<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Taken from http://www.balug.org/ml/balug-talk/msg00925.html

Why Windows is better than Linux

Jon Hamkins (c) 1997 - hamkins@ugcs.caltech.edu

Because of the harsh attacks on Dave Hewson recently, I have prepared
a summary of the technical reasons why I find 95/NT better than Linux:

Because all operating systems are written by programmers, I assume that
any operating system is much smarter than me. Thus, any good operating
system should try to outsmart me by restricting my options
at every turn. Linux, like all versions of Unix, is lousy at
restricting my options because at the command line virtually any
operation
can be performed with ease. (For example, 'rm -rf /win' could 'delete
an
entire mounted directory, with no popup window warnings whatsoever.)

I'm proud to say that there is no such danger in 95/NT. Windows pop up
when I want to make a change, and then more pop up to ask if I'm sure I
want the change. Thankfully, Windows 95/NT operating systems look after
my computer's well-being by occasionally switching configuration
settings
from the way I want them to what the OS programmers think they might
probably ought to be. Boy, I'm just impressed with how smart they are.
Once I learned to live with whatever the default settings are on any
new hardware I install, I can't say the number of hours I have saved.

I use that spare time to reboot my Windows machine multiple times a day.
Technical support personnel recommend that I do it regularly-- kind of
like brushing my teeth. To help remind me of this necessity, windows
pop up to tell me to reboot whenever I make a configuration change. By
now my machine is minty fresh, I figure.

There is no such useful rebooting in a Linux system. It is as reliable
as
the sunrise, with uptimes in weeks and months. Virtually no
configuration
change requires a reboot, to boot. Imagine all that plaque in the
computer. Gross!

In 95/NT I am prevented from making dangerous fundamental configuration
changes unless I use a special "registry editor". I have found it
so useful to have this separate editor that I hope in future versions
they go all the way and supply a separate editor for each file on the
disk-- in that way windows could pop up at every keystroke to warn me
that changing any line in the file I am editing could cause the system
to not run properly. If this were only the case, people would finally
learn that it is best to just stick with the mouse and they would be
freed of the need to constantly move their hands back to the keyboard.
(If one stops to think about it, the mouse is a much better device to
use
than the keyboard. Ever hear of someone getting carpal tunnel syndrome
from a mouse? No. It's comfortable and ergonomic. Like Morse code
devices. That's how long distance communication started, after all.)

Linux, by contrast, requires no special editor to change configuration
files. The fact that there is no "registry" in Linux allows the
abomination of using any text editor whatsoever to do the
configuration.
Can you believe that configuration files are usually stored clear text?
Talk about dangerous!

I am also happy to report that I have experienced no truth to the rumor
that Windows disks become corrupt after improper shutdowns. Indeed,
I have been forced to improperly shutdown the machine innumerable times
after it locks up, and I have no apparent problems to report regarding
the disk. No such claim can be made for Linux. They say something
about
lack of data points. Excuses are all I ever seem to hear from the Linux
crowd.

By sheer size alone, Windows 95/NT beats Linux hands down. It is so
much bigger, it is _obvious_ that it is better. Why would you want a
small OS with the large disks and RAM sizes we have these days? For
this
reason alone, I heartily recommend Windows as a way to maximize resource
utilization. Your CPU and disk will constantly be pegged to the limit,
the way god intended. The Linux kernel and drivers accounts for only
about 750KB. Why, even the Microsoft Win16 subsystem uses more space
than that.

It is no surprise that Windows costs $270 on the retail market and Linux
doesn't cost anything. People know what they want, and they want
Windows.
Because Linux is free, that means it's basically worthless. The same
goes for all the development tools, remotable GUIs, and applications,
which all cost money for windows (i.e., are worth something) and free
for Linux (worthless!).

Installing software is very easy in Windows. I usually slip in CDs
without even reading instructions or warnings, and just double click
on whatever window pops up. There is no need to read anything or touch
the keyboard. (Did I mention that I hate that thing?) Well, OK, I have
learned the hard way the machine locks up if I don't take the time
to close all other applications.

Linux, by contrast, requires typing on the keyboard to get anything to
install at all. And you always have to know the NAME of program you
want
to install. For example, in Redhat, you have to type ``rpm -ivh
<prog>''
to install the program and documentation. Linux needs to get with the
'90s!

Windows follows the DOS convention of putting \r\n at the end of every
line of a text file. While this is only a mild concern because of the
relative rarity of text files on Windows machines these days-- thank
god--
it helps to differentiate between the text files and the other files.
Sadly, Linux makes no distinction between text and other files.

If I legitimately purchase Windows 95/NT, I can call Microsoft customer
support to get help with my problems. After a short hold time of an
hour or so, they always help me. Ever since I told them that I was dual
booting to Linux, they were able to flag my account and now each time I
call even the entry level support personnel I am connected to say that
Linux is the source of my problems. Everyone seems to agree that Linux
is no good. The more I listen, the more I'm impressed with the
knowledge
of the support staff there.

By contrast, in Linux, all I have is stockpiles of resources and
documentation that I would actually have to read in order to
understand. Sure, I could obtain Linux support from a commercial
organization, but they would probably just tell me I have to use a text
editor to fix up my system.

In the end, I have no need for that old computer donkey Unix. I don't
need to run big Unix tasks, after all. I refuse to become one of those
a bug-eyed computer users, that's for sure. As soon as I can keep
Windows from crashing for long enough, I'm going to delete my Linux
partition, i.e., the equivalent of moving it to the recycle bin, saying
that I'm sure, emptying the recycle bin, and again saying that I'm sure.

Hope you enjoyed this. Comments or suggestions for improvement of
this text are welcome.
</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by happydud:
Bah. It's satire.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sol:
Don't worry Bob, ME slowly infects your system and makes it slower and slower.

</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:
Did Linux prohibit you from installing it unless you called a telephone number? *ahem*</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sol:
Don't worry Bob, ME slowly infects your system and makes it slower and slower.

</font>