Subj : Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?
To   : comp.os.linux
From : Mxsmanic
Date : Tue Mar 01 2005 12:36 am

chris writes:

> WRONG!

I watched it happen.  I find direct visual evidence more persuasive than
your unsupported assertion, even if the latter is in all uppercase.

> No, but it's a useless installation without any applications!

Since the variety of applications one can install is nearly infinite,
there's no sense in comparing installation _including_ applications.

> You must have a unique version of Win NT then.  Did Bill himself write it
> specially for you?

No, but I've worked with it a lot.

> Wrong.  Most people started using real operating systems because it was what
> they were used to - Windoze is a relative newcomer, doesn't fit in with any
> real operating systems.  It was pleasant to discover that there was a
> viable "home" version of the OS I'd been using at work for over 20 years.

Your own words belie your assertion.  People who are objective and
unemotional about operating systems never say "Windoze."

> Linux began as a way to run Unix-type stuff on a home computer ...
> Windoze had nothing to do with it.  It's just a nice benefit that we can
> now run a proper operating system on home computers and delete the M$ trash
> that comes "pre-installed" with many machines.

If you want a proper UNIX system, run *BSD or Solaris, something with a
real UNIX kernel and a complete OS around it.

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

.