What makes Linux great?

[Oren Beck]

>From: KRFinch at dstsystems.com
>To: "James Sissel" <James.Sissel at labone.com>
>CC: kclug at kclug.org
>Subject: RE: What makes Linux great?
>Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:52:27 -0600
>I agree with almost everything you are saying.
>
>You'll notice how I didn't say much at all about Linux in my rant, I mostly
>just talked about how poorly Microsoft understands its users.
>
>- Kevin
>
>PS- I also agree with you about FoxPro.  It was ahead of its time.
>
>
>
>
>
>              "James Sissel"
>              <James.Sissel at lab
>              one.com>                                                   To
>              Sent by:                  kclug at kclug.org
>              owner-kclug at marau                                          cc
>              der.illiana.net
>                                                                    Subject
>                                        RE: What makes Linux great?
>              12/21/2003 03:04
>              PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>It's not so much what makes Linux great.  Like a lot of things Linux has
>room for improvement.  The real question is why does Micro$oft svck (sorry
>about the misspelling but I've got to get the word out of our Draconian
>firewall) so much.
>
>Why are we forced to buy Micro$oft junk when we buy new PCs?  Software we
>don't want or use?  I'll be happy to send you back all of the unused CDs
>and
>floppies for a full refund.
>
>Why do we have to suffer through so many virus attacks.  I'm beginning to
>think Micro$oft is writing the holes in the software intentionally and then
>writing the viruses to attack them.  Then we have to spend more money
>protecting ourselves.  Come on, Bill, admit it.  Viruses are a Micro$oft
>attempt to take over the World.  What kind of back doors have you put into
>all of the Government software?
>
>Why does Bill think he knows how I want to use my PERSONAL computer better
>than I do?  It is kind of annoying to exit Windows and have it shut down
>the
>PC.  Just because I'm not in Windows does not mean I'm done using my PC.
>
>Why does Micro$oft automatically install a bunch of junk that we don't want
>or use and is dangerous?  (Example, the personal web server in Windows 98.
>Windows XP has a clock that wants to call up Micro$oft and get the
>"correct"
>time.  Oh, and I'm sure the remote control software in XP is secure.)
>
>In the early-90s I ran a copy of WordPerfect 4.2 on my hard driveless XP
>from 2 floppies and 640K ram.  5 years later Word was taking many, many
>Megabytes to just to install.  Was it any better?  What justified the
>massive code bloat?
>
>At a FoxPro conference I asked why my Windows for Workgroups 3.11 copy of
>FoxPro 2.6 would sometimes completely crash my system.  Did Micro$oft say,
>"Oh, sorry.  We'll fix that bug right away.  After all, you PAID for
>software that should work so it is our obligation to fix things that are
>broken."  Or, did they say, "You need to pay us more money and upgrade to
>the latest OS and version that have even more bugs."  Hmmm, you guessed it.
>It was the second.
>
>Why is Microsoft Access, now in version ?, the most complete piece of
>________ (fill in the blank with your own bad word) ever created?  You've
>had how many versions now to get it right.  And yet it still eats up the
>CPU
>when running and completely crashes unexpetedly.  You people bought FoxPro
>(and basically killed), one of the finest pieces of PC Database software
>made.  And yet you still push Access.
>
>I will not go on.  There is just too much bad about Micro$oft.
>
Well folks- we can restate the obvious and hope repetition suceeds .

MS thinks repeating ever more gobsmackingly unusable and just plain 
insulting releases will suceed .

OR we can show by example that Open Source and by extension Linux is not 
just viable -it * WORKS*
With Perl  applications often using a line of code Vs a Page of code for MS 
as example .
Genuine features do cost in complexity and application size but what defines 
needed features ?
Linux can by virtue of modular , peer reviewed , OPEN , code be everything 
that the monolithic closed sorce " no benchmarking allowed " MS modeled 
world   NEVER will.  Closed Source literally is the spiritual inheritance of 
the " Iron Curtain " . Sadly I fear the comparison more true than not .

Here is where we come in . By showing that Linux and the Open Source model 
works we vaporise FUD in the clear light of proven results .  Recently a 
Windows XP net admin claimed this scarey line.

" We windows professionals see thru Linux as being based on FUD to compete 
at all "

He actually seemed to believe he was right in that statement . So  I handed 
him a Knoppix cd .

Knoppix and other Live Demo distros can function for us as entry wedge . So 
can Dual Boot default
Dual boot default is my humble challenge to the MS de facto monopolistic 
position .
The  " Manifesto " is still in progress and I may share my working notes 
here or at the next KCLUG meet . My desire to help shape such a manifesto 
basically having as goal  "all shipped computers shall be loaded with a free 
Linux distro supplied at no cost to the OEM by us the Open Source world . "

Oren

" Is stating objective factual data now considered FUD "

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of slow downloads? Compare online deals from your local high-speed 
providers now.  https://broadband.msn.com