Linux vs. NT/95/2000 the great debate was -->Re: For those in needof some amusement.....

[Jeffery Douglas Waddell <jwaddell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Chris,

On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 cjgidman@mindless.com wrote:

> 
> 
>  ---- you wrote: 
> >      
> > <snip>
> > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Your email is messed up in my client as well, which makes it difficult for 
> > > me to respond to you.
> > 
> > I guess you need to update your e-mail client as 
> > well.
> > 

Which email client do you suggest?  By the way, it does seem that display
is fine and only editing is a problem...maybe I'll just change my default
email editor.  It's nice to have that choice....

> > > Html as a text medium for email is a horrid choice. 
> > 
> > I disagree.  But that's okay, we are entitled to our 
> > opinions.
> > 

Yes we are :)  I wonder why exactly you think it is a good choice.  I'll
share why I think it is a bad choice.

The html is not readily displayable in all of the email clients of the
people (worldwide) that I correspond with.  It adds size (perhaps
generally not very significant size, but for some people that I
correspond with that pay for every byte (almost literally) that comes to
them, it is.

html is not a standard that is well supported, and therefore I can't
rely on many clients to support it properly.

Not to mention that the most productive email client for me that I
personally use, does not support html directly.  Yes I can display it but
I have to go through some hoops that I would rather not go through just to
read a note.

> > > 
> > > umm, Outlook Express won't run on my linux box, although I suppose I could 
> > > get HP Openmail to do the job....
> > > 
> > 
> > Too bad.
> > 

yep, I wonder if Microsoft would consider porting it.  Didn't they already
make one for Solaris?

<snip jargon banter>

> > > I'm curious to know if Chris is Certified in any MS Certification 
> > > program....
> > 
> > No.
> > 

Frankly, I am surprised.  You have a great deal of MS knowledge and I
imagine you would find it fairly easy to get certified if you wanted to.
The reason I bring it up at all, is that you indicate that the
NT/95/98/2000 OS's are intuitive, and yet I've have watched many new
user's struggle in vain to use this "intuitive" setup.  I've also watched
experienced Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 user's pull their collective hair
out doing NT installs.

> > > > <snip> > > 
> > > 
> > > Ok, so what was easy and intiutive for them, specifically?  I mean
> > > punching the reboot button is easy, but it doesn't actually solve the long 
> > > term problem, and puts the user into the mind set that THEY DID something 
> > > wrong when 6 times out of 10 they did NOTHING wrong.
> > 
> > I didn't say fixing problems, I said "using".

You mean "using" as likened to how one would "drive" a car?

> >  It is simple, straight forward, 
> > easy to learn.

Some of it is, and much of it is not.

> >  You don't have to read irrelevant material.

I wish that were true, however, personal experience has had me off on all
kinds of wild goose chases to figure out how to do something in both Linux
and the Microsoft OS's.  The difference being that when I discover how to
do something in Linux, it does not generally change on me with the next
release in such a way that I've got to do the whole process all over
again.  Where's your ramp time when the process changes?  As it has for me
when changing from 3.1 to 95 to NT, etc.

> >  Most of the system 
> > administration is taken care of behind the scenes.
> > 

That's GREAT, when it works.  When it doesn't work I want CONTROL!!!
Linux gives me that, 95/98/NT/2000 generally do NOT.  And yes I've had
many times when it did not work.

> > Let's take a time out for a specific example.  How about browsing the file 
> > system?  (Most users don't even know what that sentence means)  In windows you 
> > double click on a filing cabinet (or magnifying glass over a folder)  and you 
> > are shown a tree of folders.  "Inside" these folders is a list of files.  Just 
> > like the "real world" I'm used to.  Now, they even put little pictures next to 
> > each of the files that help me understand what they are related to.  And, if I 
> > want to see what's in one, usually, I can just double click on it.  God, it 
> > couldn't be much simpler.

You mean like kfm and xfm and gnome's file manager, and a bunch of
other's?  When was the last time you used one of the integrated Desktops
(gnome or kde, cde, etc.) for linux?

> > OTH, in Unix, let's see.

I must stop you there....  Linux IS NOT Un*x.....  It is based on unix,
but it is not and probably never will be un*x.  Linux is addressing many
of the user friendliness (or lack thereof) of traditional un*x as more
developer's with concern for this start working with the system.

