Advocacy. If someone asks "why, specifically, is Linux better designed than Windows?" I want the answers to hand. On the desktop, NT is pretty stable. Everyone's got horror stories, but for the most part it'll run for days or weeks just doing Word, Excel and IE. W2K is supposed to be better, and after a few patches - sorry, service packs - it will be. So stability is a drum the Linux community will not be able to beat much longer. Desktop usability is largely subjective and people will argue until blue in the face about which is better. Same with extend and embrace over openness. Windows is now a network enabled OS. The implementation might be a kludge, but the GUI hides that to most desktop users. No clear Linux advantage here. The "it runs on older hardware" is wearing thin too, at least on the desktop. Have you tried KDE or GNOME on a 486? We have the choice, which is a good thing, but in practise the low end window managers don't realistically compete with Windows. But no one can argue that the modularised and network transparent design of X is worse than the kernel level graphics of Windows and the horrific Terminal Server kludge, so that's one thing we can push. The ability to connect and disconnect both local and remote disks to your directory tree at will is another thing: no doubt that that's better than tying devices to C:, D:, etc I was pondering the question, and my responses dried up there. Hence the question.
Where is this question leading ?
What are the fundamental differences between Linux and Windows these days? I can think of graphics, which is totally different, and disks/mount points which are handled differently. With Windows becoming network-ed (albeit badly), what genuine differences does that leave for the Linux community to exploit?
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq