Lobo wrote: > hardware around Linux, you might be okay. However, if you want to
The thing to avoid, is getting windows only hardware. This is true _regardless_ of the operating system. Actually, Windows only hardware is as, if not more likely, to not work on a windows box, than on a Linux Box. >If the Linux driver doesn't exist, it doesn't exist, and no amount of wishful >thinking can With Linux, if I need a driver, assuming that the hardware specs are open, I can create the required driver. The big issue is whether or not the hardware specs are open, or not. For windows, even if the hardware specs are open, if the driver hasn't been created for the version of windows one runs, one is totally out of luck. [I have a perfectly good machine that I can use for Linux, but not Windows, because the only available drivers are for Linux.) > Installation of software that doesn't come with the distribution often > is less than successful. You obviously haven't installed new windows software on older versions of windows. If you get the source from Microsoft, you have to install three pieces of software, before you can install the product you wanted. [And one of those pieces of software very nicely included a worm that wiped out my windows system. Thank you Microsoft for inflicting a virus onto a system that was virus free, until your program required me to download a patch from your allegedly secure server, using your allegedly secure authentication program, to give me a virus that required me to reformat my hard drive, because that is the only way to clean it up.] With Linux programs, if you need something that doesn't come with the tar ball, adding it is much easier. And being able to authenticate it is even easier than using Microsoft's "automatic update/verify" thing. [You have to wonder why grabbing FLOSS software is easier to authenticate as original, untampered, is much easier to do, than grabbing stuff off of Microsoft's website. [Who else knew that software sold on Microsoft's website, shows up as being "pirated", using Microsoft's piracy detection tool kit? This is in addition to the bugs, virii, and other malware that has been released/distributed by Redmond, to its customers, thru their cd's and website.] > anything because a (working) driver doesn't exist for your printer? I have to keep a DosBox around, so I can use my Braille printer. There are no printer drivers for it, for any version of windows. > You can't access the Web or your email because there's no driver for your > modem? That would be true only if one was using a winmodem. And if one is using a winmodem, or any other windows only hardware, then the best thing they can do, is admit that they are complete, and utter idiots. Then go buy real hardware. > many years of data and documents created by another application? The question here is "how much are you willing to pay to transfer your data from your old format, to your new format?" This issue is true, regardless of the operating system that one uses. > In contrast, I have never had a Windows installation fail or cause any You must not have to install windows very often. I've had computer repair shops return systems to me, because they were unable to install, much less get windows to boot, on hardware that they installed. I've had more than one hard drive trashed by windows, during the installation process. >Software installation is rarely an issue, drivers You don't do tech support either. If you did, you'd find the number and variety of problems that people have, when installing windows software. [It is really bad, when software requires one to removes one's screen reader, so it runs correctly. Yet that is exactly what my house mate was told to do, trying to install a commercial package on her windows box. (I"ll ignore the fact that without the screen reader, the computer is nothing more than a great big dust trap, that has zero function, except to take up space on their desk.)] > bloated, mostly intuitive and easily understood. "Intuitive" depends very much upon what people are used to. If somebody has zero knowledge of directories, neither the way windows, nor the way that Unix lays out things makes sense. However, the way Unix lays out things makes much more sense, than the way windows does --- if the underlying philosophy behind their respective layouts is explained. > hacker bias as anything else - Which explains why windows servers, despite being a minority on the internet, are subject to more attacks by hackers, than other platforms. Both more as in raw numbers, and as a percentage of hacker attacks. > they could just as easily write viruses for Linux, Could, but don't, because writing them, and getting them to spread, is several orders of magnitude more difficult on a Linux box,than a windows box. xan jonathon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
