Colin Carter wrote: (snip)
I think that if Linux was as easy to install as XP + Developer Studio then it would be easier for applications programmers and thus the development of "public use" applications would encouraged. Anyway, that's just my idea. Meanwhile, I am committed to SuSE.
First of all, how many users do you know that actually installed XP? If they have to, it is because they hosed their system, otherwise it comes preinstalled. If any vendor would preinstall SuSE on a system he would have ironed out all minor quibbles for that particular system and the user would not know the difference. Secondly, a preinstalled XP system isn't without its idiosyncrasies. I remember having troubles getting my 115Kb modem configured. It wasn't in the list, whereas 56Kb and 28Kb were. Yeah right, I had to configure it as a 28Kb modem. Silly me. "But it is on our website" said the helpdesk with due indignation. :-) Wvdial (kinternet) had no trouble at all finding it. Thirdly, not all Linux systems have the same comfort of installation. But SuSE is at the easy side of the spectrum ("Linux from scratch" is at the other side :-)). And I actually managed to upgrade to 9.3 from an existing installation. It gave me a few minor headaches, but nothing I could not handle. I never ever succeeded in succesfully upgrading a windows system. So I do not agree with you that Windows is easier to install. I'm not sure though, that your commitment to SuSE is a wise business decision. The installed base is very small. OTOH I cannot see, why something that runs under SuSE would not run under any other Linux, or Unix for that matter. (Although Linux Is Not UX.) Best regards, -- Jos van Kan www.josvankan.tk