OSNews

This article seems to be a victim of Microsoft's broken default encoding which makes the so-called "smart quotes" appear as question marks on many browsers (here, Safari v60). Unfortunately it's quite hard to read with all those ?question marks? all over it.

Could this be fixed in the article?

Windows XP is a very good product and constantly gets over looked. The compliants I constantly hear about windows are reminsants of Win 95.

Linux is no where near ready for desktop use today. Now yes, it has come a very far way in a short amount a time but if it wants to competitively compete with Microsoft or Apple - something drastic will have to happen ... like STANDARDS. And that's the problem with open source. The idea of standarizing something is counter effective to the open source market and will be the reason why wide (desktop) acceptance will never happen.

Now on the other hand, running linux as a web server is great. Unix and it's spin off where never meant for desktop use ... this is why we have companies like SGI. They create a workstation grade platform based on unix. And they do a great job.

Basically, it get off my rant - Windows XP is an extremely good product with little to no compliants. I just wish people would get off there microsoft soap box and admit they are starting to make good products.

I would even go so far as say that I would prefer to run Novell for my NOS (Network Operating System) over Microsoft and Linux to handle users, software distribution, etc.

too bad MS made that too dificult to maintain alone. to handle a large number of windows workstations, you really do need to have some sort of dc for an nt domain. otherwise, the whole point of centralized accounts goes out the window with NT/2K/XP, since you'll either need to create accounts on the workstation or some other compromise. I wasn't particularly found of Zenworks either, but I haven't done much work with Novell since 5.0.

it's a fine WAN solution and it's great for cross platform work, but W2K server does tend to have advantages when it comes to managing a medium to large size windows network.

back in the days of Win 3.1 and windows 9x clients, nothing could touch it.

You can tell this man is starting to slip, he is not old, but his mind set is.. He seems set in his ways, and must be right. It is a sad fact that as some people age, they just can't stay current with with new concepts and ideas.. Maybe he should find him self a good comfortable job, where they won't notice that he really has nothing new and knowledgeable to bring to the plate. Again, not a personal attack on this guy, just something I have noticed about _SOME_ people after they have spent a great deal of time on IT.

Tired of it! I live for it. What fun would life be for a Geek without a bit of rivalry. I know the Microsoft masses are not "tired" of bashing the Linux crowd, so if your tired of it, don't visit those sites where it takes place or don't read posts with topics that inevitably turn into "us vs. them" threads.

I don't mind Microsoft bashers so much when it's in the proper forum, I just get tired of going to a site that deals mainly with Microsoft technologies, like ActiveWin.com, read a pretty interesting article, then read the comments below and find a majority of them are Linux trolls badmouthing Microsoft. I just don't see the same thing happening at Linux web sites. You read a story about theatres using Windows Media 9 on the slashdot site, and instead of people discussing the technology it's a non-stop stream of BSOD, reboots, ect. jokes; it does get old quick.

is the article suddenly clipped at the end mid-phrase?

This this is written worse than the comments I plop in source code as a source of a laugh.

// There once was a Girl from Nantucket

Those ? are very annoying.

There are no ? anymore AFAIK, neither the article stops mid-phrase (it never was, or our db just crapped out momentarily)

just something I have noticed about _SOME_ people after they have spent a great deal of time on IT.

one day that will be you, cause it happens to us all. you'll most likely buy an AK-47 at some point, too.

Hmm, where have I heard something like that before.
You know there is a reason Microsoft is dislike so much.
It is because they deserve it. Extereme behaviour provokes
an extreme response.
You have to go back to Standard Oil to find a company so
despised. Surprize, they were also a giant Monopoly that
tried to crush everything in it's path.
And to think that it was actually an occupant in the
White House who took em on and trust busted them down.
Yep, Trust Busting Teddy Roosevelt.
As American a man as you could ever meet, but not
afraid to stand up to abusive power.

Calling all criticism of MS "bashing" is just a way to avoid the substance. Maybe people keep "bashing" MS because they deserve it? Let's debate that - does MS deserve the criticism.

For starters, let's debate this one: does MS try to lock you in? If not, why don't they make all their Office file formats open so that any app can read them. Here's another one: do you think it's good for consumers that you "have to" use windows because everything else is "not compatible" and "there's no apps" etc. etc. Does MS take steps to maintain that lock in?

If yes, why should we "get over" it?

Driver support, configuration, window management, font configuration, screen configuration. All those are being worked on and we see constant improvements in the area, there is also room for those to exist.
But he is right on one point.. install/uninstall. it will never
be as easy as in windows. The common user of windows, whathever windows is.. will download a program for a page, IE will ask him to open it, and the program will be installed after a very simple wizard.

And yes, apt/rpm/etc work great, but they dont work for a developer's standpoint. And programs only get added to such distros only when they become popular enough.

Me, Peter Developer, finish kickass program, put it online. I run X distro. Since i'm a developer and i like low level shit, it may not likely to be RPM , based i dont even want to go through the hassle of packaging for a distro i dont have, or finding a package mantainer. So i just throw out the source code.

You, Joe User, run a binary distro with almost or no development libs or stuff installed, or maybe you probably dont even have that neat lib I use for my program RPMized, or the cvs/last version of it. You see a .tar.gz and cry. Welcome to linux world.

Until that changes, I dont see linux adoption being that great. As even if there are a LOT of apps, you Joe User only see yourself limited to a few you can get as installable.

Just think about it people, i've seen this happen countless times, i AM a developer, i wrote many apps and i get constant emails aout this, I talk to other developers and they have the same problem, this is a much bigger problem than most think.

Years ago, I used to be a Microsoft supporter. As time has gone on, I've become more and more anti-Microsoft. Why? The volume of crap they keep on constantly pushing out. We don't need and don't want a new Office suite or operating system every year or two, or three! A company has just spent hugh bucks on deploying Windows 2000 with Office 2000 and now they should deploy Windows XP (eXtra eye-candy Poop) with Office XP, or should they be wetting ourselves silly over Office 2003? And why do they (Messysoft) keep screwing with the UI, requiring retraining all around all the time? And do you really want Microsoft products in a) your car, b) your cell phone, c) your home entertainement system, d) your PDA, e) your home applicances? Talk about a monopoly. Why don't we all just give 50% of our income to them right off the bat. Anymore, I'm deploying Open Source solutions such as FreeBSD and saving my clients tons of money. Some are even considering OpenOffice in place of that UI challenged, bloated pile of doo from M$.

If it was possible to identify comment posters at osnews.com not only by ip, but also by browser and operating system, i guess a lot of the so called microsoft bashers would simply go away, back under the rock they crawled out from.

I love Microsoft bashing. I love reading it. I love writing it. I love saying it. It helps me feel like I'm getting revenge for all the times Windows has crashed and lost my work. It helps me vent my frustrations at having to reboot my machine after installing software or a security update.

I like Microsoft for the fact that I make a lot of money via their products. However, I still love to bash them whenever I get a chance. I even bashed them while working there. Especially IIS. It was great. It's a hobby of mine and I don't think I'll ever get tired of it.

As for the article, people aren't reading from "Microsoft Bashing for Dummies" and making posts, they have frequent experience with Windows crashing, BSODs, frozen-crap slow performance, performance degredation, and security issues (yes, all of these are true even of XP). These are the problems and experiences people universally have with Windows. If the bashing makes Microsoft fix their crap (which I think it has helped do), then it is a good thing for all the Windows users out there.

Anyway, if it makes you feel good, bash away!

UI challenged, bloated pile of doo from M$.

Wow - I think you finally found the words I've been searching for!

It's no secret that A LOT of the top MS support engineers, many of the ones that used to help me at the Navy, are old Novell guys who make no bones about that fact that they prefer NetWare. Anyone would. It's a true NOS, as opposed to Windows, should should just not be a server. If Novell fails, it's due to marketing, because their product surpasses Windows, Linux, and FreeBSD in my opinion.

However, like you, I've had very few major problems with Windows XP. I abuse the shit out of it, and it rarely complains, and when it does, fixing it is usually as easy as using the task manager to kill the offending task. (My last install though, Windows Fax and Photo Manager stopped working and the Start>Shutdown did nothing at all).

For the most part though, I'm getting sick of every little "geek joke." Not just MS bashing, which seems en vogue to every dumbass who installs the latest version of Red Hat but goes back to his faithful Win2k box, I'm sick of Lindows bashing. I'm sick of Gentoo freaks. I'm sick of people who think Red Hat is selling out. I'm sick of Debian purists who insist I'm criminal for supporting any commercial Linux distro. I'm sick of Mac zealots who think they arenb't zealots and spend 5 minutes trying to convince me otherwise. I'm sick of little copyright notices after the words "A Good Thing." I'm sick of the Elegy for BSD. I'm sick of KDE v Gnome. I'm sick of Soviet Russia. I'm sick of the cyclical "Why Pursue Hooby OSes?" debate. It's just all getting old. I'm ready for some REAL innovation that the community in general can move on and be productive. Am I the only one? Am I that bitter?

...Or is it just 'cause KDE has crashed on me three times today?

If he was older, he would start feel that mid-life crisis comming on. Then instead of telling it like it is - he'd buy a Corvet, start hitting on Eugenia, and wear nothing T-Shirts with Penguins on them. While at the same time, trying to impress all the 17 year old penguinistas with his "linux for your toilet" espousings.

Get real people. He's right when he says use the best tool for the job and that linux isn't great for everything. If that hurts your "collective" ego, then go to ActiveWin and express how 7331 you are for using linux. Believe me, you'll be in good company - its where all the slashdot rejects go to try and play big boy.