 > >  You type ls. It's two letters, easy enough to 
> > remember.  Don't know what it stands for, but I can remember two letters.  Then,
> > I see a list of words.  Are they files or directories?  Hmmm... How do I tell?  
> > Oh, I know, I'll get help ... man ls...
> > I'll quit here.

You are unfairly comparing the cli mode (which is for those who have
invested learning time) and gui mode (which is generally for those who
want "quick ramp time" without knowledge)  

> >  Already, I've had to do more reading than I did in Windows.  

How did you know what to click on or hit to get into "explorer" in the
first place?  It was intuitive for you, then...  From my observation's it
is NOT intuitive for 6 out of 10 new user's... They MUST be shown....

> > And, I haven't even opened the file yet.
> > DOS was similar.  I also realize that there are now graphical file system 
> > browsers for the Unix world now too.

There have been since what '80 with the Andrew System on X (someone
correct my time frame I'm pretty sure it's off)? It seems that
you doth protest too much.

>  This is just an example.  The point being 
> > that MS is working hard/very hard to make their systems easy to learn.

Good for them, now they have some competition.  How is this a bad thing?

> >  The Unix
> > world doesn't care if you can use it.

Again Linux is not Un*x.

> >  If you can't figure out how to use it, 
> > then you don't deserve to be using my software.
> > 

I do know a few developer's (in both worlds) that act that way which is
unfortunate.

> > > 
> > > > So, it's more than just familiarity.  Something about what Microsoft does 
> > makes it extremely easy for Users and Developers alike to use their products and
> > develop products using their products.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I would like you to expand on this.  I know many Windows user's that think 
> > > this way when talking about their systems, yet don't actually know how to 
> > > use them.
> > > 

Nothing to add ?

> > > > > What's to stop you (or anyone) from wandering around Linux, and becoming 
> > > > > really familiar with it? Who's to say what's "better" until you have?
> > > > 
> > > > The quantity of documentation I have to read to do simple things.  (I NEVER 
> > read that documentation for Windows products.)  The amount of crap I have to 
> > learn that is totally unrelated to the thing that I want to do.  The total lack 
> > of standardization across software packages.  The lack of "plug and playability"
> > of software.  The apparent lack of concern by the developers of software 
> > packages that someone other than a system administrater might actually want to 
> > use their software.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > The things I need to do with my computers don't have documentation in 
> > > Windows.....
> > 
> > Sorry.  I'm assuming you're doing low level programming and are in the 
> > minority of computer users.

As has been pointed out to me in the past... Computer User's are a
minority to begin with.  Now  I do do some low level stuff, but not very
much, mostly what I do is maintain access to services for approximately 50
user's at work and 4 at home.  The low level stuff I do do is mostly
tinkering and for my amusement or edification, i.e. like a hobby.

I use things like xdm to allow old computer's (486's and low end
Pentiums) graphical access to the server, so any number of thing's
(including web surfing) can be done by myself and my user's.

>
> I have conceded that Windows is lacking in > > low level documentation.

It's not just low level documentation, it's any documentation about things
that are not in the direction Microsoft wants the user to go (which is
their right, it's their product).  But it makes me feel herded when I
know there is a better way (or at least better for me way) to do something
and Microsoft will not support that method.  And sometimes they won't even
support the method the recommend in their documentation.....(but that's
another story... )

<snip>
> > > > 
> > > > This is true, and no, it doesn't qualify me as a home user.  However, I do 
> > have home users in my house who got kinda tired of waiting for me to figure out 
> > how to get my Linux box ready for home use.  It took me less than an hour to 
> > swap my modem out of my Linux box and into my Windows box and be up and running 
> > with my ISP.  I can't say that about my Linux box.  So we can swap testimonials 
> > all day.  Mine was not a good experience.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > So are any of those user's qualified or have the inclination to be your 
> > > sys. admin. since you claim incompetence, ignorance or lack of time?
> > 
> > This is the kind of pompous bigotry that clearly shines through in the 
> > Unix world.

Back off, bub.  I don't take lightly to being called a bigot.  YOU claimed
that you could not administer the system for whatever reason (I gave three
possible reasons, there are certainly more).  How does this make ME a
bigot......

