On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 05:36:40 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:28:37 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:


One of the reasons that I do not read or write to the Linux sites is
that they are full of zealots that interpret any post except a paean
of phrase to Linux as derogatory and they attack feverishly.

I never bothered with Linux because I'm a gamer and Linux is plain
inadequate.
Besides that, since I consider writing software as paid work, it never
struck me as "efficient" to be required to work to get an OS operating
and running apps I paid for in expectation they run out of the box.
Aside from the gaming inadequacy, much comes down to individual
inclination to tinker and accept risk.
Remember "IBM compatible" and "Hayes compatible"?
Always followed those "standards" when they were in effect, and never
experienced the endless futzing around and plain inoperability
suffered by others. Not worth saving a few bucks to me.
MS is my OS standard. Pretty painless.
And widely "discounted."
I don't miss autoexec.bat and config.sys files either.
Been through all those wringers, and spent my lifetime allocation
of hours wasted playing with software configurations.
But I have no problem with folks playing with and tweaking Linux.
They have their reasons. Good enough for me.
If it gets good enough for Microsoft to license it, I would consider
using it.

--Vic

I use Linux and it is adequate for most of my needs but it certainly
isn't the be all, end all, of the computing world. On the other hand I
tried Vista and abandoned that after one day and my Windows machines
are running XP and will unless windows 7 turns out to be better then
the Alpha versions look to be.

I've even got some DOS programs left that I use from time to time.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)