To all you guys *****ing about Microsoft's instability, what's the last version you've used?
Windows Vista. I have two words to describe that OS: Slow & Chunky. I don't care for WinXP either. For Windows (at home), I'm using Win2k SP4. Yeah, it's old, but it does what I want it to, it's pretty stable, and runs smoothly. I can install it over and over again without the problem of it becoming "not authentic". That OS was IMO Microsoft's best. They've been going downhill ever since.
I believe that I should be the owner of a software package I paid for. Microsoft would rather have you rent their software. That way, they retain the control of the OS and continue to make money. If I use anything beyond Win2k, it's like me selling my house and going back to renting an apartment. The lanlord can kick me out whenever they want, gets pissed off if I hammer a nail in the wall, tells me if I can or can't have pets, etc etc. Microsoft will only let you install "your" copy of Vista TWICE. After that, you have to buy a new license. So if Windows fvcks itself up once and your hard drive dies a month later, you have to essentially buy a new copy of Windows. It's bull5hit, and it's a rip-off.
Blue screens of death don't even exist anymore as far as I'm aware. Yeah, they use to have problems. They addressed them. Now it's stable, compatible, easy to use, and secure.
You'll spend a good day reading this:
http://aspnetresources.com/blog/vista_sucks.aspx
All the free stuff isn't secure.
Can you back this up? As far as I'm aware, Linux (under normal circumstances) won't let users constantly run as root. Windows users have been running as root for years, and it's only now that they're trying to fix that.
Its just, that who the hell would waste their time finding security holes in something 0.02% of the population uses, when you could attack 90% of the world's computer users?
That's not even the issue. The problem is there's many different flavors of linux, it's open source so you can change it to fit your needs, and there's no identical system out there. You can't write a generic trojan for an OS that differs from computer to computer. And even if you could, it wouldn't be able to do much since the user doesn't constantly run as root. You can't change config files unless you have the right permissions to do so. You can't install software unless you have the right permissions to do so.
What really amazes me is back in the 1980s, there were many different types of computers. You had a Commodore 64, a TRS-80 coco, the TI-99/4 (correct me if I'm wrong), the Jupiter Ace, the Apple II, the IBM PC XT, and they were all different. Some were "harder" to learn than others. But people learned how to use them and adapt to different machines.
Is it so bad that we need to have our hand held while using a computer? Whatever happened to that thing called "learning"? Linux is only difficult because you haven't learned how to use it. Driving a car is just as difficult for someone who never learned how to drive. Instead of claiming Linux is "too hard", it would be more appropriate to say "I don't want to learn it".