> >  If someone is having problems getting a system running, 
> > assume first that he's an idiot.

I have done no such thing.  It is obvious that you are not an idiot, and
why you are going down this road I have no idea.

> >  It's fortunate that not all KLUG 
> > members have this kind of attitude or Linux would never make it.
> > 

Since I'm not a KLUG member (can't make it to meetings as I live in
Missouri), you can be assured that your group is unsullied......Anyway
being from Missouri, I am stubborn and I require things to be "shown" to
me.  So far you are showing that either you like to bait people or you
misunderstood something I said.

<snip>
> > > 
> > > That is exactly how many proprietary computer software companies want you 
> > > to think.  The question is why is it not a big deal?
> > 
> > Because, as I said further down, the time saved in learning curve outweighs 
> > the time lost due to rebooting.
> > 

In my experience it's much more than TIME that is lost in rebooting.
Specifically it is finished work (or almost finished), intellectual and
creative energy that is hard to regain, and loss of composure with
coworkers.  I have a manager right now that had her box crash twice TODAY
(yes I'm trying to get the RMA and have the box replaced, it's just gotta
be hardware....unless it's win98, can't prove it either way, hopefully
having the box switched out will fix it) and is on edge and not
interacting well with coworkers because of it.

> > > 
> > > > >>But, it's no big deal, I just reboot.  
> > > > > But it IS a big deal, if your system is a server on the Internet, and
> > > > > suddenly all the clients have lost work, too! You're not merely effecting 
> > > > > yourself, but lots of others, too.
> > > > 
> > > > But my computer isn't a server yet. 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Why not?
> > 
> > Because the most recent failure left my system so crippled that it won't boot.  

Are you willing to expand on that failure?  If nothing else so it can be
avoided by other's on their journey, if not to fix it for yourself.

> > I'm tired of hitting problems every time I do something,

That is EXACTLY how Microsoft's OS's have made me feel.  I was afraid to
touch my keyboard or mouse, due to it being a 75% chance it would just
lock up on me.

> > and I just don't feel 
> > like running it down right now.

Completely UNDERSTOOD!

> >  God knows what I'm going to have to do to get 
> > this thing going again.
> > 

Maybe very little, maybe a lot?  It's very hard to say.  I have one
question are you using SuSE 6.2 by an remote chance?

<snip>
> > > 
> > > What EXACTLY are you bitter and cynical about?  Did a linux user yell at 
> > > you or embarass you?  Did the time to figure out something seem wasted or 
> > > misapplied?  Did you invest in Microsoft and seeing Redhat's share price 
> > > within a few dollars of that pisses you off?  Perhaps you missed the IPO 
> > > (as I did, PS valinux filed with SEC)?!
> > > 

Ok, from above you are bitter cause the box went down and you neither know
why or what you need to do to fix it.  Fair enough.  Do you want help
fixing it?

<snip>
> > > > Ho, ho, wait a minute.  My car is not a toy.  I rely on my car for my 
> > livelihood.  I wouldn't classify a telephone, fax machine, or photocopier as a 
> > toy either.  Yet people use all of these items every day without ever reading 
> > the manual!  The easier it is to use, the shorter the time to productivity (ramp
> > time) the more likely it is to be accepted by the business.  Reliability is 
> > important, but in most cases, secondary.  There is such a thing as "reliable 
> > enough".
> > > 
> > > You aren't making sense.  How often does your car "crash" and have to be 
> > > "rebooted".  I mean if you are driving down the road and your car just
> > > dies, you will be one pissed off car owner.  Yet it happens to you on your 
> > 
> > But this happens every day to lots of car owners all over the world, doesn't 
> > it?  It's life.  It's accepted.  Maybe not if you're an ambulance driver, 
> > but the "average" car driver has learned to accept that sometimes things 
> > don't work.  Your car is reliable enough.

This argument might work on me if it weren't for the fact that there are
computer systems (for gratis no less, and it comes with source too ;) that
DON'T behave that way.  If I can get a more reliable system for less and
it does what I need and it doesn't lock me into brand X, WHY in the world
should I NOT use it?

