Tom Achtenberg wrote:
>After several weeks of unsuccessful effort to install Linux on a desktop=
I am giving up and returning to more profitable activities. I have trie=
d 3 different distributions (Mandrake 9.1, Red Hat 8.0 and Knoppix 3.2) a=
ll with much hassle and no success. Some on this list have alluded that =
I have a hardware problem yet the same PC was rock solid on Windows 98 SE=
=2E Last night I installed Windows 2000 server on it with no problems wh=
atsoever. The evidence leads me to conclude that Linux has some small ni=
che areas it is good at, as a desktop OS it is simply not there. Yes, if=
you are geeky enough and have the time to spend editing config files by =
hand and recompiling every app so it works on your machine it may be fun.=
I need to spend my time in more productive environments. Using Dereks =
criteria when he labeled FoxPro a "toy" database I have to say Linux is a=
"toy" OS. Good for specific narrow applications but run the whole enter=
prise on it? No way.
>
>So I wish you all well with your endeavors with Linux but I am moving on=
=2E=20
> =20
>
You should be happy you at least have options. One can't help but=20
wonder if the lines 'EMM386', 'HIMEM.SYS' and 'buffers=3D20' mean anythin=
g=20
to you, and how you survived computing before 1995. Your choice of=20
distributions (Mandrake, RH8 and Knoppix), and their subsequent failure=20
to meet your expectations, leads me to support the advice given=20
elsewhere in this thread: Get a Mac.
I'm sorry Linux doesn't live up to your expectations, but I guess we =
should just be glad you didn't give *BSD a go. You'd probably give up on =
computing entirely, were that the case. As for OS's falling into=20
specific niches, I'm happy to say that Windows if great for specific=20
narrow desktop applications, but run the whole enterprise on it? No way.
Incidentally, moving to Win2k from Linux isn't moving on. It's=20
admitting defeat. Best of luck to you.
- billn
(text/plain)