Lets clear up some misconceptions

[Jeremy Fowler]

> One of the great things about Linux is that it is so much 
> better about 
> reporting what actually went wrong with the system when it does crash.

Your right Linux does do a great job of logging the few and far between crashes which are mostly 
application level crashes, as with Novell and it's ABEND log.
 
> Back in about '97 or so there was a series of articles 
> acknowledging something 
> that us hardware techs knew - the now that Linux was a 
> significant presence 
> and was reporting the actual reasons for crashes we were 
> discovering that it 
> wasn't Windows that was responsible for the crashes.  Around 
> the time the 
> Pentium 166 came out there was a serious improvement in motherboard 
> reliability that, combined with OEMSR2 of Windows 95 made for some 
> marvelously stable systems.

Windows 95 a marvelously stable system? Seriously, what are you smoking? What kind of stable system 
crashes when an application crashes? That is an inherent design flaw which its very existence makes 
the OS unstable. An application should be able to crash and not bring down the OS with it...
 
> Windows 95 is not significantly crash prone.  There is 
> software that will lock 
> and crash it, but in itself it is a stable, reliable OS.  One 
> of the most 
> reliable ways to get it to perform badly, lock up, and crash 
> is to run Novell 
> products on it.

or any product on it for that matter that isn't Microsoft or has paid Microsoft lots of money to be 
certified...
 
> With the exception of crashes caused by Internet Explorer and 
> Outlook 98, I 
> have a Win95 system that has not had a "crash" since 1998.

I hardly believe that... Let me ask you how many times have you had to restart that system over the 
years?
 
> From 1995 through 1998, I solved problem after problem on 
> Windows 95, 98, and 
> NT systems by eliminating Novell traffic from the local 
> network, removing the 
> Novell clients, and pithing the Novell servers.  NT servers 
> were consistently 
> more reliable on the same hardware.

..and you don't perhaps think that maybe Microsoft had a hand in that? Making it extremely 
difficult for Novell by making it's OS delliberatley better suited to working better with other 
products it sold? You don't think the engineers at Microsoft designed ways to make other competing 
Network Operating Systems harder to use? You don't think that Novell worked their ass off releasing 
patch after patch to fight off Microsoft and reverse engineer ways to make the Novell client work 
better with Windows? 
 
> If you're crashing Windows 95, you're a) running Novell on 
> it, b) running some 
> third-party software on it that isn't W95 compatible, or c) 
> running it on bad 
> hardware.  Admittedly, without the ability to run third-party 
> software on it 
> an OS is pretty pointless, but it remains that it's not W95 
> that's unstable.

You know, the more you fight the more you sound like those KC PC users and their 286 machines...
 
> The point is if you have Linux, who needs Novell?

And now Novell is Linux, so why fight it?