This whole article, and ensuing discussion should be experienced to the tune of Metallica - Fight Fire With Fire. Seriously. Ad Hominim attacks on MS Haters do not prove them wrong. Also, Hasty Generalizations abound, and really bog down a point. Many bashers have good reasoning for bashing and your personal experience is not neccessarily representative of the population either.

>We don't need and don't want a new Office suite or operating system every year or two, or three!

Because this is what evolution is!
Linux distros and freebsd have new vesrions every 6 months for crying out loud. Why MS shouldn't offer new solutions?
Technology runs fast today and software and hardware companies need to be on the run all the time, therefore it is normal to have updated software every 2-3 years.
Your comments are _really_ unsubstantiated my friend.

>A company has just spent hugh bucks on deploying Windows 2000 with Office 2000 and now they should deploy Windows XP (eXtra eye-candy Poop) with Office XP, or should they be wetting ourselves silly over Office 2003?

The choice is yours. If you don't want to, don't upgrade. No one is pushing you to.

> And why do they (Messysoft) keep screwing with the UI, requiring retraining all around all the time?

Microsoft's UI is similar to Win95's. No retraining required.
Now, go and compare 1998's Red Hat 5.2 UI with the one on 9.0.

>And do you really want Microsoft products in a) your car, b) your cell phone, c) your home entertainement system, d) your PDA, e) your home applicances?

Yes, why not??? If they DO have something good and cheap to offer, WHY NOT?
Linux is also pushed on the exact same markets as well!!

>Talk about a monopoly. Why don't we all just give 50% of our income to them right off the bat.

I think you are being silly and you don't think enough outside of your own box. You just have blind zealotry and no matter what, you will still keep bashing MS just for the fun of it. That's not good IMO.

Do bash MS, but only when they deserve it. Saying things like "they are bad because they upgrade their software every 2-3 years", is simply laughable.

"Right now, like it or not, Windows is the dominate DOS (Desktop Operating System) and will be for some time. The truth is, Linux just doesn't have the install/uninstall abilities that Windows does. And I'm sorry but re-compiling the kernel for what ever reason just doesn't make it. We don't even need to mention the fact that most users in a call center are much more familiar with Windows which makes it easier to train them. Do we even bother getting into the issue of driver support for Linux which doesn?t match Windows? I would like to see Linux come up and match Windows app for app and feature for feature but that isn't happening yet. Give a few more years and that may not be the case. But then again a lot of the people in the Linux camp keep forgetting one thing, Microsoft isn't just going to sit around and do nothing. Linux is going to have to make some big strides in a short amount of time to compete on the desktop and I hope the Linux crowd can do it. I would like to see the day when I can go to BestBuy and see just as many games and application titles for Linux as I do for Windows. It would be nice change of pace."

He seems to go into the same old arguments--install/uninstall is too hard, hardware support sucks, and there's not enough apps. These are all issues that are improving, but it shows that the author didn't really rise above the first round of the Win v Lin debate, which beyond the above three arguments usually de-evolves into "xp crashes twice a day for me" vs "xp never crashes for me."

Every Linux distribution's package management system is technically superior to Windows, but only apt (debian, urpmi in mandrake, etc) and ports (crux, gentoo, etc) have made it easy enough for people to be able to install what they want. The mistake stock RedHat makes, for example, is that they don't tell the user that with rpms come great responsibility: you must find the right rpms for your version, and figure out dependencies. The tradeoff for this complexity (which is admittedly too much for a "DOS" as the author calls it) is that shared libs don't get overwritten. However, with tools like apt, you can resolve dependencies and install The Right Packages for each app. While there are a few cases where this can be a problem, this middle-road solution is far better than both stock rpm and Windows package management.

As far as hardware goes, Linux is "there." The problem comes with bleeding edge stuff. Bleeding edge gadgets ship their own drivers (because Windows doesn't have them), and they don't usually ship them for Linux. After a year or so, Linux will generally have support developed by portions of its community that want to use the gadget. When you install Linux and complain about hardware support, you're expecting the distribution to support every piece of hardware in existence; when the same is done with Windows, you're expecting your driver discs to work. If more people switch, more companies will release drivers for Linux, and the problem as the author (and many others) see it will be gone. I am getting sick of reviews that say "distro x didn't automatically configure my usb 2.x modem/printer/hard drive multi-adapter thingy." As far as the driver model goes, I don't think you can get much better than kernel modules. But I may be wrong here.

Finally, the no-software argument is another one that's quickly fading. Who woulda thought we would have decent browsers with flash support, or dvd players? We almost have great sound editors that rival Cakewalk or Pro Tools. We have great desktops like GNOME and KDE!

I do, however, agree with the author's basic premise: M$ bashing is getting a little out of hand. On the same token, I've seen a lot of Gentoo users running around message boards telling people all their problems will go away with emerge gentoo with -O543 -funroll-funny-loops and such. I've seen the same thing exibited from Debian users. This is what geeks do, I guess.

I think it's perfectly fine to say "stop MS bashing" without saying "stop MS bashing because Windows XP is way better than Linux." Adding the last bit, especially when combined with the easily debunked myths many Windows zealots have about Windows (I was laughing all over the place when I read the "having to recompile the kernel" bit--a problem that's been solved since distributions went to shipping modules), makes the article sound like more of a troll than anything else.

If it was possible to identify comment posters at osnews.com not only by ip, but also by browser and operating system, i guess a lot of the so called microsoft bashers would simply go away, back under the rock they crawled out from.

I doubt it. I use Windows, Linux, and OpenBSD. I like Linux and OpenBSD equally well, and I tolerate Windows. I am posting from a Windows 2000 machine through an Opera 7.01 browser, but I still love to bash MS products whenever I can.

I know a lot of users who run Windows exclusively who complain about it non-stop.

No, showing the world what you're running would have no effect on people's desire to bash Windows. I'm telling you, it is really fun. You should try it.

Perhaps you have heard windoze bashing for so long because they have produced crap for so long? Ponder that. My experience with windows has always been horrible all the way back to windows 3.11. I remember installing windows ME, what a mistake. I got the blue screen of death on install!! So I tried linux.

I put the CD in, it installed quickly, and easily. Connect to the internet? It just worked, everything just worked. I'll never go back

I think the important thing to take from this article is that the bashing is getting old. I have used windows 2000 for a couple years doing architectural renderings and it does not crash. I use windows for work and linux to play because linux it is just not that useful to me in my work.

you haven't used linux enough. how many zillions of simple REAL WORLd tasks can be done easily on any linux distro out of the box where you would have to download or pay money to get the same functionality from windows.

It depends on the hardware it runs on, I've got 2 laptops on which it crashes so much times it isn't even funny anymore. I tried to install Gentoo on the HP laptop, but it wouldn't install. So every OS has it's own problems . And as the editor already said, you need to use the right tool for the right job. Normal people have a computer because it is a usefull tool for there work, they don't care about which OS runs on it....

If you've ever seen a web server's logs, you'd know that while most people's footprints are IE6/WINNT 5.1 (XP) or IE6/WINNT 5.0 (Win2K), a significant number of smarty-pants UNIX types screw with their browser's ID info.

I find it hilarious to read my logs and find someone surfed in on a browser called "F*ckStick 9000" or "assc*nt extreme" but I don't know if you'd want that on a site. That means creative people would be challenged to manipulate their browser's idenfication info.

If your bashing windows wear gloves, otherwise you may cut yourself

-nex6

>It depends on the hardware it runs on, I've got 2 laptops on which it crashes so much times it isn't even funny anymore.

XP is stable. Just make sure you don't use non-XP drivers (e.g. win9x drivers) and it should be stable as a rock

I find it hilarious to read my logs and find someone surfed in on a browser called "F*ckStick 9000" or "assc*nt extreme" but I don't know if you'd want that on a site. That means creative people would be challenged to manipulate their browser's idenfication info.

Wow - what a freakin' great idea! I'll have to have some fun with that tonight...

sure Linux installation _can_ be troublesome sometimes.
It will only get better, thanks to LSB.
Maybe I am just lucky, but I have never had a problem installing Linux software . With Debian, it is just an apt-get single line or a few clicks in aptitude, or synaptic away.
Other than the specialized commercial apps ( photoshop,reason etc) I don't see a dearth of apps, I see too many! Only once did I want a program that wasn't availbe as a deb, so I simply used alien to turn the rpm into one.
I can remember, however, installing programs on Windows
and being told I needed some .dll which I had to go
searching for, and ended up having to upgrade whole chunks of the system I did't want to.. Windows installation isn't always abc either.

I look forward to the day when we can all look back upon
the Microsoft Era as the Dark Ages. Where Billg's "Open
letter to Hobbyists is regarded as the start of what proved to be a both a wrong turn and a dead en.

We only have a couple years before Palladium ratchets up
the level of control to Orwellian proportions.

I am a Java developer on Solaris. I like linux. I always used Microsoft Windows back home. Only my desktop PC has Windows on it. I am not someone you would like to spend a lot of time in figuring out how to compile C/C++ source (although I know how to program it), so I don't. My server uses a Linux distro but is a simple install with some configuration changes. I use mainly open source programs like OpenOffice.org, Eclipse, Crimson Editor, Mozilla, ect. The only things that are holding me back from completely going Linux is: 1) I sometimes play games, they do not work in Linux. 2) I also still develop some software in Visual Basic 6 (no not .NET), that doesn't run in Linux. And since the comming of Windows XP I never had a crash, I must say that I love Windows XP, I just hate they way they operate on the market. Windows XP is a great competitor for WinZip because they build compressed folders into it. They also made it available to burn CD's without Easy CD Creator or Nero. I hate that they do things like that.

