>>>>> "Pat" == Pat Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Pat> For me, Linux makes me think. For others, windows may make Pat> them think. For still others, something else (not computer Pat> related) may make them think. If linux makes you think, Pat> good. If windows makes you think, good. If something else Pat> makes you think, good. If nothing makes you think, then I you Pat> truly have my sympathy. For me, the problem with Windows is you have to think when thinking should not be required. Take for instance, autoexec.bat. I know a Windows computer, that whenever it starts, it flashes up with the message "Bad command or filename" for a few seconds until it goes away. However, it doesn't give the important information: what command cannot be found? what line is it on? So, instead of going directly to the bad line (like you would for any Unix based interpreter), you have to do a lot of fiddling just to find out which line is bad. I have had similar problems for "out of environment space" errors (I never remember or can find how to change it, although it seems to be fixed now) and programs that automatically add lines like: PATH %PATH;c:\newprogram which fails when %PATH% contains a directory with spaces (trial and error suggests that correct quoting helps). Perhaps Windows 2000 won't require autoexec.bat, I will believe it when I see it. However, I encounter similar problems throughout Windows (especially device drivers). So, the way I see it, with Windows you always need to be thinking "There is a bug in this program. It won't say why it is crashing. What is the best work around?". With Unix, you get more descriptive feedback of what the program is doing (eg look at the output of dpkg), and I have never had problems with a device driver suddenly going broken, requiring a complete re-installation of the OS. You don't have to try and second guess what the computer might be trying to do. -- Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>