[Mimedefang] OT: Choice of desktop OS (was Re: watch-mimedefang)

[Ben Kamen]

On 2/16/2010 10:02 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> Windows 2000 is a decade old now - and was not even intended to be a
> desktop OS. And you need to defrag after making big disk changes. If you
> don't already see why this is a bad comparision, try installing a
> 10-year old Linux server distro and try to update it to a current
> desktop piecemeal.

So what MS gives us now is a modern OS in which they STILL patch regularly to fix things that should have been fixed a long time ago.... (and I'm not saying Linux is immune, but there's a level of pride for producing solid code that comes with the personally driven contributers of the OSS community than any company worried about the bottom line.)

But even more offensive is the level of control that was attempted in Vista that has lost its fanfare and is probably successfully implemented into Win7. (and now with MS inserting the new version of WGA which caused a lot of false positives last time in a fashion even more deceitful than that with WGA.)

As an example: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

Sigh.

  -Ben