I'm tired of hearing MS apologists bandy about the phrase, "not ready for the desktop/enterprise/anything yet." I want to hear specifics. What is missing? Can someone please tell me?

1) Support - Have you ever called Microsoft tech. support? I have. Forums of Linux nerds are the best tech. support I ever received.
2) Software availability - If you don't ever keep up with current technology on the internet, you'll mistake the lack of Linux software at Best Buy with a lack of Linux software altogehter. I have yet to find a Windows application for which there is not a Linux couterpart. I am hardpressed to find ones that are not free, for that matter.
3) Ease of installation - I must have been under the mistaken impression that IT folks required formal education in the use of advanced computer technology. I guess I was wrong.
4) Ease of use - Maybe you just need to find a new IT dept. that can handle #3.
5) Security - I can't believe I still hear this...
6) Stability - And this...
7) Power - Or this...
8) Cost - And this argument only comes at of Redmond, and not any time recently.

People without Linux or UNIX experience need to stop reacting to good arguments by throwing "Microsoft-basher" around. At least consider what we're saying. If your OS has to change paradigms every five years, maybe it's time to look for a new OS.

As long as it is on topic!
I mean, if an article is posted about MS & security, I think it is perfectly acceptable to post and say that MS security is crap, if that's how you feel.
However, if an article is posted about MS that has absolutely NOTHING to do with security, DRM, or whatever, and you start in on this long rant that has absolutely nothing to do with the content of the article, you crossed the line.
That's about along the same lines as having an article posted about Linux being used on some embedded device, and then someone posts a comment about Linux not being ready for the desktop. That comment is a completely acceptable view (whether or not it is or is not true), but not in this case.
One other thing ...I wish people would quit using these articles as fodder for their own agenda. For example, if an article is posted about a new version of Mozilla, and someone posts and says "I use Opera and I think it's the best browser!" Well, who the hell cares? It wasn't even an article about Opera.

And finally, I wish Eugenia would write a filter that would delete any posts automatically that contained 'Windoze', 'Micro$shaft', etc.

When things go wrong in windows, what are most users left with? And you KNOW things go wrong. Well they either take it to comp-usa to get it fixed or they format and reinstall, usually losing ALL their work if it was from compaq or hp or maybe even dell. this SUX

uhh, no offense but where the hell did you work in the last 15 years that required you to use punch cards? At the age of 35, i don't see wheere you would have used them... did you have one at your house when you were 7?

>People without Linux or UNIX experience need to stop reacting to good arguments by throwing "Microsoft-basher" around.

You wrong on this. Funnily enough, MS users are open to other OSes and they do listen to what they offer. It is the other OS users that want MS out of the way by any means necessary and they attack on each and every news story on the web about MS, even if it is a positive story, or a simple development-related one. No matter what, they will bash. That is unacceptable IMO, shows no serious thinking. It just looks like a swarm of bees...

I'm about the same age as the author. I saw punch cards in my elementary school in small town Utah when I was in first grade. I remember entering my name into the system and getting back a punchcard that had my name punched out in it. I also remember learning how to read the punch cards (boring).

By the time I was in 3rd or 4th grade, the punch card system was replaced by an Atari computer or two.

I was in a small school in a small town in Utah. The only group in the world more technologically behind at the time would have been the Amish. If we had something better than punch cards, then I guarantee the rest of the world did too.

I mean no offense to the author. I respect the efforts of anybody trying to share knowledge in written form. I guess I just find the author's in-depth experience with punch cards mildly amusing since he would have had to be around 9 years old or so when he obtained that experience. I don't think I would put that on my resume of computer knowledge.

[i]XP is stable. Just make sure you don't use non-XP drivers (e.g. win9x drivers) and it should be stable as a rock.[i]

Exactly why third party Linux drivers are often *not* stable (for example). Linux and it's module system for drivers really begs the drivers to have the source code in there, so they can be compiled against the kernel source and headers (not glibc's linux headers, the kernel you're running). Often times binary modules compiled against, say, 2.2.4, get "unresolved symbol" errors at maybe 2.2.12 and above (but still work). At some point things break, Linux doesn't make an effort to maintain backwards binary compatibility like Microsoft does. Perhaps they should. What would be nice is if third party drivers would be compiled and released for each version (it's really not too much work).

i have to be surprised all times with all that small companies what are working with exotic OSms and are still living and even making money. but maybe they have to live by this reason, market needs they services ...

a significant number of smarty-pants UNIX types screw with their browser's ID info.


HKEY_CURRENT_USERSoftwareMicrosoftWindowsCurrentVersionInternet Settings
"User Agent"="Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Win32)"

for all the Windows XP users out there. if you don't find it there under Win2k, check under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE.

I've got 2 laptops on which it crashes so much times it isn't even funny anymore.

I had the same problem (mine was a Dell laptop). I lost my registry hive on no less that 5 occasions within a two week period of time.

Crappy Microsoft products have been annoying me for many many years and although they do sell better software today they still arent good enough to justify their price.

And if a corporation abuses its power like MSFT have done in the past it sure deserves a lot of bashing. They are damaging the economy and because IT is such an important part of todays society this has to be looked upon very seriously.

Keep on bashing in a free world.

">And do you really want Microsoft products in a) your car, b) your cell phone, c) your home entertainement system, d) your PDA, e) your home applicances?

"Yes, why not??? If they DO have something good and cheap to offer, WHY NOT?
Linux is also pushed on the exact same markets as well!!"

Why not ?
Because to paraphrase Lyndon Johnson, I for one do not want to go to bed by the light of a Microsoft moon.

I do not want Microsoft to become some kind of giant Unicorp that is all pervasive.
Electricity is everywhere, yet even GE behemoth that it
does not dominate like MS does today or would if your scenario were to happen.
Besides Linux isn't controlled by anyone Corp so if it
were to become dominant in all these areas it would be
quite different from technology that MS controls doing the same.
I know you like to divorce the political aspects of Technology, but I feel they are always relevant.
The states are just too high.

Just a few loose comments:

Before I get started let me say that I just turned 33. My first experience with computers was when I was around 10 and that machine sure did not use punch cards. Somehow this makes my think this guy isn't really 35, but more like 53.

Anyway if you read /. every day than you know that most commentors don't care to read the story in the first place. The /. Borg icon will automatically rewind the tape and spew out the same old Microsoft bashing all over. Either get over it or just quit reading /.

As a matter of fact today Windows NT came crashing down on me at work again. The machine happens to be a P4 with 1Gb RAM, but it seems that it cannot handle 220+ page Word documents without a visit from DrWatson.

Personally I'm fine with Linux install/uninstall. OK, so it's not flashy and I might need to type something at a command line, at least it doesn't require me to reboot the machine whenever I do an update.

Driver support is not what the Linux community can do something about now is there? As long as the hardware manufacturers don't release a Linux driver, nor will release the specs, the developer stays empty handed. The problem is that most hardware manufaturers don't give a shit about Linux. Simply take that into account before buying.

As for Novell, I must agree that it used to be one the better LAN products. But the reason nobody uses Novell is the same reason nobody uses WordPerfect or Netscape for instance. You know what I mean.

Slipping away, if you would have paid attention, I do stay up to date, try reading the article to understand all the sites I visit on a daily basis. I also run red hat 8.0 box at home. I still like XP better.


to vincent, I do own a corvette, 1981 to be correct. I just recently sold my Harley.

TO Iconoclast, the point is that I have a wide range of known and experience, something not many of us can say. I think it would kind of pointless to list it on a resume considering the current technology. LOL!! Glad to see I'm not the only my age that's play with punch cards.

> 1) Support - Have you ever called Microsoft tech. support? I have. Forums of Linux nerds are the best tech. support I ever received.

Get real. Most of these so-called linux experts will only throw an RTFM at you, or explain things in cryptic man-page talk.
My experience with calling SuSE tech support was hilarious: When I was new with linux, I had changed the default security settings from 'home' to 'networked workstation' and suddenly KDM was disallowing root logins.
I know how to fix that now (after more than a year of using it on my desktop), but SuSE support's solution was: "You'll have to re-install Linux!".
Personally, I dont mind paying for tech support as long as it gets my problem solved with minimum time & energy spent. Whining about MS support because they charge you for it is pointless.

TO Iconoclast, the point is that I have a wide range of known and experience, something not many of us can say. I think it would kind of pointless to list it on a resume considering the current technology. LOL!! Glad to see I'm not the only my age that's play with punch cards.

I hope you didn't take offense, because I meant none. I'm about your age and when I saw you list punch cards, it just made me remember my experience with them and that reminded me of how old I was when I obtained that experience and that made me laugh. One thing to note, however, those punch card systems were pretty stable (unless you tripped while holding the card bin). Much more stable than Windows is today.

Whining about MS support because they charge you for it is pointless.

That would be true if after you paid the advice was better than "You're going to have to reinstall Windows".

"The choice is yours. If you don't want to, don't upgrade. No one is pushing you to."

No. MS is pushing me to "upgrade". When my school starts using Office 2003 and I'm on my Mac or linux-box then I have to install crapXP and Bloat2003 just so I can send and receive office-files.
Face it - MS is always trying to lock people into windows. If I can read all my office-files perfectly in OpenOffice then why do I need Windows? Microsoft knows this and thats why they make sure that Office2k3 is incompatible with older Offices.

"Yes, why not??? If they DO have something good and cheap to offer, WHY NOT?
Linux is also pushed on the exact same markets as well!!"

Besides the fact that WinCE and it's brothers werent designed to run on a Mobile? Every bit of software Microsoft makes is designed to make people depend on windows. Do you think that Orange will be compitable with linux anytime soon, or we will see quicktime on that platform?
They (Microsoft) have said themselvs that they want to bring "a unified / similar experience" to the mobile platform.
In other words: they wan't it to interact with/ and resemble Windows.

