OpenEuphoria

Re: off topic : WinLinux

• Posted by Brian Broker <bkb at CNW.COM> Nov 24, 1999
• 512 views

>> Wow, so you'd pay $90-$120 a year for Linux instead of paying $90 for
>> Windows 98, an OS that installs itself and upgrades itself (when you go
>> online)

Many seem to want to rip on my quote here.  I was merely pointing out the
contradictory statement made by RedWordSmith when he said "Windows is too
expensive" yet he claimed that "at $30 a pop, I can afford to get full
Linux-box sets up to 3 or 4 times a year."

I was also trying to point out that Windows was much more user friendly
than most distros of Linux (and many of you agree).  So it's not the most
secure and bug free OS available but it's the OS of the masses (which is
why you see so many security flaws exploited).  If Linux was the most
popular OS, I'm sure more security flaws and bugs would be coming out of
the woodwork.  As for me, if I'm going to develop software, I'm gonna do it
on a platform that allows me to share my work with my friends and family
(Windows users).  Also, I don't have "Big Brother is watching" paranoia
when it comes to being dialed in.  MS has better things to do than monitor
my activity.  And "automatic updates" doesn't mean that you are forced to
download an update against your wishes.  That modem activity some of you
note can be attributed to the Windows Critical Update program going out to
notify you if there are any critical updates.  If you don't want to be
notified, you can easily disable it.

But enough of my Windows spew... all of this Linux talk has inspired me to
have another go at it.  Thanks to David Cuny for pointing out cheap*bytes;
I plan to give RedHat 6.1 a go.  Wish me luck...

-- Brian