning the modular, nature of linux and this being the reason it is a little more stable or a little faster then xp are true.
this was my very point, wasn't it...dissabable all of the gui, dissable the monolithic software and hardware support that xp already comes with, and you will have a faster, more stable os then linux...this is my very point, isn't it
if you want to have a computer that has to have modules to install each time your whim Fancy's a new project or a new peripheral, as I said, Ti's the reason linux becomes A LITTLE more stable then xp, as xp is preinstalled with the air-conditioner, power steering, auto0 transmission, etc...it is a monolith....linux is modular and it could not do what xp does, it would be too slow, and too unstable...
anyway, this is the very debate...
both opinions have valid points...it is an accurate debate, so there is no right or wrong in these opinions, just projecture
now,as far as the points that try to counter my points of security do not add up.
the only reason linux does not have the issue ms has, as everyone is after ms,...there can be too little harm when the effort is aimed at linux...that is the only reason linux does not have the security issues of ms.
as a fact, if linux became as prolific as ms, there would absolutely be MORE security issues then ms has...it is an open source os...anyone can figure out security holes...because it's open source.
as soon as a security issue is discovered in xp, billy gets his boys on it...no, a linux security issue is not solved more quickly then an ms issue...they are just not the same target