" I think you are being silly and you don't think enough outside of your own box. You just have blind zealotry and no matter what, you will still keep bashing MS just for the fun of it. That's not good IMO."

Hey, why don't ya read this: http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html and this: http://www.fuckmicrosoft.com/content/whatsbad.shtml

"Do bash MS, but only when they deserve it. Saying things like "they are bad because they upgrade their software every 2-3 years", is simply laughable."

It's not laughable when they break their old software to make sure people "upgrade" to a new Office suite that only locks them up even more in Windows.

> That would be true if after you paid the advice was better than "You're going to have to reinstall Windows".

Or worse... you'll have to purchase the upgrade & install that instead

>It's not laughable when they break their old software to make sure people "upgrade" to a new Office suite that only locks them up even more in Windows.

Linux software "breaks" compatibility much-much-MUCH more often than MS does. And breaking SOME compatibility every 3-4 years only did good to the NT platform (they got rid of the no1 instability problem on Win9x: DOS compatibility)

I'm sorry, but if you are going to post an editorial on your views (and a highly controversial one at that) would you PLEASE use a grammar/spelling checker? There are so many grammatical errors just in your opening paragraph that I had to stop reading.

I don't mean to nit-pick, but come on!

Why is it that windows so rarely gets defended on its genuine merits? Why don't I hear about how excellent NTFS is compared to XFS? Why don't I hear about IIS vs. Apache? Why don't I hear about NetBui vs. NFS and Cups? Why not Direct3D vs. OpenGL. Or even perhaps cmd.exe to bash/tcsh/zsh . Could it be because the windows defenders really don't know anything about OSes? One nice thing about OSNews is that at least on interface issues it does do point by point comparisons.

Anyway onto the article.

And with the release of Windows XP, unless I'm doing something I shouldn't be, it just doesn't crash, not at all.

I can crash a WindowsXP pretty easily. VMS doesn't crash by accident zOS doesn't crash by accident. WindowsXP crashes. Even Microsoft won't make that claim. Heck on Windows2000 there used to be a demo website which sent out a command which crashed explorer (on any security setting). I don't know if it still works on XP but it very well might.

The truth is, Linux just doesn't have the install/uninstall abilities that Windows does.

Actually it does. And I'd like you to back up what feature of the installer that Microsoft has that Linux doesn't. Microsoft to the best of my knowledge has nothing on par with apt or urpmi or even something on par with rpm. Try doing something unusual with your windows install like protecting C:winntsystem32 against writes and see how smoothly your windows installs go. It is very easy to write software with no options that works well, that is a tribute to conformity not technical mastery. Windows installations are easy because:

a) Windows software gets distributed in one and only one format

b) Windows users are willing to tolerate installs over which they have virtually no control.


I would like to see Linux come up and match Windows app for app and feature for feature but that isn't happening yet.

App for app, feature for feature Linux wipes the floor with Windows. Take a look at academic apps which are a huge percentage of all apps. What about embedded applications? What about scientific applications? Even on custom business in house systems its probably close to a tie. Windows still has clear dominance is mainstream business productivity applications. It has the advantage in desktop oriented multimedia applications. Other than that its almost a sweep for the Unixes.

The 5 points you listed are without question true.

Microsoft does stifle compitition their are innumerable claims of illegal competive practices and they have been found guilty in court on several occasions. In terms of unethical but not illegal ask almost any other software company in the business.

Windows is a technical laggerd as far as OS features? Where is a filesystem designed for multimedia content (i.e. huge files)? Where is their database filesystem? Their big security inniative is to bring capability computing (yes from 1970) to desktop PCs. In terms of applications like SQL server where is their support for object or associate databases? Where is the support for non baysian statistics in Excel? I could go on and on.

Microsoft deserves credit for dropping the price of computer software remarkably. Microsoft deserves credit for creating a highly standardized home/small business / corporate desktop platform out of the chaos that existed 20 years ago. But they have done it the same way most industries have done it by selling low end junk. No one claims that compared to a Mercedes Ford doesn't produce junk. Its only because Microsoft customers claim there $15,000 ford is as good as a $60,000 Mercedes that these issues have to keep getting debated.

>We don't need and don't want a new Office suite or
>operating system every year or two, or three!
>>Because this is what evolution is!
>>Linux distros and freebsd have new vesrions every 6
>>months for crying out loud. Why MS shouldn't offer new
>>solutions?

The real difference, I think, is that new OSS stuff are more of a logical evolution, stuff that is just a newer version in a more logical sense. As opposed to MS software where new versions tend to radically change _too_much_ like file formats, core config stuff (e.g. think Outlook 2K vs. XP / r'configure mail...) (I'm not talking on changes in UI, which in general is a nice evolution, the deep blue default XP theme excepted)

One of the big problems in Linux vs. Windows wars, is the plain fact that people try too much too compare two things that are very different. Only with the relative recent evolution of GNU & Linux software, there's a powerfull start of something that _might_ be an alternative. For this one wants and needs to compare, but the tough thing is to compare it wisely. I think you need to have good knowledge of both worlds to do that well.

As of myself, I'm more a MS guy in what I currently use: my job is about SME customers, Windows is 90% of the used tools. At home I also primarily use Windows just because all the tools I need are mostly default: think PPTP clients & Exchange clients, RDP clients: they do exist on Linux, but it just isn't as well performing as on Windows.

Please note I'm talking about W2K & WXP. As far as I want to be concerned I try to forget the other Windowses. Another stupidity is a lot of geeks tend to compare W9x. But also Linux Guru's do. I recently bought myself a current book on Samba (released this year!) and they almost uniquely explain how to configure Samba for W9x clients and maybe NT4. Forget about W2K or XP, maybe I'll have to wait for Samba 3.X for this... Samba is a nice product, but I wish it evolved a little quicker :-)

But as I try to be a serious anc curious IT-pro, I try, learn and use Unix/Linux. And then, then you really see the rock-solid fundamentals Windows is missing.
Did you ever had to recover from crash on Windows? restore Active Directory? Your Exchange 2000 stores? Are you, let's even say 80% confident you can do that without a hassle? I know for sure I am not. And this, my friends, is the bigger problem about Microsoft products. Not the typical BSOD/crash/stable complaints. But the in-depth quality of the bigger server products. And most Windows engineers know that, even if they don't always can or want to admit it. But the sad problem is, Windows still is the more convenient thing.

Window is the (IMHO, for the moment) the best for Desktop Applications. Usability. Call it the client/user side.
But when it comes to robustness, performance, ability to be understood how it works, ... the other systems are definitely better. Be it Novell on directory services (AD is a laugh when you compare, it just is ridiculous to hear the marketing drool on W2K3) or Unix on say Mail Transfer Agents. Exchange might be evil in its implementation, it's unbeaten so far on user experience.

Just some random thoughts, but I again hope I could point out some different thoughts, other than that same old stuff ;-)


Please note that my opinion is solely based on and valid for the environments I work in: SME where workgroup servers, groupware servers and Windows workstation "rule" (without the l33t z!). No need for big clustered databases on 16-way SMP systems here. I'm sure in other, bigger environments you have other arguments.

Linux isn't A company, It's a movement, a bunch of hackers, coders and scripters. Linux doesn't have to be compitable with other "linuxes". "Linux" doesn't force you to shell out 500 bucks for your new shiny office suite.

And besides - does that justify Microsofts behaviour? Just because some linux-software isn't compitable with a specific distrubution it's A-OK that Microsoft - on purpouse - make their new software incompatible with the old?

Someone considered this a valid opinion? This guy writes like my 10 year old cousin.

If you are going to bash "windows", have the decency to bash a something recent, not ME or 98.

Sure, MS makes you pay for their products, pay a lot, but then again, many major linux distributions are also commercial products, though most people do not pay for them. Sort of like how most people get their MS products I guess:=) I got a serial for free through MSDNAA, so I got my back covered there:P

After I installed SP1 for XP, I have problems with my computer taking insane "pauses" for up to 10 seconds, and some times explorer decides to use all my cpu and ram and breaks, usually when my samba-mounts go down, or similar.

Hard breaks, i.e. reboots, have not happened to me after I installed XP. They do however happen on _one_ of my gentoo boxes, if I idle for several hours, the whole system seems so xxxx, but the hdd starts to spin, a lot, and the whole system becomes totally unresponsive, so i have to reboot, but no filesystem checking afterwards. Due to my extreme sk33lz at computers, I manage to unintentionally brake them both:)

Just for the record, I use my XP box for one thing, GAMING, sure, some games play on linux, but lets face it, gaming on linux, its not there yet. For all other stuff, I PREFER my linux workstation, probably because I can configure it to better suit my tastes. For "office work", I use gnome, yes sure, KDE is good too, I just use gnome. For "funning around", I use fluxbox and 5 aterms. Does this mean I think linux is superior to MS, or the other way around? Hell no. They each have their uses.

Now, just to do some linux bashing, which its not enough of around here:

-Sound support. There are GREAT audio applications for linux, but drivers are in general inferior to their MS equals, yes, you get sound, but thats about it (sure there are exceptions, but in general).

-I could say something about installing and uninstalling, but I wont. I get along fine, my mom doesnt, she does, however know how to install/uninstall things in MS. (FYI, that is the ultimate usability test: "Can your mom do it":)

-This that and whatever. Yes I know such things are being worked opon, and in just a "few" releases, they will appear. But windows already HAS these things.

