> >For example, an administrator who runs 100% linux at home, but works in > >both Linux and Windows server at work would not be 100% Linux by this > >definition. Nor would an admin that has 100% Linux servers, but also admins > >10 Windows-based client machines in his office. > > I have to disagree with your arguement there. This fictious admin can't be > "faulted" for having to use Windows at work, for instance. He may not have > the option there (may not be his final decision or there may be no *usable* > Linux replacement).
Don't get me wrong! I'm not faulting anybody for using Windows or any other non-Linux OS. I absolutely agree that many folks who would otherwise love to use Linux 100% can't do so because of external pressures from work or whatever to use Windows or something else. I'm in that situation exactly - I could never be 100% linux right now due to the nature of my work (IT consulting, which requires Windows, Solaris, etc. to be able to work with the largest number of clients). However, whether it's because of work pressure or whatnot, the "fictitious admin" in my example does not use linux 100% of the time - whether he likes it or not. I'm wondering how many folks have "escaped" into a world of 100% linux, having somehow avoided being forced by work, etc, to use other OSs (and, of course, being willing to not play any of the PC-based games that run only on Windows). -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