> > Now, you may argue that your car doesn't die once a week or that you'd be 
> > upset if it did.  I say that the auto industry has many more years of R&D 
> > behind it than the Operating System industry does.

Not that many.

> >  So, you expect more from 
> > your car.  And besides, if All you had to do was wait a few minutes and 
> > restart it, you could deal with it.  People with old cars do it all the 
> > time.

Actually they take it to a mechanic or they fix it themselves if they can.
Also there isn't a free version available for them to go get or I imagine
they'd grab them as fast as they could...

> >  It sure beats becoming a mechanic in order to have a car that's as 
> > reliable as an ambulance.

I'm confused as to why this is relevant.

> >  This is especially true if you are, say, an 
> > electrician.  You need to spend your time learning your trade, not becoming 
> > a mechanic. Can't you see this?
> > 

I can see that the car user (driver) should not have to be bothered
with being a mechanic for their car nor should they need to be the system
administrator for their computer.  You seem to think that Microsoft should
be Joe User's system administrator.  I think Joe User should have a choice
as to who or what his system administrator is.  I.E. him self, a neighbor,
a paid consultant, a friendly cyberguru, a government worker, or even
dare I say it Microsoft.  Can't you see that locking the computer system
to 1 choice for system admin. is bad for everybody?

> > > computer and you don't care?  What gives?
> > > 
> > > > Microsoft has capitalized on ease of use and sacrificed reliability.  Yet, 
> > the stuff is reliable enough to suit most needs.  In those minutely few cases 
> > were reliability is life critical, Linux/UNIX alone won't solve the problem 
> > either.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Reliability does not have to be sacrificed to give useability.  You've 
> > > bought a PR job I'm afraid.
> > 
> > Then, I counter that usability doesn't have to be sacrificed to give 
> > reliability.  But the Linux/UNIX world has done this.

The Unix world did do this to a large extent.  Linux has copied much of
the Unix world, now they are busy copying the Mac and MS (oh yeah
Commidore and Atari and those too) parts that they see as relevant as well
as adding NEW things never before seen in the Un*x or Microsoft camps.

> > You've bought the PR job 
> > on the other side of the fence. 

I don't think so.  But please do remind me when or if I advocate
reliability over usability without a clearly stated technical reason or
vice versa for that matter. I'm serious.

> > 
> > You must put your resources into one or the other.

You must either eat or drink, you can't do both.  What kind of thinking is
this?

> >  MS has chosen to put it into
> > usability.  I think that's were the most benefit lies.
> > 

They are welcome to choose that.  I and many developer's I know choose
BOTH, and a few more things added for good measure.

> > <snip>
> > > 
> > > I don't know about NT, because I left that job before I had NT any
> > > significant amount of time (VB is HELL for a large project by the way), 
> > > but as a developer 6 reboots a day (Win 95) is a HUGE time waster, and
> > > frustration builder, and COSTS A LOT OF MONEY IN DOWNTIME, lost work, and 
> > > loss of flow (as a programmer having a lockup disrupt your train of
> > > thought/coding is the WORST possible thing to have happen). 
> > 
> > A disruption is a big frustration, but 6 times a day?!?

Yep.  Lost a lot of code in more ways than one.  Luckily most of it was on
the network, so I didn't lose as much as I could have, but
ARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHH.  I really would rather not remember it....  Oh I'm
writing this on my box but I'm sitting in the office.... (network
transparency it's so wonderful).

> >  I 
> > never have that kind of problem!  NEVER!

Congratulations!!!!!  I tend to push whatever system I use (and yes I've
kernel panic'd, filesystem corrupted, once had a DOS boot sector virus
play havoc with my and didn't know I could recover the filesystems at
the time and otherwise destroyed linux systems as well, but I
*usually* can recover them ;)

> >  And, true VB is not 
> > for Large projects, but why not Visual C++?
> > 

This WAS Visual C++.  Suprisingly VB didn't completely crash nearly as
much, it was more likely to have hang time, but eventually pull out of it.
And the failed objects was Maddening.....  Of course the VB was on NT,
which IS infinitely superior technically to 95.