It is absolutly true what has been said in this article
you look at the history of operating systems and they all have their niches the same holds true today. Also just because a operating system rocks in one catagory that you hold important dosnt nescasarily meen its the overall best product

I love the stability configurability and security of linux
but i have to give the devil his due you look at net server and ive rebooted my redhat server more that i have the netserver(beta) also if any of you have played with this system you will realize microsoft has almost made the it obsolete the system is so smooth and easy to setup its unbelievable..

mac as far as desktops go is a favorite of mine but unfortunatly there is no x86 port of jaquar and this is actually a bad thing if you look at the adobe site (apples bread winner) you will see they now openly discourage mac purchase in favor of pc's because of extensive benchmarks showing the newer x86 devices clearly outstripping motorola in all regards (this includes turning hyperthreading off)

even the enemy of all linux gurus (i dont understand why) but lindows even has its place they all do

there was an article also in osnews about to many people developing on separate projects and not enough colaboration for standards etc.... well i agree but on the other hand isnt choice what linux was all about from the begining.... a choice to develop their own soft or yours...

a choice of windows or mac or react or linux etc...

choice...

maybe we need to stop bashing choices like linux or windows etc and just revel in the glorious fact that we have a choice


celebrate choice and dont argue with someonelses preferences

simply inform of other options and alow them to choose


dont force feed people thats when arguments begin and people become stubborn

if you trying to make converts dont antagonize ...persuade... you do that with honey and time....

Software availability - If you don't ever keep up with current technology on the internet, you'll mistake the lack of Linux software at Best Buy with a lack of Linux software altogehter. I have yet to find a Windows application for which there is not a Linux couterpart.

I can - http://www.propellerheads.se/products/reason/frame.html
Of course, there are plenty more - get back to me on this one, and then I'll list the others.


Why is it that windows so rarely gets defended on its genuine merits? Why don't I hear about how excellent NTFS is compared to XFS? Why don't I hear about IIS vs. Apache? Why don't I hear about NetBui vs. NFS and Cups? Why not Direct3D vs. OpenGL. Or even perhaps cmd.exe to bash/tcsh/zsh .

Why? Because none of these are Windows' genuine merits. I mean, nobody but geeks give shit about the filesystem or command shell, and that's why most geeks don't use Windows. Get it?
When I think of genuine merits of Windows, well ... go to the link I posted above and find me a Linux counterpart to that. Well, I'll save you the trouble - you can't. And do you know why? Because one doesn't exist. THAT is where the genuine merits of Windows lies - things you can do in it that you can't do with Linux. That does NOT mean that it's a better OS - just that it has been blessed with more developers.

If your particular OS doesn't have the apps I want to run, I don't want to hear about its security, stability, etc. That's like telling me about a new kind of car that is twice as effecient on gas as regular cars and never breaks down, when I can't actually drive it.
Until Linux is up to snuff in the audio department, I will never use it - I don't give a damn how stable/secure/unbreakable it is.

If you don't like to read anti-M$ "bashing", don't read it. It's pretty easy to tell where an article or post is going after the first paragraph or so. It's just like TV...I find "reality" shows repugnant, so I don't watch them. It's basically the same thing. If you don't want to read the stuff, don't. But don't whine about the fact that it exists.

Linux software "breaks" compatibility much-much-MUCH more often than MS does. And breaking SOME compatibility every 3-4 years only did good to the NT platform (they got rid of the no1 instability problem on Win9x: DOS compatibility)

I agree that the change to NT was a huge upgrade and well worth the compatability hit. However I'd question your comment regarding Linux breaking compatability all that much. Linux breaks binary compatability pretty freely but that's an idealogical choice (that binary compatability is not desirable), in terms of source compatability I'm pretty sure this is as high if not better than on windows machines.

After all most of the software runs on multiple platforms it can't be that closely tied to a particular Linux version.

The windows 9x branch (95, 98 etc) was pretty bad in regards of crashing. XP is a lot better. Still i see his point, windows has been ok. Its been good enough for most users, though they might sometimes be frustrated users.

Regardless, creating an alternative to MS such as Linux has done and openbeos is doing strikes me as the way to go. Don't complain, create!

>If you don't like to read anti-M$ "bashing", don't read it.

I am sorry, but this might be sounding fair for you and some of the other readers, but it is not fair for the web site owner (let alone MS itself and its employees). Having mindless trolling on his/her web site, is something that is simply not fair. Personally, I created this web site out of love on reporting on cool things and as I have said in the past, I am a technology lover, not a politician. Therefore, I like all worth noting technologies, even if they come from MS or straight from hell. But having mindless drones bashing without thinking on my articles is NOT fair for the WORK I put into this effort. If you want to be unkind to MS, go to their site or call them on the phone and tell them that they suck and that you would like to see them yanked, I don't care. But telling that to MY site, is just not acceptable.

I got a kick out of reading this article. It's funny that all the Linux PCs I've worked on always seem to work pretty well. Of course, I'm very proactive on making sure everything is up to date and configured correctly. And with the release of the 2.4 Linux kernel, it just doesn't crash, not at all. I could go on but you've all seen the same things I have. I'm telling you that there has to be a website where you can copy and paste these messages into the forums. That way you don't have to think about it anymore. If there isn't one, I'm going to create it.

The point is, it's getting old, get over it, move on, and get a life already. Yes, there are some things that suck about Linux but then again there are some things that suck about Windows. But if you've been in the IT field for any reasonable length of time you will find out one simple fact, each OS has its place in a network.

Right now, like it or not, Linux+Apache is the dominate SOS (Server Operating System) and will be for some time. The truth is, Windows just doesn't have the stability that Linux does. And I'm sorry but patching IIs for what ever reason just doesn't make it. We don't even need to mention the fact that most system admins are much more familiar with Unix which makes it easier to train them. Do we even bother getting into the issue of file system support for Windows which doesn't match Linux? I would like to see Windows come up and match Linux app for app and feature for feature but that isn't happening yet. Give a few more years and that may not be the case. But then again a lot of the people in the Windows camp keep forgetting one thing, Linus isn't just going to sit around and do nothing. Windows is going to have to make some big strides in a short amount of time to compete on the server and I hope the Windows crowd can do it.

THAT is where the genuine merits of Windows lies - things you can do in it that you can't do with Linux. That does NOT mean that it's a better OS - just that it has been blessed with more developers.

I don't have any problem with someone who takes the position that Windows is an inferior OS on the technicals but happens to have apps they really like that aren't available for Linux. That's a very reasonable position. Yours however is not the position of the original author.

6 years ago when I was running Linux on the desktop I wasn't running it because it was the better desktop OS but rather because I primarily used Unix apps and I could use them on Linux but not on Windows. I'm a big fan of OSX primarily because it offers the mixture of almost as many Unix apps as Linux with almost as many business productivity apps as Windows.

What I object to is:

1) Claims that Windows is a "good OS" in a generic sense, without clearly indicating this means nothing more than a popular OS (without all the advantages popularity brings)

2) Claims that Windows applications outside of small limited groups (which happen to very popular groups) are vastly better.

oh I'm getting it!

so Punchcard systems, nice.
I've used the Eagle, the portable Eagle, most of DataGenerals 'micro mainframe-ish' /computers/
assembled and analysed hw problems on the beasts.

Fooled around with unices since the age of 12.

When I went to school we used a homogenous mix of ataris and amigas for wordprocessing and for sequencing.

I've used most of microsofts OS products up to XP (nt 5.1?) and of all of them I can't say that i've liked the
performance as much as i've been attracted by the sheer volume of eye-candy apps availible for it.
(stardocks products, litestep, shellwm etc etc)

I've been to most "lans" since '93 (demo parties et al.) and heard the frustrations when a fully -qualified- networkadmin
sees the windows server crack open like a mellon dropped from the empirestate building, This a person who has
-experience- of scaling servers etc for these sort of events and as Adam mentioned earlier, this person chose to move
the whole shenanigan over to nos or *nix servers instead.

I propose a new meme, Windowsxx.x isnt ready for the server! (a joke)

I am getting so very tired of these sort of articles myself, where I as Adam am getting so very very very tired of reading
the farkin complaints and not the possibilities that can come of discussing most of the topics this and most other geek oriented
sites!

oh and please, i've used an ILLIAC to mangle fortran.
so mate all im missing is a '73 camaro and im all set to take on redmond!

Linux is as useful as a chocolate teapot!

BeOS forever.......(as he slowly fades into the canyon)

People still seem confused about the difference between a kernel and a GUI.

Windows 2000 crashed a couple times last week after visiting a webpage and closing IE. I can't remember the last time an application took out my Linux kernel. And I got Linux for free, so I would expect that Windows 2000, which cost me around $250, would be far more stable and professional.

Perhaps the instability is because I'm not running XP? Or 2003? Or maybe the Microsoft bashing will stop when they finally do release the secure and stable OS they keep promising us.

I can make my Linux distro secure and stable and it costs me less time and money to do it. Why do you bash anything? Or maybe you don't and that's why this bothers you so much..

I bash Linux, too, but it has never cost me money.

I couldn't make it past all the grammatical errors in the first paragraph.

>A company has just spent hugh bucks on deploying Windows 2000 with Office 2000 and now they should deploy Windows XP (eXtra eye-candy Poop) with Office XP, or should they be wetting ourselves silly over Office 2003? <

"The choice is yours. If you don't want to, don't upgrade. No one is pushing you to. "

Well Eugenia, I agreed with the rest of your points but I will argue this one. MS Office's greatest advantage is in it's ubiquitious nature, i.e. "Everyone Run MS Office"

When businesses need to communicate to each other they aren't using XML or OpenOffice.org formats (much that I wish they would). 9 times out of 10 it's MS Office. What do you suppose will happen when these same companies start receiving documents in the .DOC format that they can't open (assuming the document in question is in the new, incompatible Office 2003 format?) It's going to suck. No, no one HAS to upgrade, but the pressure will certainly mount over time.

