On Wednesday 15 May 2002 02.33, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
Notice I wasn't arguing that Windows was a better product, simply stating that recent Windows installers are very easy and give you what you expect.
Have you ever attempted to install windows - any version - on hardware where you didn't have the CD that came with the hardware? Linux - any version - is incredibly much better at installing these days. The only caveat is when you have hardware so new that they haven't had time to do a linux driver for it yet. But windows does not support hardware! Let me just repeat that for clarity: WINDOWS DOES NOT SUPPORT HARDWARE! It is supported by the driver CDs that came with the hardware. Without that you, and the hardware, is fscked!
Personally, I expect trash when Windows finishes being installed, and I can reliably report that I have gotten the same lack of quality after each install. However, it does work. I've never had a corrupted MS Paint or such
Completely irrelevant. How many times will xclock fail you after an install? Or hangman (from bsd-games.rpm)? Please compare apples with apples. If you don't get X to work then xclock won't run, that's true, but if you don't have the graphics driver CD for windows, then MS Paint won't run either. Sure, you get a basic 320x200, but you can do that in X too. My point is: linux installers at this point in time are BETTER, not equal. <rest of three-mile-mail snipped> Anders