Subj : Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?
To   : comp.os.linux
From : Mxsmanic
Date : Mon Feb 28 2005 12:32 am

chris writes:

> You've either missed or refuse to understand the point.

Is the box lying?

> Any of them.  Perhaps you don't understand what Linux actually is.

Linux is a kernel (as opposed to an actual operating system).  It's
useless by itself.

> And what has "Firefox" got to do with Linux?  It's an application.

Applications are smaller than operating systems, in most cases.

> Wrong.

Just looking at the math shows that I'm right.  And trying to install
systems on any but the most mundane configurations demonstrates that I'm
right.

> It takes minutes to get a fully working Linux system up and running. 

I couldn't get Mandrake up and running at all.

> If you insist, any competent modern distro will guide you
> through dependancies.

Mandrake didn't.  It froze after displaying a pretty start screen.

> MSIE isn't a proper web browser - it's not in any way standards compliant,
> and is so utterly flawed that it is unusable.

I've actually tested MSIE against the W3C test suites, and it passes.

> They already make huge amounts of money from supplying their "operating
> systems".

Microsoft Office is the largest moneymaker for Microsoft.

> Yes.  Look at the terms and conditions on the enclosed paperwork.  You are
> paying for the duplication of the disks, the documentation, and very
> competent support.

So anyone can copy the disks and install it without paying anything?

> Wrong.  The MS "paid-for" support is utterly useless.  

It's better than none at all, which is what you get with a lot of other
non-proprietary operating systems.

> It was quite funny seeing thirty senior MS "engineers" at the premises of a
> well-known ISP over here.  They had been flown over from the 'States at
> great expense to install and configure a huge Exchange Server system. 
> Their level of competence was similar to that of my cat - they could push
> the keys on the keypad, but couldn't make sense of the replies on the
> screen.  They wasted eight days, and couldn't get anything working, and
> left for the 'States, blaming the hardware and the hardware vendors.

I've installed Exchange Servers myself.  It's not difficult.

> It took a couple of competent Linux engineers two days to get a RH-based
> system working properly on the same hardware.....  

Unfortunately, that's not the same as Exchange.  Exchange Server is
extremely well adapted to homogenous enterprise networks.

> Never found it to be a problem.  I've been writing and supporting software
> for almost 40 years, and will continue to do so, without ever using ANY
> proprietary code.

I've worked in large companies where it is a show-stopper.

> It's just a matter of time before a large corporation suckered into buying
> crap by Bill Gates sues MS out of existence - there have been a few close
> calls lately - and as long as they continue to ship their fundamentally
> broken rubbish, we in the OS world have nothing to fear.  MS have NEVER
> shipped ANY properly working software.

Most courts are more rational and objective, so MS is unlikely to
suffer.

> Perhaps you should go back to your trojans and viruses and not bother with
> Linux.

Done.  (Actually, I've gone back to FreeBSD--at least I can get that
running on my machine, although not without some thorny problems.)

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

.