I'm actually hoping that this will open the door for more Open/StarOffice deployment, but unfortunately, I realize that it will probably be business as usual and that means more business for MS. Businesses aren't so much locked in to MS as they are to the closed formats that MS loves so much. Interoperability is key - especially to businesses.

Did Microsoft engage in questionable business practices - yes. Are they a true monopoly in the sense of Standard Oil -No. They control a popular OS, they do not control the hardware. Last time I checked there were multiple OS's on the market and Open source office suites and quite a few browsers.

MSFT is successful.
Yes they buy up other companies. Most successful corps do. I worked at Peoplesoft. In the 5 years I was there we bought at leastsix companies and integerated their technology into the PSFT product.

If you don't like MSFT products. Don't buy them.

For a start, I am thirtyseven and have worked providing support and programing for organizations not in the IT industry, since 1987. Like the majority of programmers, the software I develop is used internally, not developed for sale. Over that time I have watched Microsoft's black propagada machine ramp up continously to today's fever pitch, from the days when Rick Segal maskeraded as Steve Barkto on CompuServe's OS/2 Canopus forum.
http://www.pjprimer.com/archive/jihad.html

The problem is not so much the existance of Microsoft's FUD campaign, but the disproportionate number of OUTRIGHT LIES Microsoft's so called "advocates" repeat on a day to day basis.

For example, Many of today's Linux distributions are far more than just an adequate Windows desktop replacement.
http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT5747451177.html

Ever repeating that "Linux is not ready for the desktop" today, is as redundant as was saying "Linux will never be used within the enterprise or data center" yesterday. Linux is being deployed as an enterprise server and more Microsoft OSs are being displaced by Linux than Unix systems.
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2901719...
Th latest Evans enterprise survey shows almost 60% of respondents' companies now run Linux in some capacity throughout their enterprises, up from 40% a year ago, and 43% six months ago. This dispite all the Microsoft Anti-Linux and Anti-GPL propaganda, and yes, almost all of Microsoft's point of view deserves the label of propaganda, most of it was outright lies or is inconsequential to the actual Linux deployments.

Linux on the enterprise desktop is in the same postion that Linux as an enterprise server was. That both ATI and Nvidia are now finally competing to bring the best X11 drivers to most of the major Linux distributions, shows how quickly Linux is entering in to the high end PC gaming and low end graphics workstation market.

In comparison, the allegations made against Microsoft, with the exception of "just suck", are grounded on solid evidence. It is Microsoft's attitude that is the major problem and it remains Microsoft's monopolistic practices and dominance of the desktop market that is the major issue.

Dispite Bill Gates Email, Microsoft's attitude to the security of it's own products and it's own customers remains abysmal. See this Email concerning Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer...
http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/315158

Microsoft attitude to client security is best reflected in the dispropotionate number of vulnerabilities in one of the exposed of applications and subsystems, Microsoft's own Internet Explorer.
http://www.pivx.com/larholm/unpatched/
That that scripting systems used in IE have not been rewritten to be sandboxed by default is bad enough, but to have outstanding know vulnerabilities to remain without a patch for months is abysmal.

That Microsoft's products are overpriced is well proven by the 80% NET profit returns for the OS and Application divisions of Microsoft's in it's fileings to the US SEC.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/000103221002001351/d1...

That Microsoft's continues to abuse it's dominate market hold of the PC desktop, is acknowledged by practically everyone else in the IT industry.
http://www.siia.net/sharedcontent/press/2002/11-1-02.html

BUT, that Microsoft has maintain this dominance though widespread dissemination of outright lies and black propaganda, show how perilous Microsoft's postion is today.

The world of IT is changing with the ever more rapidly adopted practices of open source development and free software licensing. Time and tide is ever more proving those who take the side of Linux and open source correct in their assertions and sometimes outright faith.

That Microsoft's is increasingly being betrayed as the Devil has more to do with it being the source of many of the "Father of Lies". The level of rage directed against the company is almost always in response to the shear effort required to correct the Microsoft "advocates" FUD on a daily basis. The lies of Microsoft's so called "advocates" betray Microsoft as much as the actions of the company do.

>MS Office's greatest advantage is in it's ubiquitious nature, i.e. "Everyone Run MS Office"

But they don't have to. You can't blame MSFT because businesses buy their software. I understand SUN does not use MS Office and they still seem able to communicate in the business world.

People don't like to hear all this MS bashing because they don't want to be the only people left behind when everyone else converts to *nix.

Seriously, can you imagine? How would they know what to do with a .swx file that they needed to do their job? Its a good thing most Microsoft systems come preinstalled to support all the Microsoft standards or these people would really be hurting. Do you think they're smart enough to download and install openoffice before they lose their job?

I don't.

So I'll use Linux... Anyone else can use whatever the h*** they want to as far as I'm concerned. Just don't bitch about my choice and I won't bitch about your choice.

Anon E. Moose: Software availability - If you don't ever keep up with current technology on the internet, you'll mistake the lack of Linux software at Best Buy with a lack of Linux software altogehter. I have yet to find a Windows application for which there is not a Linux couterpart.

Darius I can - http://www.propellerheads.se/products/reason/frame.html
Of course, there are plenty more - get back to me on this one, and then I'll list the others.

That's not to mention that many of these "counterparts" are lacking the features that most people, namely professionals, use them for:

The Gimp - Lacks support for CMYK, Pantone colors, and ICC profiles to say the least (i.e. everything you need for prepress work)

Ardour - Just a multitrack editor, lacks the bus features of Protools, and supports one external ADC/DAC (through ALSA). NO support for AES/EBU (i.e. professional quality) multichannel sound cards.

Protux - Same problems with ALSA, plus a largely unfinished codebase, lack of integrated MIDI support, lack of bus features

Why is it that windows so rarely gets defended on its genuine merits?

Okay, how about the DirectShow architecture as compared to... gstreamer? DirectShow is a robust and mature graph-based streaming media architecture supporting virtually every video and audio codec in existance. Furthermore, it's included per default on every Windows Windows machine. gstreamer is a relatively immature codebase which copies the design of DirectShow, has significantly reduced support for container formats/codecs, and does not come per default with any Linux distribution that I know of. It certainly isn't standard across all systems.

How about... GDI versus X? GDI requires only a single context switch for something like pressing a pushbutton... whereas X requires more than 10. GDI provides all the features of X including transparency, but also allows for subpixel hinted antialiased fonts in *every* application, not just applications compiled specifically to support them (and there's a standard architecture, no Xft/Xft2/STSF compatibility issues) It's robust (in Windows 2000/WinXP), much more so than XFree86, and has significantly broader hardware support. It's been able to handle resolution switching on-the-fly for years (that is to say, proper resolution switching, not resolution switching while preserving the original virtual resolution)

And how about... plug and play? There's a great deal to be said for "It just works," especially when you have hundreds of machines deployed and don't have time to spend hours on each system performing hardware installation/configuration.

Here's how I see it:

* (NT-based) Windows provides stability and technologies which are superior or on par with those available in open source operating systems such as Linux, FreeBSD, etc.

* Windows enjoys an enormous degree of popularity on desktop systems.

* Features provided by open source operating systems that aren't present in Windows (such as a richer command-line environment, which can be had in Windows through Cygwin) aren't useful to the average user.

Complain all you want about Windows, but I'd say we could be a lot worse off. Microsoft has expended a great deal of effort to make Windows into an excellent operating system.

>>>BUT, that Microsoft has maintain this dominance though widespread dissemination of outright lies and black propaganda, show how perilous Microsoft's postion is today.

I disagree. Speaking for MY desktop, Microsoft Windows XP has maintained its dominance on my computer, simply because it WORKS WELL.

If it is one thing that is a propaganda, that was YOUR comment. Full of links to try to sell us Linux. Pathetic.

"I'm tired of hearing MS apologists bandy about the phrase, "not ready for the desktop/enterprise/anything yet." I want to hear specifics. What is missing? Can someone please tell me? "

To me and my .org, the biggest single thing that holds us back from integrating Linux on the desktop is....

WINDOWS DOMAIN SUPPORT

Only ONE distro has this right, and it's not free (Xandros). I use Windows 2000 servers and I'm not ashamed to say it. We run a Windows domain because my filtering software, my networked gradebook software, and my database software all require the use of it. The domain part is incidental but necessary due to the apps.

You are not overnight going to change the way businesses do business. Novell was replaced in most businesses - NOT because it sucked (it didn't), but because MS bundled their own domain support with network directory services with Windows NT server. It wasn't as good (by a long shot), but it was 'free' - sound familiar?

I have two Linux servers here, and they're doing a fantastic job but they simply cannot yet replace my application servers. Therefore, in order for us to more fully adopt Linux here, I need that OS to communicate with MS.

I hope that Windows domain support is one of the included things with the upcoming RH and SuSE workstation versions. I can tell you that it is possible. Xandros kicks ass, but it's a bit pricy.

I was about to kinda agree with the author (not entirely agreed, but his words were quite fair) till I fell on this:

"And I'm sorry but re-compiling the kernel for what ever reason just doesn't make it."

He complains about stupid MS bashing but end to say crap too. There's a thing called "module" that allows to activate and desactivate what you need or don't in the kernel. And this exist since 1995. There's no reason to recompile the kernel every week because you installed a new application or hardware device.

> > There's a thing called "module" that allows to activate and desactivate what you need or don't in the kernel.

