If Window$ could be GPL, would you choose it instead Linux? why?
Obviously I'm talking about a Linux vs an "almost more stable" Window$XP and not win98.
This is just to know yours opinion, ok?
Thanks friends.
Moisvon.

no cause you cant chain output like you can in linux

No.

Reasons are:

1. I'm not a programmer at all so me being able to look at the source and maybe manipulate isn't going to do sqaut for me.

2. Its still not *nix based and I prefer that over Windows for most of my needs.

3. It's not very stable and too much to deal with when coming to security and virus protection..

No.

Reasons:

1.- Security
2.- Stability
3.- More configurable
4.- Best treatment of output via chaining.
5.- Better performance
.
.
.

You missed a "Hell no" option.

for the same reasons above, stability, security and now just plain comfort. I just love working in a combo of CLI and blackbox now...so working on my Win2K machine at work (which I admit is almost as stable as my stuff) is just plain awkward...so I use CYGWIN for 80% of my stuff.

no i wouldn't i've never like windows, especially windows 3.1(THAT was a TOTAL farse) which was my first brush with windows, however if there was a gpl *nix based version of windows perhaps, but then again if it was gpl then perhaps the programmer types could add *nix compatibility, that's what i'd like to see, the reverse of wine. a gpl program for windows that seemlessly integrates *nix compatibility into windows,,, yes there's cygwin but it's not quite as seemles as wine tries to be. sorry about my rant...

I wouldn't choose windows
even if it became GPL b/c windows
has some fatal flaws in the fundamental
architecture of the system.

That being said I wouldn't really have to choose
b/c any good ideas and methods that came out
of the windows code base (and there would be
quite a few) would be incorporated into Linux
and user-mode applications.

The whole software industry would be completely different if Microsoft published their code. I prefer Linux on principle because open source allows everyone to benefit from an advance in software design. So if Microsoft published their source, I'd feel happier using Windows. Open source is fundamentaly in keeping with the scientific tradition, people publish their theories and experimental evidence so others can either reproduce them or prove them wrong. Closed source is a dead end. It's no use to anyone. Linus is a genius.

no,

1. i don't play game
2. windows is really sucker
3. windows won't be stable as linux

no, windows is far behind the developments put into Unix, as it should be...Unix has been around alot longer, things that MSFT are touting for "Longhorn" have been in desktop managers for years.

Voted "No" and moved to the "General" forum

I would like to see a radically different, innovative OS created under the GPL or some similar Free license instead of seeing another traditional OS added to the open-source OSs currently available.

*nix is a nice enough operating system architecture, but things need to be done differently from the bottom up. The file/directory way of storing data is somewhat antiquated and so is the desktop with windows metaphor.

There are some relatively unknown OSs that have some of the aspects I'm talking about, like Plan 9; but no mainstream OS has dared to go far from the beaten bath.

Cruxus:
Have you seen AethOS?

Maybe yes.....

....just because.........

Maybe no.....

No, why would I?
It's technologically inferior. The fact that
it currently costs just makes it worse, but
doesn't change my decision.
I used to pay for OS/2 for instance,
and found my money well invested
(until IBM discontinued OS/2, that is ;}
and no, eCom station isn't quite the
same, I wouldn't pay for that ;}).

Cheers,
Tink