For example, an administrator who runs 100% linux at home, but works in both Linux and Windows server at work would not be 100% Linux by this definition. Nor would an admin that has 100% Linux servers, but also admins 10 Windows-based client machines in his office.
I have to disagree with your arguement there. This fictious admin can't be "faulted" for having to use Windows at work, for instance. He may not have the option there (may not be his final decision or there may be no *usable* Linux replacement).
I've been using (dual-booting ... :-) ) Linux and Windows (98, ME, 2000, XP) for 5 years. I don't believe Linux will replace Windows anytime soon.
Hall
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
