Uhhh, I'm not speaking for every American here, but this is one American that doesn't think Windows is cheap. Unless of course you mean cheap as in low quality. Take a look at this website, looks like more Linux users in the US than anywhere else in the world.

I'm going to be a shit here and say linux is just a kernel and could never replace Windows which is an entire working OS. In terms of distrobutions which I'll assume you mean, there is no definitive answer as there are too many options. Fedora or Suse maybe as dumbed down as Windows one day, Gentoo or Crux on the other hand will not.

conanm4 - I ave merged your thread into the Linux vs Windows megathread as it continues the discussion already in place.

Why not Gentoo? Gentoo is a LOT better than most. They even have a graphical installer that I have read works OK for most people anyway.

Not sure that I can fully agree, while Linux itself is the kernel, what is generally termed as Linux and ss discussed here means the kernel and all of the applications that it runs. They are both operating systems which obviously include the kernel. The difference being that MS Windows is a microkernel system and Linux is basically a monolithic system (albiet with flavours of a microkernel system).

In theory at least MS Windows should be superior, but in my view it definitely hasn't turned out that way. Possibly due to the fact that it appears to have wierd rational as to what it includes within or excludes from its kernel.

In some ways I suppose it could be said that to compare MS Windows with Linux is to compare a bad example of a microkernel system with a good example of a monolithic system.

Really it comes down to how you prioritize things. If user-friendliness is a higher priority over security, stability, performance, and developers being open and honest about the code that's running on the you system, then a person is better off with Windows. However, I think if that's the case, then a person is better going with a Mac since it's even more user friendly in a manner that is logical and has a clear direction. Not to mention it also tends to be more secure than Windows. Of course *nix is the most secure.

However, if security, openess with code, and performance are a bigger priority, then "nix is the way to go. Also for better networking functionality.

I've used from dos to windows for ages (and many different systems before that), but I've never understood why anybody went with Windows over Macs in the case of user friendliness being important to them. Unless they happen to be a gamer. When it comes to GUIs, Macs keep things elegant and simple. Windows makes the mistake of trying have a GUIs be a replacement for the CLI and end up with a GUI that's a messy glitchy bloated pig. The irony is that they've been lying about how Windows no longer runs over dos for ages. They make all this effort in trying to hide something that shouldn't be. Dos isn't no *nix shell by a long shot, but it does provide some command line functionality that Windows probably wouldn't be as sketchy as it is if they would just keep it visible and allow it to be the means by which to do advanced tasks and configuration. Take the registry for instance, what a terrible concept. All a person has to do is keep configuration information in text files that hold groups of informantion in a logical fashion. Then they could just make little applets that are for manipulating those files for the people that uncomfortable with working from the command line. That way at least there is a way to get in there and manually fix the system when things go terrible wrong or the GUI facilities inevadably make their terrible assumptions about things. Hmmm, I think I just described *nix. Is it a coincidence that Linux is so much more robust than Windows. At least if you keep a command line around, it allows an administrator to handle issues in a sane manner. It gets real old real fast being stuck to fixing a simple common problem over and over again by pointing and clicking when through a command line you could do it a few lines of text (actually one line -- what it takes to type out the execution of the script that takes care of it, and even better, is that in the *nix world you're much less limited in how your want to apply that acrossed a network).

GUIs may be a nice thing for people that afraid of computers, but they're hell for those that have to support, fix, and maintain them.

Personally, I think it's insane to run Windows as any kind of server unless it's a totally expendable one for some reason or another. It's funny how there is some companies out there that trust MS products for handling their mission critical data. There's others that know better though since *nix is very much alive and prospering on the enterprise level of things.

IMHO, there is only one thing that Windows is good for. That is gaming. But that is only because of the game developers' ignorance about *nix. Yes ignorance. Some of the replies alot of them make when asked why they don't port ot Linux are ridiculously out of touch with how things really are. The real reason they don't is because they have tight deadlines and usually have to even rush the Windows version of a game out the door before it's ready. Big companies don't like to take gambles, think outside the box, or lead the way. They stick the safe formulas. When it comes to game development it's always been customary to develop for Windows so they stick with it and don't try anything new. A few of them are smart enough to realize they will get even more sales if they keep portability in mind with their design so they can port it to other platforms and soak up their sales after they've made all of the sale they can on Windows.

