I'm a degreed computer professional who used to batch, moan and complain that Windows was so full of bugs I was busy all day. Then I was reminded that if we switched to a more stable system (ie: NetWare or Unix), that I would likely be out of a job. There aren't enough positions for the few admins that would be needed for more stable systems.

We had several hundred NT servers around the world. Not a day passed where at least one of my 3500 customers wasn't locked out because their server was down. Not to mention all the security holes!

It disgusted me that the IT directors of large companies -- made directors because that had business degrees -- would read about a 'cool' system (like '95) in a journal and demand it be implemented, whether it worked or not. This insanity had pushed me to become the "Anti-Gates".

OS/2 was a far superior system to Windows '95. But M$ rushed the release of '95 and released a buggy system then hyped the L out of it so people would buy theirs and wash OS/2 down the drain. I stuck with M$ because that was where the money was. Then I lost my job.

Well, in order to stay on top, I decided to find out what Linux was all about. In a week, I have a more stable, faster system than I had with XP (I'm running Fedora Core 3) . While I'm behind a learning curve, I still enjoy working on my Linuxbox far more than I ever liked working with Windows.

'nuff said.

Adios,
Clay

I think the greatest thing about linux is that things are constantly changing and innovating.

clayharryman, Stick with it! My bet is that you'll end up hateing linux before you finally fall totally in love with it. I know I did.

Who can say that windows neads little maintainance. You need to reinstall it every month. The only good thing that microsoft has ever done was to create a simple setup for it's buggy piece of software. But they aren't in the lead any more in the setup market.
Have a look at SuSE 9.0, 9.1 and later. Even a 10-year-old could install it. The setup is not the only revolution in SuSE linux the interface is also. It's nice easy and is's a lot more stable than Windows. The only downside is probably that the hardware requirements to get a good eXperience is relatively high. Even so the hardware requirements are nowhere near Windows Vista (codename Longhorn) which requires a 128MB video card with support for DirectX 9.

Did Bill Gates Invent Linux and Has He Erased the Evidence?
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/45935/index.html

Interesting point of view, but I don't think that Microsoft ever supported Linux. It might have served them as a way to avoid paying a considerable amount of money.
The only evidence to support what I have said is that Linux with it's flavors actually threat Microsoft's market share and it's revenues. A lot of computers are now shipped with Linux installed on them and the open source operating system is getting better each day. I really don't think that if Microsoft had invented Linux they wouldn't have shut it down by now.
If in any circumstance they actually invented it I must admit they did an excellent job. Good work Microsoft

Maybe we should step back and take a look at the bigger picture... imho...

(1) Gates is, first and foremost, a CEO. He is therefore a marketer. Millions of investment dollars may change hands based on whether someone in that position sneezed, so-to-speak. But Mr. Gates is also, to give him credit, a very seasoned computer professional who has talked to a lot of people in high places and knows an awful lot of things.

(2) There is no "one, single" market for computers. The desktop market is only one segment and, I would say, a fairly small one. Sure, it's ubiquitous, but there are always two ways to make money: sell a large number of copies for a small amount of money, or sell a small number of copies for a large. Right now, the desktop computer has approximately the market dynamics of a home stereo or television system; somewhat less profit in the business setting than a photocopier.

(3) The "small number of copies for a large" market is the server market, but most of the classical revenue-source in that market is in selling what is somewhat euphemistically called maintenance. It means that companies pay a certain annual fee whether they "need" it or not. To put it another way, they pay the annual fee for a guaranteed result, namely a system that always meets the contracted service-level agreement; not "ad hoc" for the time-to-time services needed to achieve it. We tend to think that "we get paid when it breaks," but an SLA says "we'll pay you $X per year and not one $ more... the more reliable your system is, the more of those $'s you get to keep as profit." The Linux community has a public-image problem that is created by crowing that "software is free," thus engendering the perception among customers that, somehow, they ought to be able to do the work themselves. The only way to counter that perception is to de-emphasize the presence of "Linux" as a part of the service package you are trying to sell.

(4) Apple has succeeded in deploying BSD Unix widely into the marketplace, partly by making it damn near impossible to see Unix at all. They have poured a lot of effort into keeping their system focused on what the user can accomplish with it, not "how it works." Only an auto mechanic drives a car to enjoy the feel of a 400cu V-8 with a four-barrel carburetor. (Which, by the way, is wheee-e-e-ee!) Most people drive a car to go to the grocery store. Or to the mailbox. The purpose of the car is to go, and to the extent that most customers never have to think about what's in anything other than the gas tank, their needs are met.

(5) We need to use Linux as a means to an end; not present it as an end unto itself. The choice of operating-system, I submit, does not make a great deal of difference in "what you can accomplish with a computer," nor does it seriously affect the cost of ownership. (The TCO of a computer is, I submit, still much too high.) Our ideal should be the computer as a rock-solid, predictable, dependable, reliable appliance. It should do what phones do now: beep, squawk, blink, buzz, and ... fail in less than six months of normal use. The extent to which Microsoft Windows has these problems as-of-late is not a justification for Linux to do the same.

We still have a long way to go toward achieving that eleusive goal of "trying to 'put ourselves out of a job." Linux can be an important part of doing that, but I submit that if we are going to succeed, we need to try to put Linux and the presence of Linux out of sight! And Microsoft should do the same with their system. An operating-system is, and always will be, a means to an end .. not an end in itself (to anyone other than an engineer).

There's my two-cents. What do you think?