Conor wrote:

> In article <VA.00001158.1a5168ac@nospam.aaisp.org>, Daniel James
> says...
>> In article news:<46BEAB79.7452964B@size-nospamme7464-fitter.com>,
>> Johannes wrote:
>> > Why do Linux users want everybody to use Linux?
>>
>> Most of us don't particularly care what you use.
>>
>> Some of us like to point out that there is an OS that is free that may do
>> all that some users need. We're just trying to save people money.
>>
> Windows costs nothing when you buy a PC. Dell charge a £50 premium over
> a Windows box to put Ubuntu on.

But what about a homebuilt system? (I'm reading this in uk.comp.homebuilt.)

> When your computer goes tits up, you're more likely to find someone you
> know who can fix Windows than Linux.

There are plenty of people who can help you fix both systems, and for free.
It's why I started using Usenet...

> When you buy hardware, you're pretty much guaranteed it'll "just work"
> when you use Windows whereas in Linux, it's a bit of a lottery
> especially when the Linux distro authors tell you a network card is
> fully supported in the current version of a ditro, even going as far to
> recommend it, only for you to find out that it was in an older version
> but not the current.

Yep, hardware support is still not perfect. At least you can try before you
commit to an install with a live CD distro.

Of course, things may not be so easy if you try to use existing hardware
under Vista either.

>> We try not to be a nuisance about it, but -- because we like to think
>> we're being helpful and public-spirited -- we can get a bit annoyed when
>> we're told to shut up (Especially when, as can happen, we're told that by
>> people who clearly have no clue. Not the case here, of course.)
>>

Hear, hear!

Chris


--
Remove prejudice to reply.