[Leaplist] so true

[Chris]

Matthew Cupples wrote:

>can someone tell me why i'm supposed to hate windows/microsoft again?
>
>  
>
Hate Windows? I don't hate it - but it is an inferior OS to most
others. Hate Microsoft? Again, not really - not any more than
I hate rattlesnakes. A rattlesnake isn't being evil when it bites
you, and a corporation isn't being evil when it squashes competition
and innovation, buys the best legislation money can get, and
develops a product to a marketing standard instead of a quality
standard. Of course, knowing that Microsoft, and rattlesnakes
aren't really evil still doesn't make me want to cuddle up to
either.

>as far as i knew, linux isn't easy.  
>
Ummm - what's not easy about Linux? I'll gaurantee you it's
an easier install in most cases than XP. As far as using it?
You click on a menu and pick an application. Most Linuxes
have central software repositories of thousands of programs
with a clean, non-trojaned install just a few clicks away. Please
explain exactly what is so much easier about Windows, because
I've only been doing this since '79, on a variety of machines
from IBM big iron to dedicated microcontrollers and I have
yet to figure out what's superior about the Windows O/S.

>that's why we have groups for it.
>  
>

We have groups because we are more informed, and share the
social responsibility that embodies the philosophy of open
source - sharing what we've learned and contributing what
we've developed. Windows groups, which also, BTW, are in
abundance, have the general tone of savaged shipwreck survivors
trying to figure out how to keep from being eaten by the natives.

> heck, it took me a little while to get the hang of it and I like
>computers.  imagine someone who doesn't like computers trying to get
>with it.
>
>  
>
I don't have to imagine it. I do a modest side business attempting
to disinfect the virused Windows installs that you seem to think
don't exist. I have two rules. I always charge to work on Windows,
and I never charge to install and support Linux. After seeing and
trying Linux, a majority of customers want it installed and use it.

People who don't know much about computers are perfectly fine
with Linux - all they know is that they can surf, play music, send
emails and edit documents and they're not freaked out because
the menu button doesn't say "Start" on it.

>windows is a perfectly fine os.  
>
Here, I have to contemplate what degree of knowledge, or
of recreational pharmaceuticals could give birth to such
a statement. Windows is a perfectly fine O/S in much the
same way an axe is a perfectly fine tool for cutting carrots
in the kitchen.

If I may elaborate:

The registry. This bloated mutant abortion is the glue that
holds the entire windows O/S together. It is a single failure
point that demostrates a collosal failure of best coding and
security practices - even assuming nothing corrupts it, and
that's quite an assumption given the abundant evidence to
the contrary, it's only read on boot - necessitationg constant
reboots for even trivial changes.

Alphabet soup. Why are your mountpoints constrained to
the 26 letters of the alphabet? I can only assume that some
of Bill Gates' programmers had only recently learned the
alphabet and were impressed by the concept. Any proper
O/S allows you to define your mountpoints as you choose.

Insecure by design. We've already discussed the registry.
But let's talk about throwing applications into kernel-
space. Very, very, very bad idea. It gives things like Internet
Explorer and Outlook a degree of freedom they should not
have - and makes the kernel more fragile.

>i've run it for years on my desktop
>and i've never seen a virus.
>
The fact that you were willing to post such an argument without
immediately suffering enough embarrasment to post a retraction
speaks volumes. I've crossed Colonial for years, staggering
drunk and blindfolded and never been hit by a car. There are
people who have smoked for decades and never had lung cancer
or a heart attack. Do you see why this type of argument diminishes
your case?

Further, I will point out one thing. When botnets comprising
many thousands of computers are discovered, there's one common
thread - the users of the zombied computers had no idea they were
infected, and would have sworn that they never had a virus problem.

>  granted, many people do see them and you
>state that as facts as to why you don't use windows.  of course, the
>same people who get viruses on windows are likely the same people who
>have trouble with linux.
>
Again, what, specifically is harder for a newbie user on Linux
than Windows? Installing is typically worse on Windows, and
a gui is a gui is a gui - you click on a menu and start a program.

>  if you're as knowledgeable as i am (or more
>than i am in most of your cases) , you can do just fine in windows
>without viruses or malware.  it blows my mind as to why you hate it so
>much.
>
>  
>
And it probably will still blow your mind after reading this.
Blind faith - it's not actually a virtue.

Cheers,  Chris


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.