There are many instances where the user is REQUIRED to recompile the kernel. There are MANY drivers that don't work as modules. And also, there are no binary downloads of kernels, so if an important updated kernel comes out (e.g. that fixes a security hole or a corruption in the fs), the user HAS to recompile it instead of downloading an rpm or whatever (red hat and mandrake do this, but not everyone uses these distros).

Well, I am sure that what people despise is the illegal and unfair ways MS gets rid of their competition. The propagandathey sent out also does not help them in the eye of people who know the truth.

In addition, the second reason is that because it is a monopoly, it is no longer required to innovate in order to compete. It already has an enormous market share and even competitiors which may have a better product are unsuccessful in making more than a tiny dent in their market share because companies want profit. What better way to make profit than make their products work only on Windows, after all the costs of porting your products or adding support for other platforms may not even pay for itself. Furthermore, many companies want MS to stay in power it allows them to develop for a single platform and aquire almost the entire market. They would not like it if the market share was fragmented and each of the people had 10-15% it would be a pain to port it to all of them and development costs may go up higher unless some common guidelines are established. THIS IS WHY PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE THEM, THEY STIFFLE INNOVATION AND PREVENT OTHERS FROM SUCCESSFULLY competing.

Furthermore their products were never very good, up till recently with the W2k kernel Windows was a complete mess to configure, develop for (drivers especially) and in regard to stability it was unheard of on any other platform. Perhaps people also tired of their uncooporation with people who tried to help them close secuirity holes and their lies. Their spyware also does not help. For example all e-mails + attachments deleted in outlook are stored in a secred place as well as IE's hsitory even after it is cleared. A software profile is sent to MS during Windows update and many other things like this.

http://fuckmicrosoft.com/content/ms-hidden-files.shtml
http://theregister.co.uk/content/4/29519.html

They are a lot better now than tehy used to be you would be absolutely stunned if you learned more about their history. MS was never a good comapny in terms of abiding to the rules.

just run win doctor on it from norton and you will see the problems that happen after a few months......I ran it and had 275 errors in my regestry and about 100 more in variouse other places in my system.

try doing some serious audio and video editing/rendering for a few hours.

In a word. NO!

Chuck Hunnefield: WINDOWS DOMAIN SUPPORT

Only ONE distro has this right, and it's not free (Xandros).

Actually Windows 2000 networks use Kerberos and LDAP (Active Directory) for authentication as opposed to NT LAN Manager (per default, at least).

Xandros is supporting NT4 networks, not Windows 2000 networks.

insignia! try doing some serious audio and video editing/rendering for a few hours.

I run Windows XP Professional on my Dell Precision 4550 workstation. I use programs like Reason and Premiere on this system, and I have never had XP crash.

As long you don't troll on my site in a mindless way or you are not off topic (e.g. story about development and you troll about how ugly Gates is), then express your opinion. But if one of the conditions above are not met, you will be moded down.
I am not running this site just to draw stupid 15 year olds. I want intelligent discussion, or no discussion.

"Actually Windows 2000 networks use Kerberos and LDAP (Active Directory) for authentication as opposed to NT LAN Manager (per default, at least). "

Yes they do... And MS made sure that the way they used these standards would be almost useless for real interoperability with any other OS not MS.

Do you know how much reverse engineering Apple and the Xandros people had to go through to make their OS compatible with MS's version of LDAP? MS's use of these standards sound good, until you actually attempt to use them for this purpose.

try doing some serious audio and video editing/rendering for a few hours

Uh, actually I do - mostly with CoolEdit Pro 2.0, but also use several soft synths along with Cubase and VSTi's - not a single crash so far.

People will try to sit here and say XP is not stable - well, too bad it's not for you

"I'm tired of hearing MS apologists bandy about the phrase, "not ready for the desktop/enterprise/ anything yet." I want to hear specifics. What is missing? Can someone please tell me?"

Linux will not be ready for the desktop until the systemwide ABI and library facilities have standardized to the point where an application compiled on one of the major distributions will run on them all.

After this has been completed, a means of installing software in a non-distribution specific, standard way across all distributions is required.

"Linux will not be ready for the desktop until the systemwide ABI and library facilities have standardized to the point where an application compiled on one of the major distributions will run on them all. "

This is another big one - although corporate desktops are still a big possibility even with this flaw since it will usually be the admin who loads the software up anyway.

I run XP and Redhat, and sometimes Mandrake. I like'em all. And I paid for all the above, including Office 2000 for my wife's work that she does at home. But one thing is for sure. We cannot complain too much about MS. How many of us actually paid for Win3.1, Win 95, and Win 98. I'd bet most of us at this site got those OS's for free and probibly a whole lot more apps too. A lot of us got Office 97 and 2000 for free too. Sure 98 crashes sometimes, but a lot of times it doesn't. I wish an honest pole could be taken because I bet most of the complainers about MS and Linux alike at all these "tech" sites are probibly using a CD that someone burned for them!!! Do an inventory in your own mind and pretend that you could only complain about what you actually paid for in the past. I bet this site would have a whole lot less whinning.

My .org is in full compliance. What I write about here is mainly from my experiences as a technology coordinator who has deployed 200+ Windows systems.

All I see that is happening is that I need beefier hardware to run new OS features I don't need (sometimes known as 'bloatware'), and MS squeezing everyone on licensing fees.

I use MS here because we need to right now. We can't afford to hire a team of programmers to meed our data needs, and the only programs out there for our type of business are for Windows only.

For the most part, I must be truthful and admit that the stability of the MS OS's is improving. I've had little trouble with 2000 or XP on the desktop or server.

We're paying in full because right now, I have no choice. But you can bet that as soon as Linux catches up in the Windows domain compatiblity department, we will eventually move to it.

Linux will not be ready for the desktop until the systemwide ABI and library facilities have standardized to the point where an application compiled on one of the major distributions will run on them all.

That ain't gonna happen for many years. At the highest levels Linux does not support the goal of binary compatability between versions. For example in the last year both Linus and RMS have taken stands where they consider improvements to the binary API more important than compatability. Mind you these choices weren't even particularly controversial. If the compiler guy and the kernel guy don't consider binary compatability a major feature it ain't gonna to make it into the OS. If there is not going to be binary compatability between versions there is very little reason to make the sacrifices to achieve it between distributions.

The KDE team is pushing for another change in kernel / gcc which will screw up compatability to get better performance on runtime bindings.

Linux might standardize on something like ports, or it might standardize on something like distribution specific repositories. I see no chance it standardizes on binary compatability in the near future. Far too much of the developer community is hostile to the goal much less willing to make the huge sacrifices required to meet it.

The quality of MS products has gotten substantially better. The quality of MS itself, though, has not.

I do not like the idea of dealing with a vendor that has tried to deceive beta testers (i.e. the phony error messages Windows 3.1 betas popped up when installing on DR-DOS), attempted at least two astroturf campaigns, introducing incompatibilities with Java into J++ and then tap-dancing about it, tried to convince people that full disclosure of security flaws was irresponsible even though it has been the main impetus to vendors to fix product flaws rather than pretending they don't exist, misrepresented the GPL . . . shall I go on?

If dependency on Microsoft products weren't so pervasive, doing business at all with MS would be irresponsible. There is no good reason that I can see other than blunt necessity to deal with a vendor that one wouldn't buy a used car from.

Let's face it, as puerile as a lot of Microsoft bashing is, the fact of the matter is that Microsoft deserves a lot of the flak that it gets.

> > There's a thing called "module" that allows to activate and desactivate what you need or don't in the kernel.

There are many instances where the user is REQUIRED to recompile the kernel. There are MANY drivers that don't work as modules.

Many? you'll list some then, ok?

I've seen plenty of howtos about how to get this or that driver to work but you had to recompile the kernel and stuff, and actually there always was a smarter way that didn't need of a kernel recompile. The reason to get a new kernel (as source or as binary) is for a newer feature support from the kernel (like usb support if your current kernel didn't have it already -like old 2.2.x kernels). The kernel is by now "good enough" to support 99% of commom hardwares a normal user will find in the market.

And also, there are no binary downloads of kernels, so if an important updated kernel comes out (e.g. that fixes a security hole or a corruption in the fs), the user HAS to recompile it instead of downloading an rpm or whatever (red hat and mandrake do this, but not everyone uses these distros).

Suse, Mdk, RedHat and probably most of other popular rpm-based distro have. Debian has kernel binary builds too. The other remaining are source-based distro. Not supripising you have to compile the kernel then...

I use Windows XP on all of my PCs at home and I have never seen a blue screen failure on it. What is good about Windows compared to linux? Familiarity. In Windows 95 to run a program you click start, Point to programs and select the program. In Windows XP you click, start point to Programs (or all programs) and click the program. Linux varies greatly and there is no standard interface. Office 2003 is better than other versions XML support is useful and the new Outlook has amazing junk capabilities as well as blocking external content. Windows 95 was poor but Windows XP isn't. The people who say Windows is bad probably can't even configure it properly.

microsoft bashing happens because:

1) people have been burnt by their products (e.g. crashes, bugs, security problems, poor design)

2) people have been burnt by their marketing (new microsoft product, with new innovation(tm), solves poverty, hunger, promotes world peace)

3) people have been pissed off by the way they treat the personal computer market as their own fiefdom (e.g. file format lockin, death of netscape, media player wars)

4) people don't like their attitude (halloween documents, bill gates lying on the stand, steve ballmer's 'i love this company')

5) people don't like that they have a near-monopoly position in the client operating systems and office software market and are using that to try and open up other markets through sheer force of money

6) it's hard to have sympathy for microsoft when they are so rich and pampered and focussed yet time and again have delivered software that other people have done better for less money, but because they're microsoft, they win by default

until these are all fixed, the microsoft bashing will continue...

