Fwd: [clug] Why switch to Linux?

[freegazer]

On 11/11/06, Chris Smart <chris at kororaa.org> wrote:
>
> freegazer wrote:
> > I hate to harp on this but I strongly feel that the "recoverable" nature
> of
> > Linux is as important if not more so than the "stable nature" mentioned
> > earlier
> Recoverability as in if it dies there's not registry corruption type
> problems? Or something else? I like the sound of it and could easily
> work it in.
>
> Cheers
> -c
>
the freedom from registry corruption type problems is definately one side of
it
but as I was saying in my earlier entry the simple fact is that in almost
all cases
a crash isn't fatal it usually just reduces your current environment until
(for example)
you restart a service, kill a process or restart X.
my "submission" earlier was as follows:

perhaps a better slant for this would be something that emphasis the
recoverable nature of the OS/Distro's
while alluding to the stability. An example would be:

Due to its very nature Linux provides a much more stable platform as in the
much less frequent case
of an application ether misbehaving or crashing the Operating System itself
rarely fails completely. This
results in your computer normally remaining active and usable. Often these
situations can be resolved
 quite quickly using the tools available with the Operating System itself
(rather than purchased in addition
to the Operating System itself). Also due to the way Linux works you
normally find messages that
don't normally require years of training to either find or decipher that
tell you what went wrong.