Replies

I am sure I am doing something wrong.

Yes, you fell for the linux lies that are posted everywhere on the internet including here by a small group of zealots that claim Linux is the end all when in fact there's hundreds of different versions because not one of them works perfectly well. You might as well get a real Unix instead of wasting any more time with the foreign clone Linux, and use Apple OSX or Sun Solaris if you're not happy with Windows.

there's hundreds of different versions because not one of them works perfectly well.

So When MS has different versions out (server 2003, Vista (home, ultimate, xtreem, maga super duper cool, ...), Server 2005) is it because not one of their Operating systems works perfectly well? or is it because different situations call for different tools?

You might as well get a real Unix instead of wasting any more time with the foreign clone Linux

Oh yea because there is only one version of that (AIX, HPUX, Solaris, BSD, OSX, ...) Guess non of them work perfectly well either. Your ability to draw two completely different conclusion from a nearly identical set of circumstances is truly astounding!

Yes, you fell for the linux lies that are posted everywhere on the internet including here by a small group of zealots that claim Linux is the end all when in fact there's hundreds of different versions because not one of them works perfectly well. You might as well get a real Unix instead of wasting any more time with the foreign clone Linux, and use Apple OSX or Sun Solaris if you're not happy with Windows.

The reason I did not ping you originally is that I had a question, and was not interested in a tirade. No OS, various Windows, Linux, BeOS, Coleco Adam, MacOS is perfect of course. There is a place for all of this stuff. But you answered a question I did not ask. (Our Fedora Linux Web Server works just fine!) I guess my Corel WordPerfect is Canadian and hence "foreign", even my Intel brand motherboards are made in Red China. I really don't have anything against the Finnish.

You'll have to trust that I like most operating systems that I get to know (OS/2, CP/M-86 and the DECmate system being notable exceptions). As you know, there have been some crappy Unixes over the years (Apple's earlier AUX, IBM's AIX, anything AT&T did with its crappy Olivetti division running the show in the '80's, IRIS). So, it does not surprise me if there are subpar Linux distros. That doesn't mean they are all bad. I have nothing against ANY of these OSes. They all have their place.

Heck, I even remember when most of us thought of Microsoft as being the hero against "monopolist" IBM in the late '80's because they sold DOS to all comers, and did not yet leverage that into control of the then splintered applications' market (and their leverage sped up the overall fall of pricing. A purchase of Lotus 1-2-3, SSI WordPerfect and Ashton-Tate dBase would set you back quite a bit. Borland (and Mosaic and Paperback Software) started the price wars, but Microsoft made it stick.

So, I understand that you don't think anyone should run Linux, and I'd rather hear reasoned statements than zealotry from either side. I haven't fallen for anybody's "lies."