On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Gilbert Baron wrote:
>>Windows is never ready. It took Microsoft 10 years to produce 1 windows
>>manager. Linux has more than 5 already.
>
>Right you are, but it is working now. I don't care how long it took, the
>fact is that it works for me. Yes, it is unstable at times but it does what
>I need. It supports all of my hardware. It has the applications I need. If
>Linux is so great, where are all of the applications. I will tell you where
>they are. They are not written because nobody can make money on it .
>Everyone expects everything for free on Linux. Well ad far as application
>choice goes, you get what you pay for.
Hello Gilbert.
It boils down to something simple for me. Use what you want, what works
for you. PC, Macintosh, Atari, Amiga, anything. Windows works for you as
Linux works for me.
>OS/2 was better too, look where it is!
It is on a couple of CD's that I have. I have used OS/2 for many years,
with a lot of pleasure :)
>I am not hoping that we talk about LINUX in the past tense. I just find it
>is not ready for serious use yet AT HOME.
This entirely depends on what you want to use it for at home. I bet you a
dollar that you do many different things with your systems than I do.
>AGAIN though applications are the major thing, they drive the OS and not the
>other way around. THAT is the real world.
It is not, in _MY_ opinion, the thing to compare Windows and Linux
yet. Windows is made so anyone can install it (and yet I know people who
are afraid to try that). Linux is getting there, I think. And if it does
not, that's okay with me. I have my spreadsheet, word processor, e-mail,
cd-burner, MP3 player and such. I am happy. If you have these too and you
are happy too, then we're both happy. Right?
Blessings,
Paul
--
Show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser.
)0( [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] )0(
http://nlpagan.net - ICQ 147208
Registered Linux User 174403