> > > 
> > > > Given the significant benefits of ease of use, the time lost to rebooting is
> > far outweighed by the shortened ramp time.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > For ME this is utter bull<snip> (pardon the language).  If I have to 
> > spend > more time getting to know a product that is NOT going to crash 
> > leaving me > with NOTHING, or LESS than what I had to start with, then I 
> > WANT to spend > that extra time.  Sheesh, how can deadlines be met when the 
> > freaking
> > > machines are DOWN.
> > 
> > A different opinion.

And obviously different experience.

> >  Without quantifiable data all we have to go on is personal
> > feel, based on our own experiences.

This is why we must discuss things rationally and with an eye to HELP each
other.

> >  I feel that Windows is stable enough to 
> > outweigh the ramp time required to get Linux going.
> > 

I'm sorry that you feel that way or perhaps I'm glad you have not had
nearly as bad an experience with Windows products as I have had. It may be
that this is true for you.  What would be the single most important thing
to happen with Linux that would change that feeling for you?  Assuming
you want it to change.  If you don't that is fine.  All I ask is that
when you tell people you don't use Linux(tm), state your reason fair and
clear, and allow that other's have NOT had the same rosy experience with
what you are choosing to use.

<snip>
> > > For MY previous job, and the one I currently hold.  I NEED to KNOW, in 
> > > order to DO MY JOB.
> > 
> > Conceded.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > <snipped more stuff about reliability and what do you use it for?> 
> > > > 
> > > > > >Okay here's where I get really bitter.  I looked into Microsoft products 
> > > > > >initially to start hosting a web site.  The cost was prohibitive, and 
> > > > > >the ramp time was high as well.  In fact, at the time, I don't think 
> > > > > >the tools were available to do what I wanted.
> > > > > I think you will find that this is generally still the case (especially 
> > when
> > > > > you tell me what the devil "ramp time" is! :)... 
> > > > 
> > > > Now you know.  I hope.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > yep. "ramp time" is a buzz word for making people "productive" without 
> > > really looking at what productive is.
> > 
> > So how do you define productive?
> > 

Able to meet the deadlines set by management and or myself for the product
that is being developed with the least amount of technology hampering
progress.  I.E. succeeding at or making progress towards the goals set
forth.  Maybe I need to look at dictionary that's off the top of my head
and may not be dictionary accurate.

> > > 
> > > > hardware costs have dropped,
> > > > > but the cost of software has remained about the same. 
> > > > 
> > > > Okay.  I haven't looked yet.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Actually many versions of linux have spread their cost, i.e. the same
> > > package will range from $0 to $80 when before it ranged from $0 to $20. 
> > > 
> > > <snipped website conversation using data not supplied to the casual 
> > > reader>
> > > > Maybe.  But I sure spent a lot of time beating my head against the wall 
> > trying to do simple things, that when tried in a Microsoft environment took 
> > minutes.  I had to learn things that had no bearing on what I was trying to 
> > accomplish.  It's like getting your pilots license to fly Delta from NY to San 
> > Franscisco.  It's nice to know what the pilot's doing, but who cares?  It's not 
> > pertinent to my objective.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I'm curious what did you do for help? 
> > 
> > I consulted this group, asked questions 
> > at the meetings.  I got a lot of great 
> > help from everyone.


Yeah!!!  Kudos everyone!!!!

> >  Even got some 
> > personal attention.  I have no beef 
> > with the people.

This is one of Linux's main strengths ;)

> >  My beef is with the 
> > knowledge level required to run 
> > smoothly.
> > 

Ok, please make suggestions as to how to make this goal of reducing the
"knowledge level required to run smoothly".

