Sandman
In article <87siudl8yq.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Savageduck
...and if you are not poor and can also afford $$$$ in multiple DSLRs, and glass worth more than the cameras, and still dismiss the mainstream OSs as unworthy of your desktop? In the case of some of the Linux advocates in this room poverty is not a reason for the choice of OS, and dismissal of all else they do not approve of.

Floyd L. Davidson
I have a production environment. It is not an inexpensive computing system. One 12 CPU machine, another has 8 CPUs, and two have 4 each. There are multiple terabyte disks on all of them. There is also a 6 CPU machine with multiple terabytes maintained as an offsite file archive.

Sandman
Pffft, my main Linux server has 48 cpu cores and 128GB of RAM. Your paltry toaster ovens need not apply.

Floyd L. Davidson
I use Linux because 1) I know what I'm doing

Sandman
Highly unlikely. Nothing you've written here gives any impression that you know what you're doing.

Floyd L. Davidson
and 2) Linux does what I need better than anything else.

Sandman
You keep claiming that, but have yet to actually offer any form of substantiation for that. All we have is hot air from you. Your supposed "argument" would look a bit more convincing if you had some actual detailed examples where you have your weay and the other way wirth measurable difference in efficiency.

BUt who are we trying to kid here - you have none of that.

Floyd L. Davidson
If either of those were not true I'd have a very hard time choosing between OSX and MS-WINDOWS.

Sandman
Why do you call it "Linux" and "MS-WINDOWS"? Why not "LINUX" or "MS-Windows"?