However, the reality of gaming these days, is the priority platform to develop for is consoles. Then comes Windows. I think part of what is responsible for that is the endless rehash of games on Windows and how FPSes have been way over done. How many times are they going to make Quake with a new face lift and some new gimmicks? Games were so much more varied back in the earlier DOS days.

Define most.

I've had more than one horrible experience with it, not to speak
of the fact that it was the slowest boot-process I've ever witnessed
on any LiveCD. Took over ten minutes to be able to do anything,
while Knoppix or Mepis were up in under 2.
In the end it failed after several hours - very frustrating experience,
no idea why anyone would be fond of it.


Cheers,
Tink

My install also failded at the very end while trying to install Gentoo 2006. The failure was at XineLib portion of installation. The install time is outrageous also. It took damn near 2 hours to install on a P4 1.8 ghz laptop with 384 mb of ram. Slackware takes me about 20 minutes to setup and install.

Well Mandrake installed fine but ti sucked afterwards. The biggest thing about Gentoo is that you have to do your homework before you boot the CD. YOU have the control, not the installer. If you don't set things up right it will not work right. There is no default install with Gentoo.

My system boots in under a minute and that is with a lot services running. Me, I can't see using anything else. I hated Mandrake for sure. I didn't like Slack either.

That is why I like linux. If I don't like one distro I can go on to the next. Windows, you are stuck with Windows. Yes you can go to windows 2000 or XP but it is still windows. Not much variety there.

Well, my PIV 1.8 notebook with a 5400rpm HDD and 512MB boots
slack in 40 seconds :P ... including apache and postgresql.


Cheers,
Tink


Cheers,
Tink

Going back some, it's not Linux's fault that more people prefer it over windows. It doesn't have to mean that they are in competion with Windows.

The nice thing about linux, like mentioned, is the distros. If one doesn't suit you, try another one. Why it's harder with windows, is because windows 2000 is an upgrade of 98, ME of 2000, XP of ME, something like that.
We have Mandriva 2005 is an upgrade of 10.1 I think, 2006 over 2005, OR try Suse 10.1 over 10.0, OR how about Red Hat.
It's different distros, and many that are up to date, whereabouts, Windows's most update is simply XP (soon Vista)

I happen to love Mandriva, watch your mouth, lol.
I started with mandrake. I'd love to love Suse, but it seems to have more config issues than Mandriva. Mandriva seems more "ready to go" than suse. Maybe I'm just use to mandriva, how to set it up.

Nothing really wrong with what Bill did. I don't necessarily like his software (or think it's well designed, but thats not the point), but I can admit that the man is a genius. Business is always dirty... his maybe moreso than some others, but none the less, a business that large, how could it not have some dirt on it. So he sold a company a hacked version of their own software... big deal, they were dumb enough to fall for it, and he got away with it. So he bought off some judges and politicians to get ahead; that just means he was a good enough business man to have the insight to know that that was what he needed to do. Ethics doesn't have much of a role in business, you just do what you can to make the most money you can. That's business, and Bill is certainly good at what he does.

The problem with his business model is that it preys on the uninformed. Sure, he's able to market extremely well, and, sure, he's able to persuade well, also; however, so were other criminals in history, to whom I don't have to make reference. They were still criminals.

I disagree with your assertion that there are no ethics in business and, it would seem by all the white-collar criminals rotting in jail cells, so does the Justice system. Ethics have EVERYTHING to do with EVERYTHING, at least, in a society that does not want to deteriorate into anarchy, facism, or a dictatorship. Right now, I, and a million other somewhat intelligent people, could be millionaires, if it weren't for those silly little ethical urgings and annoying laws. Yet, we choose to follow them, for our own benefit =). However, Gates did not, and his company is facing hundreds of millions of dollars in fines from several different companies around the world. I've learned that people can lie, and lie well, but, sooner or later, it all will begin to fall apart.

Your laissez-faire acceptance of low to non-existant business ethics is what keeps that kind of practice around.

I hate to admit this but your so correct. After many years of frustration I have come to realize that there is no moral ethics in business. Business is dirty and it is either kill or be killed. Companies like Microsoft had been around for a long time and will still happen. It is also not just in America but all over the world. The only truly way to succeed in the world of business is to become a great politic. Bill has politiced his way up and now has several powerfull allies. But I am curious to see What will happen between MS and European Union. I don't (and Hope) think he will be able to politic his way out of this one.