> > 
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >>>However, some of us do have goals that would be much more difficult, 
> > > > >>>expensive,or downright impossible if the "Free UNIX" systems didn't 
> > exist. 
> > > > >>I'm not sure I agree with this, any more.
> > > > > It may not be true for you, but I can tell you that as the sun will rise 
> > > > > tomorrow it's been true for me. There are broad indications that I'm not 
> > > > > alone, either. I have clients who were delighted to be able to test
> > > > > software via a website, but they would have shocked if I'd attempted to 
> > > > > pass along the costs for doing this. To remain competitive I needed a
> > > > > highly reliable web presence at low cost of delivery. A free UNIX gave 
> > > > > me this, a proprietary OS did not. That's not taste, it's history.
> > > > 
> > > > Okay.
> > > > 
> > > > <snipped stuff about Linux Community.  I have no response.> 
> > > > 
> > > > >In this semi-free market economy, I think the product that requires the 
> > > > > >least amount of effort to provide the biggest payback will eventually 
> > > > > >win out.
> > > > > First off, why need we settle for a "semi-free" market economy? I feel 
> > this
> > > > > condition is not satisfactory, and that practical ways of freeing the 
> > market
> > > > > further are in order.  What is it that causes this market to be other than
> >      
> > > > > free?
> > > > 
> > > > Actually the computer software industry is probably one of the closest to 
> > free markets (if not totally free) in our economy.  My apologies.  
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Second, and with all due respect, I find this attitude both jaded and 
> > cynical. 
> > > > 
> > > > This is extremely likely as my experiences have caused me to become cynical 
> > and jaded.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > How do we give you experiences that will reverse your jade cynicism? 
> > 
> > When Linux reaches a point where I can use it to do real work without 
> > spending more than 10% of my ramp time learning system administration, 

Ah!  This may be the crux.... What do YOU consider to be REAL work?
Perhaps you are doing things Linux does not yet support.  Also you don't
have to do ANY system administration, you can hire it done (I'm available
VBG :) and it can (if you are hooked to the internet or are willing to
have remote dialup set up) be done remotely so that things just run.  I'm
sure any number of companies/consultants would be willing to contract with
you for that type of service.  Just like a mechanic or a copier repair
guy....

> > I will reconsider.  Until then, Linux is a hobby.
> > 

Linux IS a hobby and it IS business and government and education and
whatever YOU need it to do.

> > > 
> > > > > Moreover, it is not applicable to many situations, and it is subject to 
> > ones
> > > > > taste and work habits.
> > > > 
> > > > On the contrary.  It is applicable to most situations.  I would argue that 
> > those who put forth a large effort for a small payout are in the small minority.
> >  Come on, it just doesn't make good business sense in most cases.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > You will have to be very specific about what you are talking about here, 
> > > because, the business case of saved time, money, and user satisfaction
> > > for Linux seems from my point of view to far outweight what Microsoft has 
> > > to offer.
> > 
> > What's to be specific about here?  Large effort -> becoming a unix system 
> > administrator...

You don't have to be the administrator.  And I must ask are you really the
system administrator of your NT boxes?

> > small payout -> a perfectly stable system.

No system is perfectly stable.  (that includes Big Iron).

> >   Obviously, if 
> > you value a perfectly stable system more highly than I do, your payout is 
> > larger, and perhaps outweighs the effort.  I maintain that for most people 
> > this is simply not the case.
> > 

Then you are saying that most people should not run NT, correct?

> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > If this group would like Bob and I to take this off-line, please say so.  It
> > is a lengthy thread, and may be boring to some.  However, I think it's important
> > that a differing opinion be expressed in order to help you see that Linux is not
> > all roses for some of us.  There's lots of places for improvement in Linux.  Bob
> > knows this.  A discussion such as this can help ferret out those places.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Keep the conversation, but fill us in (or drop) the banter about the
> > > (perhaps failed) website project etc. as we can't follow it without more 
> > > information.
> > 
> > The website was to present data from a database to the browser.

Sounds easy enough.

> >   Two years 
> > ago, the tools didn't appear to be readily available.

apache was there, php and perl maybe not so obvious.

> >  Today they are.  I 
> > wrote C code to capture the data and present it to the browser in html 
> > format.  It is (was) functional.  It is not "up".
> >      

Ok, you did a hard job without the tools that would make it easier.  Two
years ago how hard would this have been to do on NT (3.51 was around two
years ago right?), and what would the cost be, and would it still be up?
Do you want it to be up?  Is the os at fault, the hardware, the webserver,
the internet connection, your code, or a management/political decision at
play?  

> >      
> >      Chris.
> >      
> > 

Thanks for your comments.  It is important that Linux user's and advocates
not start believing that Linux is THE ONLY operating system.  Choice is
good and there are reasons for people to choose things besides Linux that
are legitimate.  There are also reasons to choose linux.  Informed
decisions are Usually better than uninformed decisions.

Sincerely,


Jeff Waddell
jwaddell@ix.netcom.com