[snip]
> Notice the 'bury the head in the sand, it can't be true'
> reaction of the Linux zealots.
> As for Vista, it sucked.
> Didn't support my hardware and ran like ****.
>
> As for Linux, Ubuntu, it ran worse than ****.
> Vista stinks but Linux is free and stinks even worse.
>
> How the hell can you nuts justify something that is free yet
> virtually nobody is using it?
> It's like VD.
> It's free, many people get it, few pay for it, most wish they
> never got it.
> That's Linux.
>

I don't think that "virtually nobody is using it" is accurate. I
don't know the numbers, but I think that overall Linux "market
share" is rising, probably fueled by PC OEMs offering it as an
alternative to Windows or in a 2nd boot partition as an option. I
might agree to accusing users who think Linux is fine are
zealots, but I think that is way too strong, and may be viewed as
an insult plus it most certainly will cause you to lose
credibility here. That is partially why I put quotes around
"bigot" in describing my nephew. When discussion the many things
that do not work for you and people that have the same version
that you do, or some other, claim they DO work, I believe it. I
do NOT dis-believe you, I'm just saying that it may be pointless
to argue with someone where you say "X doesn't" work and the
other person says that it does. It is entirely possible in
today's quirky PC environment with complex mixes of mobo, video,
HD, specific apps and utilities, HW, and all that stuff running
from current version to old, so-called legacy apps.


Back to my nephew for a minute. I don't think he is suffering ANY
for-real failures, and he has a LOT of stuff on his PC, so he
might be on the "zealot" end of the scale. His observation was,
though, that, yes, you do need to do some of your own software.
Now, the "zealots" and "bigots" will come after me, but for all
the good people reading my comments, please understand that I am
insulting no one nor refuting their testimony. It also explains
why /I/ and still way to confused to jump ship on XP.

Now, Vista is another story. I would not even consider going to
Vista until at least SP1, perhaps SP2. I prefer to let the early
adopters beta test with their Visa cards, I won't. Call me a
"head in the sand " Luddite if you like, but I want to do the
same watchful waiting on Vista. In my personal case, I will
likely NOT do an upgrade on current PC. I would most likely dump
my wife's older, slower machine (yes, I love her, she just
doesn't do anything that needs a fast machine so she a happy
camper), give her my XP Pro SP2 box, and get a new PC built with
native Vista on it, preferably as a retail version, not OEM. I'm
not big on upgrading an existing machine because any excess
baggage in the Registry, drivers, etc. will be partially
compromized, and perhaps corrupted to the point they no longer
work.

Which brings me to your complaints. Did you buy you PC with Vista
on it, then install Linux, or did you upgrade from XP to Linux? I
have found since Win 95 that it is MUCH better to do a clean
install than an upgrade.

Opinions on my slant to this would be appreciated.

--
HP, aka Jerry