I agree with this article.

Right now im on my newly-installed version of Mandrake 9.1. It is the best linux I have ever used. I still hate the RPM way of installing packages.

OSX has the best Application installation method out there period. Decompress an archive and move the application file to the application folder, or if it is a low level thing, run a package installer.

To remove an OSX application, just trash the application file. End of story.

Linux still isnt clean and consistent. You cant beat price or the thousands of applications that run it. You also need to be a CS Enthusiast to use it. IT is getting a hell of a lot better.

XP is fairly nice. I use it a lot. It gets slow and bogged down. Mandrake runs circles around it.

XP almost never crashes. Ive had X wig out on me in mandrake once or twice, but I did was fooling around with the new nvidia drivers and watching dvds with mplayer.

OSX has the best of both worlds, at the expense of proprietary hardware. I will use an OSX Laptop and a generic intel box running linux and xp. I have to use all 3.

OSX is the best user experience with the most polished apps.
The unix base underneath is amazing, if a little dated.
Fink (apt-get) and hardware accelerated x11 are great too.

Linux is making a mad, energetic push to surpass osx. They have a long way to go but have came really far in a short time. 3 years ago linux was a bitch to use. Now its so much better. Keep up the good work guys!

XP, i dont know where thats going to go. It cant get any better and i am very leery of drm

.. for someone to publicly address this. I know OSNews and Eugenia take a lot of flak for not being bias towards Linux but I just want to say that there are people out there that enjoy reading non Linux-centric technical news. Thank you, OSNews for making free speech possible.

Thanks for addressing real issues.

Okay, how about the DirectShow architecture as compared to... gstreamer? DirectShow is a robust and mature graph-based streaming media architecture supporting virtually every video and audio codec in existance. Furthermore, it's included per default on every Windows Windows machine. gstreamer is a relatively immature codebase which copies the design of DirectShow, has significantly reduced support for container formats/codecs, and does not come per default with any Linux distribution that I know of. It certainly isn't standard across all systems.

I'm not super familiar with multimedia stuff, but it strikes me that http://doc.trolltech.com/3.1/netscape-plugin.html supports pretty much everything at the API level. Since you can then plug to any app...


How about... GDI versus X? GDI requires only a single context switch for something like pressing a pushbutton... whereas X requires more than 10. GDI provides all the features of X including transparency,

GDI does not support transparency meaningfully. That's the reason 8000 other solutions exist ande have existed. If GDI meaningfully supported transparency there wouldn't be any need for Metaframe. Thin client computing would be as easy on windows as on Unix. Certainly the situation is better than it was 10 years ago with PCAnywhere being the best solution but I have yet to hear anyone in the windows world casually use dumb X Terminals (or I guess dumb GDI terminals) and have a more feature rich environment than they would if they had a thick client.

but also allows for subpixel hinted antialiased fonts in *every* application, not just applications compiled specifically to support them

That's because they've all been compiled to support them i.e. they use Windows for many more GUI features than X apps did. Windows is a GUI, X is a window manager. The real comparison is GDI vs. something like QT/KDE.


(and there's a standard architecture, no Xft/Xft2/STSF compatibility issues)

I'd say X is more standard than windows. I happen to run my windows at 133 dpi instead of 96 dpi and I notice huge problems with apps not handeling things in standard ways. With X apps I never have these kinds of problems because they don't make the same assumptions.

In a the space of an hour we get two articles. One complains that Linux has TOO many applications and the other argues it doesn't have enough.

for windows vs linux discussions, visit:: http://forums.anandtech.com/

<img src="http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/home/atehrani/uptime.jpg">

This whole thing is a joke-

Most people that bash microsft have no idea what theya re talking about "Windows sux, linux is better" Well i bet that 13 year old has never even installed a copy of linux, letalone used linux

Hell the funniest thing i ever heard was a guy say "Dos was the best operating system microsft ever produced, it never crashed." Hell i laughed my head off, to that dumbass i issue a challenge- First one to rip this DVD to divX wins- Call me when your done dumbass

And what about this monopoly crap, most people dont know what the definition of a monopoly is, hell the whole DOJ case bought against microsoft was not "Microsoft is being charged with being a monopoly", despite the common fools belief. If it was up to me I'd say that apple was more of a monopoly than microsoft- they control the hardware and software of the computers they make. And what about general motors, are you going to call them a monopoly because the produce more that one car brand???? I didnt think so.

Also what about those people that say "Bill gates sux" or "I hate bill gates" do those people really think that it was bill gates that wrote that peice of code in their POS bit of software, hmm lets say AOL messenger that caused windows to crash?? To those people i say- "Bill shot a 34 on the front nine, but let it slip with a 38 coming home.

Any the most important thing here is, no one is forcing you to use windows, I dont see bill gates standing there with a gun to your head saying "use windows 3.11" or "Use windows XP" If you dont like windows, go use linux, you can get your 13 year old buddies round for a pyjama party and format your computers and install linux on them-

A revolution has got to start somewhere, hell i bet the windows community wouldn't miss ya

From A Micorsoft user; not because I have to, but because they currently produce the best software for my job.

I would never tire of bashing Microsloth. If Apple went out of business and OS X was no more, I would run Linux. If MS destroyed Linux, I would find something else but I refuse to support Microsoft - inferior products at inflated prices, and the utter stifling of innovation and competition sicken me.

jbolden1517: GDI does not support transparency meaningfully [...]
Errrr, i think bascule was talking about alpha transparency (as in transparent menus, icons and stuff like that) wich xfree86 does not support, not network transparency.

Some of it is pretty hackneyed - especially "clever" variations on the word Microsoft. Do the people who use "M$" not realize that it has roughly the same effect as wearing a t-shirt with an arrow pointing upwards, right above the words "I'm with stupid"?

This does not mean, however, that Microsoft is undeserving of criticism - because they are. If for no other reason than the fact that Microsoft's market position is certainly not a reflection of the relative quality of their software. Given the amount of money/manpower Microsoft has to spend on developing their OS, their market dominance, and the exhorbitant prices of their products, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that Windows be head and shoulders above competing products. This doesn't necessarily imply incmpetence on the part of Microsoft; they have realized, as a friend of mine once said about psychology, that "there's no money in cures - just in repeat customers."

As Neal Stephenson said, (paraphrasing) "criticism of Microsoft is eerily reminiscent of the capitalism vs. communism debates of old. The Bourgeois were hated by both sides: by the proletariat, because they had all the money, and by the intelligentsia, because of their tendency to spend it on lawn ornaments."

There are many reasons to bash Microsoft... at least in "our" minds. When I write "our" I mean people who really love computers. Whether it is a computer engineer (that's me!), a system administrator, or just a casual user in the know, it is this passion that prompts one to complain for Microsoft's shortcomings. Granted, one could argue that Microsoft has done a lot for computers in their reign. However it could also be argued that Microsoft has set back computing and are working and causing others to work THEIR way.

Sure Microsoft sells better software that is better then what they put out a few years ago. Does this mean that just because they release something better than a slide rule rather than dirt that they have achieved something? Ok, maybe it is a little better than a slide rule...

People argue that Linux is way behind with their redundant similar programs and their crappy installations. It may not be flashy but for the most part it works and doesn't give you any unpleasant surprises. When you break something in Linux, it is usually YOUR fault and not that of the OS. I am glad there are many programs for Linux redundant or not. Choice allows the consumer to get the best product for their purpose.

Let's face it; Linux is for the most part a geek OS. An OS for those who really care. How many Linux or Apple users do you know that don’t care about computers. Not many if any.


Taken from http://www.Fuckmicrosoft.com/about.shtml:
Linux fans, BSD fans, UNIX fans, Apple fans -- and I'm all of the above -- we all are known for our devotion, our absolute, inalienable conviction that we're right.


No offense, but business people who just use a computer to email people are not going to have fun in recompiling their kernel. The type of people who like to use Linux are the type of people who enjoy this activity and learning all about using Linux. Once Linux is fully learned it really is a wonderful and stable OS. Yes Linux is much harder to use than Windows, but it is getting much easier. People confuse this difficulty with performance a lot, which is a grave mistake. You can do everything in Linux you can on Windows, but you might have to do some research/coding to make it possible. And yes you can do a lot of things in Windows an easier way, but you will have to sacrifice stability, security, and perhaps some money.

Why are old versions of Windows 95 still being run but nobody ever hears of an old <insert any Linux distribution here> install? Old versions of Windows are run by people who don't care about computers... or can't afford to. People who really care about computers are going to upgrade because they care about being up to date and want to check out the latest features.

So the point is: Windows beats Linux in some areas (even though I failed to mention these points, which side do you think I am on) and Linux beats Windows in some areas. But computer nerds are the ones who are going to be the most actively involved in this area and are going to want features that normal people wouldn’t even know about. Linux is for that crowd. Windows is for the people who wander why people bash Microsoft all the time. If you don’t know, it doesn’t matter. Continue using Windows because I personally don’t care because I know you really don’t either (it would be nice if you were enlightened though! A lot of people just aren’t going to care though). If you are a computer power user and use Windows at work, that’s certainly okay. Use whatever OS gets the job done best. I am not saying don’t use Microsoft although I wish that were truly an option for everyone. Just because Microsoft products are used does not exempt them from criticizing. I must admit though blindly bashing Microsoft all the time on every front is annoying and dare I say wrong.

Amen. I work with both as a sysadmin, and I don't really have a problem with either. That's not to say that I don't prefer one or the other, though..

like I said in my last post with all the trolls I'm running 2k3 and properly configured<B/> it makes the best desktop option IMO.