<Soapbox Mode On>
I realize many of us are switching to Linux due to what we percieve as
shortcoming of other operating systems, Windows in particular it seems.
Even though we all have our pieves with Microsoft for whatever reason
does it really add any credibility to what we have to say if we can only
refer to the aformentioned company in a slanderous way, i.e. Windoze.
I put this to you, would you be happy campers if someone kept referring
to your favourite distribution of Linux as Manduck?
I am currently working in both worlds, Windows and Linux. I have tried
two flavours of Linux, RedHat 5.2 and now Mandrake 6.0 I have lived
with various operating systems from MS-DOS 3.3, through Windows 3.1 to
Windows 95. If you want a real slug of an operating system try a Radio
Shack Color Computer II running OS9. They all had one thing in common,
they were operating systems for a computer and all had their strong
points and weak points in their given venue.
Whether we like Bill Gates and his strong arm marketing tactics and/or
the fact that some of his programmers couldn't program a toaster with
with both hands and a library of manuals is irrelevant. It was through
his effort and those at IBM that we had the explosion of computers
available for home and business desktops.
I work in both worlds right now because I am in the process of studying
to be a professional in the IT business. I find both sytems provide me
with two ways of looking at a problem. And, the reality is, when I go
out to work as a consultant, programmer or whatever I realize that
market constraints and position will probably dictate that I will have
to be competent with Microsoft and the various flavours of unices.
My apologies to those who understand that you can hang on to your
beliefs without belittling the efforts of the other guy. This wasn't
meant for you.
<Soapbox Mode Off>
Ken Wilson
First Law of Optimization: The speed of a nonworking program is
irrelevant
(Steve Heller, 'Efficient C/C++ Programming')
