On Tuesday 28 November 2006 19:34, Doug McGarrett wrote:

At 06:47 PM 11/28/2006 -0600, Rajko M wrote:

...

Content-Disposition: inline

On Tuesday 28 November 2006 03:41, leif@hjerpe.org wrote:

...

How nice if you (and all of us) could cooperate instead of debating only, and in the extension perchance expect COMMON DISTRIBUTIONS based on the achievements of both Ubuntu and Opensuse - and a much more skilled MS-killer than before ... Regards, Leif

Leif,

the point to use Linux should not be because you hate something else, but because you like it's technical superiority.

What MS manipulatied this time are people that hate them and use Linux solely for that reason. All others that like SUSE because it is a good operating system were untouched with attempt.

-- Regards, Rajko M. --

Hey, maybe you've missed something. I can speak only for myself, but I don't hate MS, and I don't hate XP.

I didn't missed anything. It was just one aspect that is present in many messages about switching to another distro.

It's just that I don't trust MS.

This is another aspect.

I'm seriously afraid that they will start a "rental" program for their OS, ("Send in $100 every January first, or your system will stop working") and that the next version will obsolete a lot of stuff that runs now.

You have already antivirus, antispyware, and many more others that use yearly updates subscription and it seems normal to extrapolate as you did. MS has updates too :-)

For me, XP has been a very reliable OS--like they finally got it right. Sure, I need to have virus checkers and spyware catchers,

this 2 not really if OS doesn't make it easy to install them in the name of "user friendly". User friendly is just a marketing term to mark easiness to use product, but in reality, without marking the category of users it refera too, it has no meaning.

and registry mechanic,

Well. With Linux is similar, just configuration files are not piled up in one unreadable file that is editable only using special editor.

but that sort of thing will be needed in any OS that has a majority of users.

I'm not sure that Linux has chance to go that way. First of all, the Linux users are advanced computer users that use Linux because alternative had unsatisfactory performance.

Second, the monoculture is always a problem: http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2002/04/09/trustworthy/index.html

And I don't use any MS software except the OS itself.

I did, but I have a problem if: - I have to pay for programs that sole purpose is to patch holes that should not exist. - I have to buy faster hardware in order to have some remain CPU cycles for me. - I have to upgrade software to patch some remain holes and than - I have to by faster hardware ....

So I try to learn Linux, in the hope that when MS gets too close to the bone, there will be someplace to go.

It is a little bit simplistic thought, as you can see in above article.

I'm just not enough of a geek to choose an OS on its technical merits.

No one is. Computers are complex machines, so no one alone can be expert for all subsystems. Than, definition of perfect OS depends on its purpose, so there is no single definition what it means.

(And I do not appreciate an OS that requires a PostScript printer to work right, or a magician to make anything else work.)

This a matter of taste.